After the Libertarian Party Convention there is good news and there is bad news. The good news is that Mark Hinkle beat Wayne Root for national chair. The bad news is that on the final ballot Wayne Root received a significant percentage, about 45%, of the final vote. The first is a good sign that the Libertarian Party is moving back in a more libertarian direction, the second is a sign that there is still a great distance to go before the Libertarian Party can be restored.
Wayne Root was supported by the Reform Caucus. The Reform Caucus was founded on a good idea, that the Libertarian Party could attract greater numbers by working with others who are freedom oriented but who are not as purist as the Libertarian Party. Unfortunately it went entirely the wrong direction - the members of the Reform Caucus started steering the Libertarian Party in a much more Republican direction, giving a big boost to Bob Barr and Wayne Root, ultimately resulting in Aaron Star trying to purge purists from the National Committee.
While there were some in the Reform Caucus who had the best of intentions, trying to reshape the Libertarian Party in that direction was entirely the wrong way to collect the energy of the greater freedom movement. Becoming more like one of the two major parties, or moving more towards the center of the Nolan Chart, is not the way to bring together the greater freedom movement.
The way to go isn't to be more like the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, but to find a way to build alliances with the disaffected of both parties. The way to do that isn't to eliminate what it means to be libertarian, but to encourage the other disaffected fringes to grow and to work with them. It was once pointed out that if Cindy Sheehan's anti-war movement were to join forces with the Tea Party protests it would be a coup for the freedom movement. It has been noticed that the way the parties divided in the bailout separated the mainstreamers of both parties from the mavericks of both parties (with the alleged maverick John McCain a bailout supporter unlike real mavericks Paul and Kucinich).
The greater freedom movement can be considered "libertarian" in the sense used in "Tribesman, Barbarian, Citizen … and Libertarian", but it actually is more diverse than the Libertarian Party Platform could ever be. The Pournelle Chart is a better model in certain respects because it separates the Anarcho-Syndicalists from the Anarcho-Capitalists. It differentiates the Counter-Culture from the Objectivists, while acknowledging that they are both part of the same greater freedom movement that combines the best elements of the Tea Party with the best elements of the Sheehan protests.
The Campaign For Liberty could have been that, by inviting the four leading third candidates on to one stage. It probably still could be, and in doing so is taking the place that should have been taken by the Reform Caucus, and doing it in the way the Reform Caucus should have in the first place. The trick is to acknowledge the differences in the Issues Designed to Divide (abortion being the biggest, and also whether a system without government would be capitalist or syndicalist, but don't budge on the definition of capitalism) instead of fighting over them, and to concentrate on the common foe. That way both purity of ideology can be maintained while making the necessary compromises to work together. Instead of becoming less radical in order to stop scaring voters, the trick is to become more radical by embracing the other, different radicals.
If that is accomplished, then it will be possible for the greater freedom movement to succeed, which will be a victory for the Libertarian Party, both the purists AND the reformers.
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Secession, or Jettison
When Bush was president, there were some hopeful signs on the subject of secession. It was when Bush was president that the Free State Project was initiated, and it was under President Bush that liberal pundits made their first, tentative explorations into the subjects of nullification and secession, subjects previously forbidden to liberals and progressives. The tentative progressive explorations all came to an abrupt halt when Obama was elected, of course, at which point conservatives started making the same explorations with regards to health care, explorations that were forbidden due to the war on terror.
But secession is not the only way to deal with irreconcilable differences between different states and regions of the country. Although there has been no noticeable exploration of this option, it should be possible to jettison a state that is more of a burden to the union than the rest of the states wish to bear.
This option is actually being discussed in the much looser federation known as the European Union, as Germans are, on average, quite displeased with the bailout of the Greek Government. Some talk about Greece withdrawing from the EU, some talk about Germany withdrawing from the EU, and some talk about kicking Greece out of the EU.
That last option could be applied to great effect in the United States.
California, for example, is a state in such severe financial disarray that it is actually in worse shape than Greece. It is practically inevitable that at some point the federal government will have to come in and rescue California from its massive structural deficits, and will have to do so more than once. Is it right that other states should have to shoulder that burden simply because California politicians are unable to resist giving the public employee union anything they desire?
Texas, where talk of secession was so notable that it made the news, is in much better shape financially. They are causing a controversy because they are getting unabashedly political in their choice of textbooks, and their decisions have an impact on the rest of the country. People in smaller states are quite displeased that their own textbook choices will be limited by manufacturers trying to please politicians in Texas.
There is no precedent for ejecting a state from the union, so every single action taken would be groundbreaking. It is possible that one could argue that under Article Five it is forbidden to eject a state on the grounds that doing so would deprive them of representation in the Senate. It is possible, but that is a weak argument given that the article is supposed to ensure that no state that is in the union lacks proper representation. Any state that is jettisoned is no longer a state.
The benefits to jettison can be immense. There is no way currently for people in one state to reject noxious politicians elected by another state. If jettison were implemented on, for example, Arizona’s new immigration bill, the result would mean the United States is permanently relieved from having John McCain taint the Senate any more.
But secession is not the only way to deal with irreconcilable differences between different states and regions of the country. Although there has been no noticeable exploration of this option, it should be possible to jettison a state that is more of a burden to the union than the rest of the states wish to bear.
This option is actually being discussed in the much looser federation known as the European Union, as Germans are, on average, quite displeased with the bailout of the Greek Government. Some talk about Greece withdrawing from the EU, some talk about Germany withdrawing from the EU, and some talk about kicking Greece out of the EU.
That last option could be applied to great effect in the United States.
California, for example, is a state in such severe financial disarray that it is actually in worse shape than Greece. It is practically inevitable that at some point the federal government will have to come in and rescue California from its massive structural deficits, and will have to do so more than once. Is it right that other states should have to shoulder that burden simply because California politicians are unable to resist giving the public employee union anything they desire?
Texas, where talk of secession was so notable that it made the news, is in much better shape financially. They are causing a controversy because they are getting unabashedly political in their choice of textbooks, and their decisions have an impact on the rest of the country. People in smaller states are quite displeased that their own textbook choices will be limited by manufacturers trying to please politicians in Texas.
There is no precedent for ejecting a state from the union, so every single action taken would be groundbreaking. It is possible that one could argue that under Article Five it is forbidden to eject a state on the grounds that doing so would deprive them of representation in the Senate. It is possible, but that is a weak argument given that the article is supposed to ensure that no state that is in the union lacks proper representation. Any state that is jettisoned is no longer a state.
