LIBERTY, JUSTICE &
PROSPERITY FOR ALL
PROSPERITY FOR ALL
ANARCHY DELUXE
What it means to be a liberal
Some time ago I was asked, what it means to be a liberal, but couldn't answer out of hand. (Actually, the question was about being a libertarian, but I prefer the term liberal, or "classical liberal" much more.)
To me, liberalism was best characterized by Mises with three principles - freedom, peace and private property, where the first two cannot exist without the last one.
If one would need to define liberalism as being against something, it would be against special privilege. No one should enjoy favors on the expense of others. Some recognize this in many special cases (big business, oil industry, banks, etc.), but it equally applies to other groups, however likable they may seem (unions, school industry, students, and so on).
All other characteristics and summaries - "Your freedom ends where the freedom of another begins." - come back to these principles. Discussion is welcome.
by Peter
To me, liberalism was best characterized by Mises with three principles - freedom, peace and private property, where the first two cannot exist without the last one.
If one would need to define liberalism as being against something, it would be against special privilege. No one should enjoy favors on the expense of others. Some recognize this in many special cases (big business, oil industry, banks, etc.), but it equally applies to other groups, however likable they may seem (unions, school industry, students, and so on).
All other characteristics and summaries - "Your freedom ends where the freedom of another begins." - come back to these principles. Discussion is welcome.
by Peter
I love my Finanzamt
Filing your tax return is a free character-building exercise supplied free of charge by the tax authority of your choosing. (Okay, perhaps not your choosing... IT chooses you.) And if you are a chicken like me, that doesn't want to spend his life in prison, you need all the character building you can get. Germany is a good country for this.
You have to learn to love your Finanzamt, and dutifully document all your doings over the last year. If you perform your civic duty, you will pleased to know that your tax dollars are well at work, building roads, supporting the hapless people on social welfare, all you can imagine. Who knows, you might even get something back. Some consider the whole process a form of abuse, but is it not said to turn the other cheek if people are mistreating you?
What I do is what Gary North advises in his last article on LRC. Turns out, the health insurance bill contains a provision that forces every business to file a 1099 form on every transaction over $600. This creates huge compliance costs for companies, that will have to file literally billions more documents to the IRS.
But he notes the other side of the coin as well - the burden on the IRS. Their outdated system comes from 1962, and the new system may not work for decades. Unexpected as government inefficiency may be, one can easily complicate the process by filing the forms in paper form, filled out with hand, so they can be scanned into the system. It could work wonders to do it with every single form, and not to forget to challenge their every little mistake or grey area. (Now I admit to compiling and sending my tax return electronically, but there are still the attachments you may or may not send along - and if you can't produce at least two dozen pages of those, you are doing something wrong.)
So, go ahead. Give your Finanzamt some love. Give them more than they can take.
-Peter
You have to learn to love your Finanzamt, and dutifully document all your doings over the last year. If you perform your civic duty, you will pleased to know that your tax dollars are well at work, building roads, supporting the hapless people on social welfare, all you can imagine. Who knows, you might even get something back. Some consider the whole process a form of abuse, but is it not said to turn the other cheek if people are mistreating you?
What I do is what Gary North advises in his last article on LRC. Turns out, the health insurance bill contains a provision that forces every business to file a 1099 form on every transaction over $600. This creates huge compliance costs for companies, that will have to file literally billions more documents to the IRS.
But he notes the other side of the coin as well - the burden on the IRS. Their outdated system comes from 1962, and the new system may not work for decades. Unexpected as government inefficiency may be, one can easily complicate the process by filing the forms in paper form, filled out with hand, so they can be scanned into the system. It could work wonders to do it with every single form, and not to forget to challenge their every little mistake or grey area. (Now I admit to compiling and sending my tax return electronically, but there are still the attachments you may or may not send along - and if you can't produce at least two dozen pages of those, you are doing something wrong.)
So, go ahead. Give your Finanzamt some love. Give them more than they can take.
-Peter
Austrian School in Mainstram Economics
Once again, I read some pages in Mankiw's standard textbook Principles of Economics. Mankiw is a professor at Harvard University, a former G.W. Bush adviser, and is considered one of the most influential contemporary mainstream economists. I was curious about his opinion on the Austrian school and checked out his blog.
These are excerpts:
"Second, at the mainstream schools where I have spent my education and career (Princeton, MIT, and Harvard), the economists of the Austrian school like Mises are often viewed as fringe figures."
"I am confident that while I was a student at Princeton and MIT, I was assigned not a single article by an economist in the Austrian tradition."
About Hayek:
"Cognizant of my ignorance of his work, a few years ago I read (and assigned in a Harvard freshman seminar) his classic book The Road to Serfdom. I thought it was terrific."
Mankiw is at least upright about his ignorance and has the decency to honor Hayek as the "intellectual giant" he was.
I don't know who else he would call an intellectual giant but let's end it on this.