The benefits to jettison can be immense. There is no way currently for people in one state to reject noxious politicians elected by another state. If jettison were implemented on, for example, Arizona’s new immigration bill, the result would mean the United States is permanently relieved from having John McCain taint the Senate any more.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Marginalizing Third Parties
The two parties, in collusion, have ever sought greater ways to limit outside competition. Ballot access laws, campaign finance laws, and safe districts have done much in this area, but even then third parties are still on the ballot. Occasionally a third party even garners more votes than the winning margin between the two approved candidates. Occasionally a third party even wins some office.
That situation is considered, by those who feel it is their right to rule others, intolerable. They really have no complaint, because in the few instances in which the rules could have applied to the major parties, the rules were waived. In 2004, the Republican Party held its convention rather late in the year to put it as close to September 11th as possible. As such, Bush was named the candidate after the filing deadline had passed in two states that Bush eventually carried. Had the law been enforced, Kerry would have won in 2004. In 2008, both the Republicans and the Democrats failed to file on time in Texas. Had the law been enforced, the Texas electoral votes would have gone to Bob Barr. Theoretically Democrats should have supported enforcing the law as written, since it would have enabled them to sail to an easy victory. In reality the Democratic Party leadership recognized a higher principle, that of maintaining the duopoly, and was willing to sacrifice victory in 2004 and risk sacrificing victory in 2008 to maintain their top positions.
It goes without saying that had a third party filed late, no such exception would be made.
But a way to truly disenfranchise third parties has reared its ugly head and is spreading, one state at a time, through the United States. Currently it is festering in California under the guise of California Proposition 14, the Top Two Primaries Act of 2010.
It purports to fight partisanship by putting all candidates in one primary, without regard for party. Anyone can vote for any parties candidates. The top two vote getters will proceed to the general election.
The minor argument against this proposition is that it will result in two Republicans running against each other in Republican Safe Districts, and two Democrats running against each other in Democrat Safe Districts. This will leave those in the out party having little choice.
The middle argument is that this will entrench incumbents even more. As has been shown in Louisiana, the only incumbent to lose after an approach like this was passed did so because redistricting had that incumbent lose to another incumbent.
The greatest argument is that this will destroy all third party electoral chances. As has been shown in Washington (the state), no third party candidates have been on the general election ballot since that state adopted this measure. California Proposition 14 would even eliminate the protest of a write in candidate, so any third party voter who continues to vote for a third party candidate will not have the vote counted and will have the ballot disqualified.
This measure is exactly what one would want to further entrench the duopoly. It is corruption manifest and must be defeated.
That situation is considered, by those who feel it is their right to rule others, intolerable. They really have no complaint, because in the few instances in which the rules could have applied to the major parties, the rules were waived. In 2004, the Republican Party held its convention rather late in the year to put it as close to September 11th as possible. As such, Bush was named the candidate after the filing deadline had passed in two states that Bush eventually carried. Had the law been enforced, Kerry would have won in 2004. In 2008, both the Republicans and the Democrats failed to file on time in Texas. Had the law been enforced, the Texas electoral votes would have gone to Bob Barr. Theoretically Democrats should have supported enforcing the law as written, since it would have enabled them to sail to an easy victory. In reality the Democratic Party leadership recognized a higher principle, that of maintaining the duopoly, and was willing to sacrifice victory in 2004 and risk sacrificing victory in 2008 to maintain their top positions.
It goes without saying that had a third party filed late, no such exception would be made.
But a way to truly disenfranchise third parties has reared its ugly head and is spreading, one state at a time, through the United States. Currently it is festering in California under the guise of California Proposition 14, the Top Two Primaries Act of 2010.
It purports to fight partisanship by putting all candidates in one primary, without regard for party. Anyone can vote for any parties candidates. The top two vote getters will proceed to the general election.
The minor argument against this proposition is that it will result in two Republicans running against each other in Republican Safe Districts, and two Democrats running against each other in Democrat Safe Districts. This will leave those in the out party having little choice.
The middle argument is that this will entrench incumbents even more. As has been shown in Louisiana, the only incumbent to lose after an approach like this was passed did so because redistricting had that incumbent lose to another incumbent.
The greatest argument is that this will destroy all third party electoral chances. As has been shown in Washington (the state), no third party candidates have been on the general election ballot since that state adopted this measure. California Proposition 14 would even eliminate the protest of a write in candidate, so any third party voter who continues to vote for a third party candidate will not have the vote counted and will have the ballot disqualified.
This measure is exactly what one would want to further entrench the duopoly. It is corruption manifest and must be defeated.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Capitalism
There appears to be a debate in some libertarian circles on whether or not libertarians should embrace or reject the word "capitalism."
Those who would reject the word do so on the basis of the baggage that comes with the word. It was first popularized by Marx to describe not just the free market but also economies in which the government interferes in favor of businesses.
Those who would keep the word do so on the basis of there being no better single word. Other terms are less widely known or are more cumbersome. The word itself, they argue, actually describes best the economic system advocated by libertarians in spite of its baggage.
It really is a simple choice, and capitalism is the best word for a free market economic system, but if it is to be used it must be fought for. A simple pronouncement is far insufficient.
People are doing that. Garry Reed, the Libertarian News Examiner, did so recently with the article Corpratism – equally loved by left and right.
Those who would disparage Capitalism are always confusing it with other ideologies, including but not limited to Corporatism, Keynesianism, and Monetarism. Some go so far as to say Monetarism, the economic ideology of Friedman and the Chicago School, is a libertarian economic ideology.
A few moments of honest thought would dispel any confusion over whether or not these other ideologies are included in Capitalism as is meant by libertarians. Monetarism has a central bank. Corporatism has protective tariffs and bailouts. It's not even necessary to describe the many differences between Capitalism and Keynesianism. And yet the myths persist.
That is because detractors want to lay at the feet of Capitalism the faults of the other systems. In Corporatism, failing businesses get bailouts, in Capitalism they do not. Yet if the two are the same then bailouts are a feature of Capitalism. In Monetarism the dollar loses value every year to the point where a 2010 dollar is worth a few cents compared to a 1910 dollar. Yet if the two are the same then an inflationary monetary policy is a feature of Capitalism.
Every fault that detractors name in the real world, as opposed to pure theory, comes from departures from the free market and government interference in the free market. Therefore it is not the fault of the free market. The only way to blame Capitalism is if other ideologies are lumped together with it.
Those who wish to preserve the word "Capitalism" have the right idea, but they must remember that they must fight for it. It's a good word but it has to be defended. The attempts to add baggage to the word are continuous.
Update: It was pointed out that Marx only popularized the term "capitalism", he didn't coin the term. Correction noted.
Those who would reject the word do so on the basis of the baggage that comes with the word. It was first popularized by Marx to describe not just the free market but also economies in which the government interferes in favor of businesses.
Those who would keep the word do so on the basis of there being no better single word. Other terms are less widely known or are more cumbersome. The word itself, they argue, actually describes best the economic system advocated by libertarians in spite of its baggage.
It really is a simple choice, and capitalism is the best word for a free market economic system, but if it is to be used it must be fought for. A simple pronouncement is far insufficient.
People are doing that. Garry Reed, the Libertarian News Examiner, did so recently with the article Corpratism – equally loved by left and right.
Those who would disparage Capitalism are always confusing it with other ideologies, including but not limited to Corporatism, Keynesianism, and Monetarism. Some go so far as to say Monetarism, the economic ideology of Friedman and the Chicago School, is a libertarian economic ideology.
A few moments of honest thought would dispel any confusion over whether or not these other ideologies are included in Capitalism as is meant by libertarians. Monetarism has a central bank. Corporatism has protective tariffs and bailouts. It's not even necessary to describe the many differences between Capitalism and Keynesianism. And yet the myths persist.
That is because detractors want to lay at the feet of Capitalism the faults of the other systems. In Corporatism, failing businesses get bailouts, in Capitalism they do not. Yet if the two are the same then bailouts are a feature of Capitalism. In Monetarism the dollar loses value every year to the point where a 2010 dollar is worth a few cents compared to a 1910 dollar. Yet if the two are the same then an inflationary monetary policy is a feature of Capitalism.
Every fault that detractors name in the real world, as opposed to pure theory, comes from departures from the free market and government interference in the free market. Therefore it is not the fault of the free market. The only way to blame Capitalism is if other ideologies are lumped together with it.
Those who wish to preserve the word "Capitalism" have the right idea, but they must remember that they must fight for it. It's a good word but it has to be defended. The attempts to add baggage to the word are continuous.
Update: It was pointed out that Marx only popularized the term "capitalism", he didn't coin the term. Correction noted.
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Arizona's SB 1070 works perfectly
Even though it has not yet taken effect, and not yet faced the inevitable court challenges, Arizona's Senate Bill 1070 has worked very well. In fact it has worked far better than the original authors could have imagined. This may sound strange considering how little time it has had, but as Ayn Rand would point out, if you want to know if something is right ask yourself "by what standard?"
It's actually surprisingly obvious how this bill is a success. Across the country people are debating it, but they’re all either debating "white" versus "brown" or "legal" versus "illegal." Outside of a small handful of libertarian commentators, nobody is pointing out that this bill has established a legal precedent for "papers please."
Some will think that, due to not being of the ethnic group most likely to be targeted, that they are actually safe. But, given the need to not appear to be racially profiling, the police will have license to stop anybody, at any time, on the grounds of "suspicion." And given the overly wide leeway given to police to stop people on "suspicion" that means anybody can be stopped at any time.
This means that if someone fails to show proper respect, they can be asked to show their papers. If someone insults a cop, he can be asked to show his papers. If someone stares too long at a cop, he can be asked to show his papers. Already the crime of "contempt of cop" carries the high risk of being assaulted, and then arrested for "disorderly conduct", with the additional crime of "resisting arrest" and "assaulting a cop" for anyone who tries to resist this unlawful arrest. Now an additional charge can be tacked on.
According to the statute, failure to prove citizenship can carry a fine of up to $100 and 6 days in jail for first time offenders. Originally the bill carried a fine of up to $500 and 20 days in jail for first time offenders. Those who fail to carry documentation more often face steeper fines and sentences.
What remains to be seen is how this act will be enforced on legal citizens who are simultaneously guilty of "contempt of cop" and failure to carry sufficient documentation. Will this require all people in Arizona to carry full proof of citizenship at all times? Will this require all people in Arizona to show said paperwork to police on demand or pay the fine originally intended for illegal aliens?
This bill worked far better than intended. The popular debate focuses on the racial and immigration aspects, and ignores the fact that this implements "papers please."
It's actually surprisingly obvious how this bill is a success. Across the country people are debating it, but they’re all either debating "white" versus "brown" or "legal" versus "illegal." Outside of a small handful of libertarian commentators, nobody is pointing out that this bill has established a legal precedent for "papers please."
Some will think that, due to not being of the ethnic group most likely to be targeted, that they are actually safe. But, given the need to not appear to be racially profiling, the police will have license to stop anybody, at any time, on the grounds of "suspicion." And given the overly wide leeway given to police to stop people on "suspicion" that means anybody can be stopped at any time.
This means that if someone fails to show proper respect, they can be asked to show their papers. If someone insults a cop, he can be asked to show his papers. If someone stares too long at a cop, he can be asked to show his papers. Already the crime of "contempt of cop" carries the high risk of being assaulted, and then arrested for "disorderly conduct", with the additional crime of "resisting arrest" and "assaulting a cop" for anyone who tries to resist this unlawful arrest. Now an additional charge can be tacked on.
According to the statute, failure to prove citizenship can carry a fine of up to $100 and 6 days in jail for first time offenders. Originally the bill carried a fine of up to $500 and 20 days in jail for first time offenders. Those who fail to carry documentation more often face steeper fines and sentences.
What remains to be seen is how this act will be enforced on legal citizens who are simultaneously guilty of "contempt of cop" and failure to carry sufficient documentation. Will this require all people in Arizona to carry full proof of citizenship at all times? Will this require all people in Arizona to show said paperwork to police on demand or pay the fine originally intended for illegal aliens?
This bill worked far better than intended. The popular debate focuses on the racial and immigration aspects, and ignores the fact that this implements "papers please."
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Tenth Amendment Resolutions
Many states are passing state sovereignty resolutions. Some, usually considered more "blue", are passing resolutions legalizing marijuana, usually for medicinal purposes but sometimes going as far as outright legalization. Others, usually considered more "red", are passing resolutions exempting citizens of that state from the insurance mandate included in the health care "reform" recently passed.