One can have unlimited theoretical debates about different economical schools. Let's see who's closer to reality when it comes to making predictions, which is the ultimate criteria in any legitimate science to distinguish useful theories from bullshit, even if the bullshit is put forth by a majority:
These are excerpts:
"Second, at the mainstream schools where I have spent my education and career (Princeton, MIT, and Harvard), the economists of the Austrian school like Mises are often viewed as fringe figures."
"I am confident that while I was a student at Princeton and MIT, I was assigned not a single article by an economist in the Austrian tradition."
About Hayek:
"Cognizant of my ignorance of his work, a few years ago I read (and assigned in a Harvard freshman seminar) his classic book The Road to Serfdom. I thought it was terrific."
Mankiw is at least upright about his ignorance and has the decency to honor Hayek as the "intellectual giant" he was.
I don't know who else he would call an intellectual giant but let's end it on this.
One can have unlimited theoretical debates about different economical schools. Let's see who's closer to reality when it comes to making predictions, which is the ultimate criteria in any legitimate science to distinguish useful theories from bullshit, even if the bullshit is put forth by a majority:
The Stuff Business Cycle Theory
People produce stuff.There are many different types of stuff, which are not freely interchangeable, but let's keep it simple, and call it stuff.
So what is this stuff for? Why do we make it?
First off, we want to consume some of the stuff. We have to eat something, we have to live somewhere and we want that life to be good. To that effect, we need a lot of stuff, from food to computers to read articles on the Internet -to cover all the essential needs.
But to make all this stuff, you need to expend quite a lot effort - and a lot more stuff. The people making the stuff also need to be taken care of. To build those complicated things, you need parts and raw materials, you need factories and mines and all the infrastructure around, and you need shops and a lot more to get the stuff to the consumers. To maintain a certain structure of consumption, you need a massive structure of production -the difference between the visible part of the iceberg and what lies below. It needs to be built and then kept in shape. (I, Pencil is but one illustration of it.)
All this effort and stuff needs to be expended just to stay in one place, without changing anything.
But we don't like to stay in one place, we want to have a better life, make the world a better place, achieve more - or simply change our taste now and then.
To do this, to change the structure of production,requires more effort and more stuff. It has to come from somewhere. And no matter how you turn it (using your own stuff, somebody lending you theirs, or giving you a gift), some people have to sacrifice part of their lifestyles, and effort and stuff have to be invested. We may be better off tomorrow - and we hope so - but today we will have to do with less.
Assuming those investments work out, the production structure will be upgraded and produce more (better, different) stuff.That means you can enjoy it more in consumption, invest it to produce more, or do some of both. This is that famed "natural growth". And it takes time.
If it comes to the business cycle, people mostly look at the bust - businesses crashing, unemployment, an overall slump in production and standards of living. The Austrian Business Cycle Theory explains this with the practice of Fractional Reserve Banking and the expansion of credit, the lowering of interest rates, which misinforms entrepreneurs into wrong investments lines. In the boom, we waste a lot of stuff on things we can't really afford yet.
Some critics(1)(2)argue, that this cannot be the case, because if people are investing too much, shouldn't they also be forced to limit their consumption? A boom is characterized by an increase in investment AND consumption,after all.
So what is wrong about the boom? What can be wrong about having more stuff?
To produce more and different and better stuff, people need to consume less first. If they all of sudden invest more and produce more while consuming more, they
a) miraculously have more stuff from somewhere, or
b) they forgot something
What is often overlooked, is the existing structure of production the boom is supposed to run on. If it was a house, it would be like starting to build an additional story or five on it, moving more people to live inside and perhaps building a factory on the top of it... ignoring any structural supports and foundations. Since there isn't really more stuff around, the new projects can't be finished, or run effectively - at least not without affecting the existing functions of the house. And since much of the construction material is torn out of the existing structure, the house might just collapse one day and bury all those enthusiastic builders.
A lot of stuff will be wasted. Worse yet,you will need more stuff and effort just to rebuild the original structure.
And that is what happens in the bust.
-Peter
Is Limited Government Possible?
When the economic crisis hit in 2008, it was only a matter of time before the usual uninformed voices started bashing the private markets and capitalism. A system based on greed can never work, we were told. And the laissez-faire policies of George Bush led to the crisis. Now, these sorts of statements are ludicrous and utterly laughable for those of us who champion free market capitalism. George Bush was anything but laissez-faire, and, in fact, Bush increased regulation and government with acts such as Sarbanes-Oxley. Not only did he not reduce the welfare state, he also continued to fund the war state, although he ran as an anti-interventionist candidate in 2000. How this is laissez-faire is beyond me. Sure, Republicans and conservatives talk small government, but they never really bring about these goals when in political power.
While leftists were bashing the markets - this would also include McCain and other Republican candidates - politicians were throwing up smokescreens to direct attention away from their own participation in the market meltdown. The FED, whose easy money policies predictably led to a gigantic bubble, also denied responsibility for the crisis. No, this was all the work of greedy fatcats on Wall Street, the myth went on. Why a greed capitalist banker would knowingly give money to someone who could not afford to pay him bank is beyond comprehension, well, unless one understands the role government played in the crisis or has zero economic IQ. Saying greed caused the crisis is like saying gravity causes planes to crash.