The problem is that at this point these resolutions are symbolic. While these resolutions will be challenged in federal courts (at which point the federal government will likely rule in its own favor) these resolutions lack any enforcement mechanism. The only resolutions that have any actual impact are the ones that prohibit a state from participating in REAL ID or PASS ID on the grounds that the state simply refuses to spend the money to comply with federal standards.
What, in any of these resolutions, will stop the DEA for the ATF from enforcing federal law on the citizens of states allegedly protected by these tenth amendment resolutions? Based on the continuing arrests of medicinal marijuana patients in California, apparently nothing. These resolutions lack an enforcement mechanism.
A better resolution would not only nullify the federal law in question - it would mandate that the state and local police not cooperate under any circumstances with the federal agency corresponding to the law in question, up to including punishments for police that do so. An even better resolution would mandate that the police arrest and the district attorneys file charges against federal agents for violating the rights of citizens of the state, and forbid transfer of these federal agents into federal custody.
It is absolutely certain that the federal government will attempt to challenge these laws. The question is how effective that would be. Any state legislature that has the courage to pass a nullification resolution with an enforcement mechanism would also have the courage to refuse to hand over any federal DEA or ATF agents. To get these agents would require an armed assault on the state prison system. To arrest politicians who stand up to the federal government would also require an armed assault. Will the federal government go that far?
This is not without precedent though. The State of Massachusetts nullified the Fugitive Slave Act before the civil war. The Fugitive Slave Act said that anyone who kidnaps a runaway slave is protected from prosecution but anyone who protects a runaway slave would be tried for violating the act. The nullification act passed by Massachusetts reversed the Fugitive Slave Act so that anyone who kidnapped a runaway slave would be tried and anyone who protected a runaway slave would be protected.
It is impossible, absent calling out the military, for the federal government to enforce laws that the state absolutely refuses to enforce. That's why nullification works, and why a nullification act with an enforcement mechanism is necessary.
The problem is that at this point these resolutions are symbolic. While these resolutions will be challenged in federal courts (at which point the federal government will likely rule in its own favor) these resolutions lack any enforcement mechanism. The only resolutions that have any actual impact are the ones that prohibit a state from participating in REAL ID or PASS ID on the grounds that the state simply refuses to spend the money to comply with federal standards.
What, in any of these resolutions, will stop the DEA for the ATF from enforcing federal law on the citizens of states allegedly protected by these tenth amendment resolutions? Based on the continuing arrests of medicinal marijuana patients in California, apparently nothing. These resolutions lack an enforcement mechanism.
A better resolution would not only nullify the federal law in question - it would mandate that the state and local police not cooperate under any circumstances with the federal agency corresponding to the law in question, up to including punishments for police that do so. An even better resolution would mandate that the police arrest and the district attorneys file charges against federal agents for violating the rights of citizens of the state, and forbid transfer of these federal agents into federal custody.
It is absolutely certain that the federal government will attempt to challenge these laws. The question is how effective that would be. Any state legislature that has the courage to pass a nullification resolution with an enforcement mechanism would also have the courage to refuse to hand over any federal DEA or ATF agents. To get these agents would require an armed assault on the state prison system. To arrest politicians who stand up to the federal government would also require an armed assault. Will the federal government go that far?
This is not without precedent though. The State of Massachusetts nullified the Fugitive Slave Act before the civil war. The Fugitive Slave Act said that anyone who kidnaps a runaway slave is protected from prosecution but anyone who protects a runaway slave would be tried for violating the act. The nullification act passed by Massachusetts reversed the Fugitive Slave Act so that anyone who kidnapped a runaway slave would be tried and anyone who protected a runaway slave would be protected.
It is impossible, absent calling out the military, for the federal government to enforce laws that the state absolutely refuses to enforce. That's why nullification works, and why a nullification act with an enforcement mechanism is necessary.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
The Temporal Fallacy
Although it really cannot be done, there are those who attempt to find an era in some country in which libertarian ideas reigned. But there are valid attempts to show how certain eras qualify in one manner or another. Part of the problem is that conditions always change.
The United States, for example, has advanced liberty in some areas and degraded liberty in other areas. In the past there was much more economic liberty, but that was before slavery ended and before women and minorities were given the right to vote.
But generally it is assumed that the late nineteenth century in the western world, for all its flaws, had many of the characteristics of a libertarian society.
Many statists will immediately point to the flaws and say that it is the flaws that libertarians advocate. They are not interested in a true discussion or debate, only trying to find some ammunition, no matter how ludicrous, with which to try to tar libertarianism.
Then there's the temporal fallacy.
Due to advances in technology, there are amenities available today that were not available then. But there were advances then that were not available before then. True, compared to a modern factory, an earlier factory from the late 1800s would seem rather crude and dangerous – but it is better than what existed before then.
The fallacy is that everything that happened then is judged by today's standards. Thanks to advances in technology and worker productivity, companies can afford many more safety features than they were able to in the past. Those advances were not available then; therefore they were not implemented then. To the person committing the fallacy, that those advances were not implemented then is an unforgivable sin.
The fallacy is judging a factory from the 1880s by the standards of the 2010s. Of course it won't measure up. The factory must be judged in the proper context.
The factories of the day were, in general although there were exceptions, as safe as they could have been given the resources they had. People worked there because they were safer than other occupations and paid more than other occupations.
Yes, they didn't have closed circuit computer controlled safety systems. Of course those who commit this fallacy, when hard pressed, will admit that they don't expect closed circuit computer controlled safety systems, but then immediately turn around and deplore unmentioned safety protocols available today.
Conditions then were still an improvement over previous conditions. The economic liberty of the late 1800s created greater prosperity. And it is that same prosperity created then that enabled the more advanced technology available today - and the same prosperity that enables people to commit the temporal fallacy.
The United States, for example, has advanced liberty in some areas and degraded liberty in other areas. In the past there was much more economic liberty, but that was before slavery ended and before women and minorities were given the right to vote.
But generally it is assumed that the late nineteenth century in the western world, for all its flaws, had many of the characteristics of a libertarian society.
Many statists will immediately point to the flaws and say that it is the flaws that libertarians advocate. They are not interested in a true discussion or debate, only trying to find some ammunition, no matter how ludicrous, with which to try to tar libertarianism.
Then there's the temporal fallacy.
Due to advances in technology, there are amenities available today that were not available then. But there were advances then that were not available before then. True, compared to a modern factory, an earlier factory from the late 1800s would seem rather crude and dangerous – but it is better than what existed before then.
The fallacy is that everything that happened then is judged by today's standards. Thanks to advances in technology and worker productivity, companies can afford many more safety features than they were able to in the past. Those advances were not available then; therefore they were not implemented then. To the person committing the fallacy, that those advances were not implemented then is an unforgivable sin.
The fallacy is judging a factory from the 1880s by the standards of the 2010s. Of course it won't measure up. The factory must be judged in the proper context.
The factories of the day were, in general although there were exceptions, as safe as they could have been given the resources they had. People worked there because they were safer than other occupations and paid more than other occupations.
Yes, they didn't have closed circuit computer controlled safety systems. Of course those who commit this fallacy, when hard pressed, will admit that they don't expect closed circuit computer controlled safety systems, but then immediately turn around and deplore unmentioned safety protocols available today.
Conditions then were still an improvement over previous conditions. The economic liberty of the late 1800s created greater prosperity. And it is that same prosperity created then that enabled the more advanced technology available today - and the same prosperity that enables people to commit the temporal fallacy.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
The Nuremberg Defense
In the blog "Strike the Root", the author Carpe Libertatem wrote Diffusion and Confusion describing the difficulty in determining who, exactly, is responsible for violating the rights of the people in the United States today.
The problem is that the first line agents, the police for example, are only following orders and did not originate the command that ultimately results in a violation of rights. Their supervisors only gave the orders and neither originated the laws that resulted in the orders nor actually implemented the orders. The ultimate source of the laws, the politicians, neither give the orders nor obey the orders.
All three links in the chain have found a way to absolve themselves of responsibility. All three of them are invoking a form of the Nuremberg defense.
Carpe Libertatem ultimately condemned Joseph Stack as a murderer because the person he killed was not the actual aggressor. He's right, and he's wrong. Vernon Hunter was not personally threatening Joseph Stack, but Vernon Hunter was a piece of the machine that was threatening Joseph Stack.
Killing of government agents is not only wrong, it's a bad idea. But it is time to stop accepting the Nuremberg defense. When agents of the government try to use it, they should be called on it every time.
It is a good idea to refuse to deal with anybody in the enforcement branch, from the making of laws to issuing of orders to implementing of orders, as if the Nuremberg defense is their default mode unless they clearly indicate otherwise in some manner, such as joining Oath Keepers. Any politician, administrator, or officer who doesn't indicate a repudiation of the Nuremberg Defense should be treated as a potential but not realized threat and people should have as little to do with them as possible.
The problem is that the first line agents, the police for example, are only following orders and did not originate the command that ultimately results in a violation of rights. Their supervisors only gave the orders and neither originated the laws that resulted in the orders nor actually implemented the orders. The ultimate source of the laws, the politicians, neither give the orders nor obey the orders.
All three links in the chain have found a way to absolve themselves of responsibility. All three of them are invoking a form of the Nuremberg defense.
Carpe Libertatem ultimately condemned Joseph Stack as a murderer because the person he killed was not the actual aggressor. He's right, and he's wrong. Vernon Hunter was not personally threatening Joseph Stack, but Vernon Hunter was a piece of the machine that was threatening Joseph Stack.
Killing of government agents is not only wrong, it's a bad idea. But it is time to stop accepting the Nuremberg defense. When agents of the government try to use it, they should be called on it every time.
It is a good idea to refuse to deal with anybody in the enforcement branch, from the making of laws to issuing of orders to implementing of orders, as if the Nuremberg defense is their default mode unless they clearly indicate otherwise in some manner, such as joining Oath Keepers. Any politician, administrator, or officer who doesn't indicate a repudiation of the Nuremberg Defense should be treated as a potential but not realized threat and people should have as little to do with them as possible.
Friday, April 09, 2010
Who will be betrayed?
Now that healthcare reform has passed, the onerous task of finding out what is actually in it has begun. But some parts are already known. There is a provision that people must either carry insurance or pay a fine, but the fine is lower than the price of an insurance policy. This is coupled with a prohibition against denying anyone who has a pre-existing condition.
Politicians are convinced this will cause everyone to carry insurance for their own good. Economists are convinced that given the nature of the incentives people will only carry insurance when they actually need it and will prefer to pay the fine the rest of the time. Politicians are shocked when economists tell them that people may deliberately opt to not carry insurance given the nature of the incentives.
The situation is completely unsustainable. One way or another something has to give. The question is what exactly will give? As long as the situation continues as designed then the insurance companies will lose money. Who exactly is congress planning on betraying?
At first people will pay the fines rather than carry the insurance. At first the insurance companies will lose money. Then they will petition congress to raise the fine above the cost of an insurance policy. Then one of two things will happen.
One option is that congress will comply with the wishes of the insurance companies and raise the fines. This will cause people to actually try to contest the validity of the fines in court. This will lead to the argument that by paying the fines before they went up people had agreed to the validity of the fines. Those who had not contested the fines in previous years will have their standing questioned. Perhaps congress will, when raising the fines, enact legislation that anyone who had willingly paid the fine in previous years without complaint have no standing in the future.
The other option is that congress will keep the fines low in spite of the complaints of the insurance companies. Perhaps, adding insult to injury, they will raise the fines but still keep them lower than the cost of an insurance policy, directing yet more money that “should” have been going to the insurance companies to the government. This will bankrupt any company that is offering health insurance and direct even more people to a government healthcare plan.
Neither option is attractive, and it is difficult to say which option is worse. But given the current situation as designed in the healthcare reform bill those are the two possible futures.
Politicians are convinced this will cause everyone to carry insurance for their own good. Economists are convinced that given the nature of the incentives people will only carry insurance when they actually need it and will prefer to pay the fine the rest of the time. Politicians are shocked when economists tell them that people may deliberately opt to not carry insurance given the nature of the incentives.
The situation is completely unsustainable. One way or another something has to give. The question is what exactly will give? As long as the situation continues as designed then the insurance companies will lose money. Who exactly is congress planning on betraying?
At first people will pay the fines rather than carry the insurance. At first the insurance companies will lose money. Then they will petition congress to raise the fine above the cost of an insurance policy. Then one of two things will happen.