The solution from the left side of the aisle is predictably more regulation. Unfortunately, the other side of the aisle offers up similar solutions, never promising less regulation and freer markets, and this is supposed to be the party of limited government.
As many libertarian-minded free-market advocates have repeatedly pointed out, there are only two ways to do things. One is by force through the barrel of a gun (government) and the other is through voluntary cooperation (the free market). While conservatives and Tea Partiers talk a good game, it is exactly this duplicitous rhetoric about free markets that is harmful. When conservatives talk about free markets, what they really mean is quasi free markets. They still support subsidies for private companies, such as atomic energy, and protectionism, all of which distorts the free market and makes all of us poorer. Even during the health care debate, they were not clamoring for more free market reforms, but to keep the status quo, thus ensuring no one lost his or her Medicare. They also are against free trade and free markets when it comes to the unwinnable (see Abolition), economically illiterate (anti free market), immoral (more violence) War on Drugs. Is this half-witted, half-ass free market ideology really anything more than socialism light? With advocates like these, it is only a matter of time before our liberties slowly fade into oblivion.
The following video will illustrate to any who truly believe in free markets and less government the difference between those who are real advocates of free markets and those who are statist apologists:
While leftists were bashing the markets - this would also include McCain and other Republican candidates - politicians were throwing up smokescreens to direct attention away from their own participation in the market meltdown. The FED, whose easy money policies predictably led to a gigantic bubble, also denied responsibility for the crisis. No, this was all the work of greedy fatcats on Wall Street, the myth went on. Why a greed capitalist banker would knowingly give money to someone who could not afford to pay him bank is beyond comprehension, well, unless one understands the role government played in the crisis or has zero economic IQ. Saying greed caused the crisis is like saying gravity causes planes to crash.
The solution from the left side of the aisle is predictably more regulation. Unfortunately, the other side of the aisle offers up similar solutions, never promising less regulation and freer markets, and this is supposed to be the party of limited government.
As many libertarian-minded free-market advocates have repeatedly pointed out, there are only two ways to do things. One is by force through the barrel of a gun (government) and the other is through voluntary cooperation (the free market). While conservatives and Tea Partiers talk a good game, it is exactly this duplicitous rhetoric about free markets that is harmful. When conservatives talk about free markets, what they really mean is quasi free markets. They still support subsidies for private companies, such as atomic energy, and protectionism, all of which distorts the free market and makes all of us poorer. Even during the health care debate, they were not clamoring for more free market reforms, but to keep the status quo, thus ensuring no one lost his or her Medicare. They also are against free trade and free markets when it comes to the unwinnable (see Abolition), economically illiterate (anti free market), immoral (more violence) War on Drugs. Is this half-witted, half-ass free market ideology really anything more than socialism light? With advocates like these, it is only a matter of time before our liberties slowly fade into oblivion.
The following video will illustrate to any who truly believe in free markets and less government the difference between those who are real advocates of free markets and those who are statist apologists:
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 großartigen Film „Things to do in Denver whenyou’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 mit diesem Wortbruch gegen die Prinzipien des Rechtsstaats. Das ist richtig, 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, also über das Produkt seiner Lebenszeit und Anstrengungen?
Nietzsche wußte: „Wer vom Tage nicht zwei Drittel für sich hat, ist ein Sklave, sei er übrigens, wer er wolle: Staatsmann, Kaufmann, Beamter, Gelehrter.“
Und was ist mit denen, die aus guten Gründen solche Vertretungsmacht überhaupt nicht erteilen würden? Spätestens ihnen gegenüber entpuppt sich die Behauptung, sie hätten sich zu solcher Leistung mittels Stellvertetung verpflichtet, als dreiste Lüge, mit der Politiker, Beamte und das große Heer der beziehenden Klasse, den Raub an ihrem Eigentum vergeblich zu legitimieren suchen. 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 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 Mafia-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 mit diesem Wortbruch gegen die Prinzipien des Rechtsstaats. Das ist richtig, 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, also über das Produkt seiner Lebenszeit und Anstrengungen?
Nietzsche wußte: „Wer vom Tage nicht zwei Drittel für sich hat, ist ein Sklave, sei er übrigens, wer er wolle: Staatsmann, Kaufmann, Beamter, Gelehrter.“
Und was ist mit denen, die aus guten Gründen solche Vertretungsmacht überhaupt nicht erteilen würden? Spätestens ihnen gegenüber entpuppt sich die Behauptung, sie hätten sich zu solcher Leistung mittels Stellvertetung verpflichtet, als dreiste Lüge, mit der Politiker, Beamte und das große Heer der beziehenden Klasse, den Raub an ihrem Eigentum vergeblich zu legitimieren suchen. 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 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 Mafia-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.