One option is that congress will comply with the wishes of the insurance companies and raise the fines. This will cause people to actually try to contest the validity of the fines in court. This will lead to the argument that by paying the fines before they went up people had agreed to the validity of the fines. Those who had not contested the fines in previous years will have their standing questioned. Perhaps congress will, when raising the fines, enact legislation that anyone who had willingly paid the fine in previous years without complaint have no standing in the future.
The other option is that congress will keep the fines low in spite of the complaints of the insurance companies. Perhaps, adding insult to injury, they will raise the fines but still keep them lower than the cost of an insurance policy, directing yet more money that “should” have been going to the insurance companies to the government. This will bankrupt any company that is offering health insurance and direct even more people to a government healthcare plan.
Neither option is attractive, and it is difficult to say which option is worse. But given the current situation as designed in the healthcare reform bill those are the two possible futures.
Friday, April 02, 2010
Tribesman, Barbarian, Citizen … and Libertarian
It is always risky to take a work developed by someone else and try to discover something the original author has not yet developed. William Lind developed the theory about the four generations of warfare, and has since received emails describing a tentative fifth stage of warfare that he reports isn’t actually a fifth stage. But then there are times when building up on the existing framework does indeed add something new, such as when William Lind discovered the fourth generation in the first place.
Jerry Pournelle created a theoretical framework to describe three different stages of cultural advancement. He left open the possibility of discovering what might be the fourth stage of cultural development based upon how the different stages react to each other when the come into contact.
The first described is the interaction between the Tribesman and the Barbarian.
The next thing he describes is what happens when a Barbarian meets a Citizen.
Finally, almost as an afterthought, he describes what happens when Tribesmen meet Citizens.
He includes two references to describe what the next phase of cultural development would be within the framework of Tribesman, Barbarian, and Citizen.
The key point to notice is that in any given stage, the immediately later stage will look distressingly like the immediately previous stage. To the Barbarian, the Citizen appears distressingly like the Tribesman. The relationship is superficial, as the citizen takes orders not because he is "not a man" but because after having discovered individualism (and immediately overdoing it as the Barbarian does) they have discovered cooperation. The fact that Tribesmen and Citizens are alien to each other is revealed in the way they interact in the description provided by Mr. Pournelle.
So, to a Citizen, the next stage will resemble all of the features of Barbarism that the Citizen has outgrown and now finds repulsive. The Citizen views the Barbarian as a criminal who has no respect for other individuals. The extreme individualism of the Barbarian would never respect a contract, would never take orders that he feels contradicts his own desires.
That is how a Citizen would view the next stage. He would view the next stage as criminal, and those in it as individuals who have no respect for social order. And, just as the Citizen superficially resembles the Tribesman, the Citizen’s view of the next stage would be superficially accurate.
Which is why it baffles the Citizen that the Libertarian is stricter in upholding the rights of others and the sanctity of the contract than even the Citizen is, that the Libertarian isn’t a criminal the way a Barbarian is. The Citizen is as baffled by the Libertarian as the Barbarian is baffled by the Citizen.
It should be noted here that "Libertarian" in this context has a much broader definition than agreeing with the platform of the Libertarian Party of the United States. In this context it encompasses many different movements with many different ideas. The common ground in this context is the social outlook that differentiates it from Citizen, Barbarian, or Tribesman.
Just as the Citizen took the lessons of individualism learned by the Barbarian and tempered them with cross-linked cooperation, the Libertarian took the lessons of cooperation and tempered them with a respect for, not just the individual, but each other as individuals. This is fundamentally different from the individualism of the Barbarian, as it respects other individuals as individuals. It is cross-linked cooperative individualism, to stretch the descriptions first described by Mr. Pournelle.
That only leaves, if Libertarianism is indeed the fourth stage of development thus far advanced to by mankind, how Libertarianism views prior stages.
Although the Citizen views the Libertarian as similar to the Barbarian, the Libertarian and the Barbarian do not view each other that way. Just as the Tribesman does not understand the Citizen, the Barbarian does not understand the Libertarian. The Libertarian, completely unorganized, is capable of spontaneous cross-linked cooperation to form an organized defense that strongly resembles that of the Citizen. The Libertarian doesn’t simply take what he wants, but fights fiercely against those who would simply take – and eventually even fights against the Citizen on those same grounds. When the Libertarian does fight the Citizen, it is not for the purpose of looting but to stop looting.
The Libertarian would basically ignore the Tribesman. While a Citizen, having discovered cooperation is eager to share it with everyone whether or not they want it shared, the Libertarian, having discovered that people have a right to be left alone is eager to leave people alone. Since the Tribesman is not a looter the way a Barbarian is, or even the more subtle way the Citizen is, the Libertarian has no reason for conflict.
However, the Tribesman will see the Libertarian as completely and utterly alien, even more so than Barbarians (who merely represent absolute evil) or the Citizen (who represents new replacement traditions). The Libertarian could potentially be new traditions, except that he consistently refuses to take that burden. The Tribesman can try to return the favor and politely ignore the Libertarian, but eventually is forced to adapt and move forward to a new stage whether he likes it or not. The Libertarian would try to treat individual Tribesmen as equals, but just as with the Citizen and the Tribesman not knowing he's a man, the Tribesman doesn't know he's an individual.
Fortunately for the Libertarian, according to Jerry Pournelle, any time a later stage encounters an earlier stage, it spells doom for the earlier stage. Libertarianism was birthed with John Locke, midwifed by Thomas Jefferson, and then brought to maturity by Lysander Spooner, Friedrich von Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and other libertarian philosophers. And by their work the idea that people should belong to each other is doomed.
Jerry Pournelle created a theoretical framework to describe three different stages of cultural advancement. He left open the possibility of discovering what might be the fourth stage of cultural development based upon how the different stages react to each other when the come into contact.
The first described is the interaction between the Tribesman and the Barbarian.
When Barbarism first arises in any area, Tribalism is doomed. The two are mutually exclusive, and there is no possible "peaceful coexistence" between them. To the Tribesman, the Barbarian is Evil Incarnate; the Barbarian has utterly rejected all Good, Moral, and Ethical values. He has rejected the Sacred Traditions, and glories in his absolute defiance of them. He blasphemes not casually, but as a way of life.
To the Barbarians, the Tribesman is a slave, a spineless, gutless coward, a disgrace to human shape. He has no self-respect, no courage to take a risk, no faith in himself. He doesn't respect himself, or any man. He won't fight for any reward, no matter how great and shining! He's a stupid, lazy slug, a disgrace to humanity.
The Tribesman won't fight for reward, he won't take a risk for great gain--because that is not in the Traditions. A Tribesman can't fight an enemy tribe for that enemy tribe's land; his tribal traditions refer to his tribe's land. If he did take the neighboring tribe's land . . . there would be no traditions to tell what to do with it. It would, in fact, be a Change, and therefore Evil.
The "battles" between two ritual-taboo tribes, anthropologists have long since observed, are practically pure rituals, and actually have a vanishingly small casualty rate. Not greatly different--for all the use of spears!--than in modern college football clashes. The spears are hurled while at a range so extreme that it's sheer accident if someone gets hurt.
When Barbarism appears--that situation changes in a hurry. The Barbarian army isn't going through a ritual; they're out for blood and loot. They don't have traditions as guides, nor as limiting fences about them.
The next thing he describes is what happens when a Barbarian meets a Citizen.
When the Barbarian encounters Civilization, therefore, he is going to be enormously confused and baffled. The Barbarians of North Europe, meeting the Citizens of the Roman Republic, were meeting men who allowed others to order them about, to tell them what to do and when to do it. Who obeyed commands they didn't, themselves, agree with. Obviously, a pack of servile slaves!
But these cowardly Roman Legionnaires, for some incomprehensible reason, did not collapse in battle. These Legionnaires, who had no self-respect, who did not fight man-to-man, but used short swords so that no one of them could say, when he returned home, "I killed Urhtoth!" but only, "I am a member of the Fourth Legion,"--these Romans strangely didn't flee before the fiercest Barbarian charges.
To the Barbarians, the Citizen shows the symptoms of all the things the Barbarian rejects as vile and degrading--the essence of cowardice. The Citizen yields his will to the demands of others. He allows himself to be limited, and allows himself to be compelled against his own desires.
To the Barbarian, the Citizen shows the same loathsome abnegation that the Tribesman does.
Which makes it all the more incomprehensible that these sniveling Citizens win battle after battle. They who have sacrificed their Manhood, have given up their right to individual dignity, somehow prove able to fight like maddened demons!
Finally, almost as an afterthought, he describes what happens when Tribesmen meet Citizens.
Notice that the root philosophy of the ritual-taboo tribesman is such that it is inherently impossible to cooperate with him in establishing a colony. So long as the natives are true Tribesmen, Change is Evil--and the colonists are introducing change. There is no such thing as "a good change" in a pure-tradition system: "Change is Evil; Evil is Change."
More immediately, the Tribesman's sense of security stems entirely from having a sure source of Answers. The Tribesman has no answers himself, and has no sense that he can be a source of answers. His sense of security, his defense against the Unknown, is a Source of Answers. He expects to be told what to do, when, and how; if his Tribal Traditions don't do so, then some other source of Answers must. He has no expectation or desire to be responsible for his own acts; that way lies the terror of the Unknown.
If some colonist comes in and overthrows the Tribal Traditions--then the Colonist must be the Source of Answers. The Tribesman cannot cooperate on a man-to-man basis with the colonist, no matter how the colonist may seek to establish such a system. The Tribesman doesn't know he's a man; he knows only that he's a Unit of the System--that he has to be a unit of some system.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. And you can lead a Tribesman to Liberty . . . but you can't make him free.
He includes two references to describe what the next phase of cultural development would be within the framework of Tribesman, Barbarian, and Citizen.
At each stage of cultural evolution, the preceding stage appears loathsome . . . and the succeeding stage appears to partake of those same loathsome characteristics.
As a rough guess, it's highly probable that the next stage of cultural evolution will appear, to us, to be Barbarism, and be a horrible, degenerate, loathsome system indeed.
Just as the Civil system appears, to the Barbarian, to be the Tribal system, in which the individual has no dignity, and a man is not a Man, for he lacks the courage to express his individual worth and will.
. . .
It's also interesting to wonder what will happen if we go in to some planet, and find what seems to be a Barbarian culture ... which isn't. It would certainly be baffling, and almost certainly be disastrous in a way we cannot dimly imagine.
It would mean the destruction of our very souls. Just as Civilization, by merely contacting Barbarians repeatedly, brings about the corruption and degradation of their dignity, their self-respect--their very souls. And turns them into cowardly, weakened, crawling things that actually cooperate with another human being.
We can't, of course, guess just what form of loathsome corruption of our selves, our dignity, looms before us.
It doesn't really matter; we're going to get it anyway, whether from outside, or from our own unwanted, yet inescapable, evolution.
But we won't like it. Any more than a Tribesman likes becoming that essence of corruption and evil, a Barbarian. Or a Barbarian likes becoming that sniveling thing, a Citizen.
The key point to notice is that in any given stage, the immediately later stage will look distressingly like the immediately previous stage. To the Barbarian, the Citizen appears distressingly like the Tribesman. The relationship is superficial, as the citizen takes orders not because he is "not a man" but because after having discovered individualism (and immediately overdoing it as the Barbarian does) they have discovered cooperation. The fact that Tribesmen and Citizens are alien to each other is revealed in the way they interact in the description provided by Mr. Pournelle.
So, to a Citizen, the next stage will resemble all of the features of Barbarism that the Citizen has outgrown and now finds repulsive. The Citizen views the Barbarian as a criminal who has no respect for other individuals. The extreme individualism of the Barbarian would never respect a contract, would never take orders that he feels contradicts his own desires.
That is how a Citizen would view the next stage. He would view the next stage as criminal, and those in it as individuals who have no respect for social order. And, just as the Citizen superficially resembles the Tribesman, the Citizen’s view of the next stage would be superficially accurate.
Which is why it baffles the Citizen that the Libertarian is stricter in upholding the rights of others and the sanctity of the contract than even the Citizen is, that the Libertarian isn’t a criminal the way a Barbarian is. The Citizen is as baffled by the Libertarian as the Barbarian is baffled by the Citizen.
It should be noted here that "Libertarian" in this context has a much broader definition than agreeing with the platform of the Libertarian Party of the United States. In this context it encompasses many different movements with many different ideas. The common ground in this context is the social outlook that differentiates it from Citizen, Barbarian, or Tribesman.
Just as the Citizen took the lessons of individualism learned by the Barbarian and tempered them with cross-linked cooperation, the Libertarian took the lessons of cooperation and tempered them with a respect for, not just the individual, but each other as individuals. This is fundamentally different from the individualism of the Barbarian, as it respects other individuals as individuals. It is cross-linked cooperative individualism, to stretch the descriptions first described by Mr. Pournelle.
That only leaves, if Libertarianism is indeed the fourth stage of development thus far advanced to by mankind, how Libertarianism views prior stages.
Although the Citizen views the Libertarian as similar to the Barbarian, the Libertarian and the Barbarian do not view each other that way. Just as the Tribesman does not understand the Citizen, the Barbarian does not understand the Libertarian. The Libertarian, completely unorganized, is capable of spontaneous cross-linked cooperation to form an organized defense that strongly resembles that of the Citizen. The Libertarian doesn’t simply take what he wants, but fights fiercely against those who would simply take – and eventually even fights against the Citizen on those same grounds. When the Libertarian does fight the Citizen, it is not for the purpose of looting but to stop looting.
The Libertarian would basically ignore the Tribesman. While a Citizen, having discovered cooperation is eager to share it with everyone whether or not they want it shared, the Libertarian, having discovered that people have a right to be left alone is eager to leave people alone. Since the Tribesman is not a looter the way a Barbarian is, or even the more subtle way the Citizen is, the Libertarian has no reason for conflict.
However, the Tribesman will see the Libertarian as completely and utterly alien, even more so than Barbarians (who merely represent absolute evil) or the Citizen (who represents new replacement traditions). The Libertarian could potentially be new traditions, except that he consistently refuses to take that burden. The Tribesman can try to return the favor and politely ignore the Libertarian, but eventually is forced to adapt and move forward to a new stage whether he likes it or not. The Libertarian would try to treat individual Tribesmen as equals, but just as with the Citizen and the Tribesman not knowing he's a man, the Tribesman doesn't know he's an individual.
Fortunately for the Libertarian, according to Jerry Pournelle, any time a later stage encounters an earlier stage, it spells doom for the earlier stage. Libertarianism was birthed with John Locke, midwifed by Thomas Jefferson, and then brought to maturity by Lysander Spooner, Friedrich von Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and other libertarian philosophers. And by their work the idea that people should belong to each other is doomed.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Tribesman, Barbarian, and Citizen
In the anthology "The Stars At War, Volume 1, Imperial Stars", assembled in 1986 by Jerry Pournelle, he included an original essay “Tribesman, Barbarian, and Citizen”. It can be read here and it includes some very useful concepts.
The essay's value as a piece of anthropology is as useful as the Social Contract written about by Hobbes and Locke, but just as with the Social Contract it is not in anthropology that it has uses. Like the Social Contract, it is a "useful myth" in which Mr. Pournelle describes three levels of social development that a people go through.
The first is the Tribesman:
The next stage above Tribesman is Barbarian.
He also describes the relationship between Barbarians and Tribesmen. Tribesmen, who view change as violating the traditions and therefore evil, see the Barbarian as evil. Barbarians, who view obeying orders with which one disagrees as spineless and sub-human, sees Tribesmen as being fit only for slavery as they are not human. A Barbarian thinks it pitiful is someone obeys an order with which he disagrees.
Advancing beyond Barbarism, the third stage so far is Civilization.
He spends little time describing the Civil system, and given that it is the current system in the western world there should theoretically be little need to describe it. What he does describe is interactions between Barbarians and Citizens and between Tribesmen and Citizens. In both cases, as with Barbarian and Tribesmen, interaction between a later stage and an earlier stage dooms the earlier stage.
The key question then becomes what happens to a Barbarian who discovers he cannot beat a Civil System from the outside? Doing so from the outside turns the Barbarian into a criminal, as can be discovered from a cursory examination of most true criminals. At one point there was a belief that criminals had insufficient self esteem, but further examination found that many real criminals had excessive self esteem.
A smarter Barbarian would find the Civil system useful, to do from the inside what cannot be done from the outside, to use the system for looting by proxy. The first advantage of this is that it saves the Barbarian from the consequences of criminal activity. The second advantage is that Citizens are conditioned to have a basic respect for order, and thus are much less likely to defend themselves from crimes when committed by the government.
This actually solves one of the biggest riddles of the twentieth century: why did not the German people do more to assassinate Hitler or overthrow his regime? It is because the Germans were a civilized people, raised to have a basic respect for order. Even though they did not like it, the Barbarian Hitler achieved power working inside the system.
If faced with a Barbarian in an alley, a Citizen will fight back. If faced with a Barbarian with a government form, a Citizen is likely to give in and try to work within the system to stop the Barbarian. A stupid Barbarian becomes a criminal; a smart Barbarian becomes a politician.
The essay's value as a piece of anthropology is as useful as the Social Contract written about by Hobbes and Locke, but just as with the Social Contract it is not in anthropology that it has uses. Like the Social Contract, it is a "useful myth" in which Mr. Pournelle describes three levels of social development that a people go through.
The first is the Tribesman:
The Tribal culture--in its never-actually-existent theoretical pure state--is a system of pure ritual and taboo. "Everything that is not forbidden is compulsory." The objectively observable system stems from an unstated philosophy--which is unstated because the Tribesman doesn't know philosophy exists, any more than a dog knows logic exists, or a fish knows that biochemistry exists. The philosophy is, essentially precisely that of the Absolute Totalitarian state . . . minus the familiar dictator. That is, in the Tribe, the individual exists for the service of the state. The individual has no value whatever, save as a replaceable plug-in unit in the immortal, ever-existent machinery-organism of the Tribe. No individual exists as an individual--neither Tribal king nor Tribal slave; each is a unit plugged in--temporarily, for all these units wear out and are discarded in a score or two of years--to the eternal Traditional System of the Tribe. The cells in a living organism wear out and are discarded; the organism is, relatively speaking, immortal. So, in the Tribe, the individual is nothing; the Tribe is eternal.
In return for a practically absolute loss of self-identity, the Tribesman is rewarded with security and peace of mind. The Tribal Traditions have The Answers to all possible real problems; nothing can happen that the Tribal Traditions, in their ancient and time-tested wisdom, have not already solved. There are no doubts; there are answers which involve "these tribesmen must die," but Death is not intolerable. Uncertainty--Doubt--these are the Terrors that live in the Unknown. And against those horrors, the ancient wisdom of the Tribal Traditions stand a strong, sure defense.
The Tribesman has an exact, clear-cut, and perfectly understandable definition of Evil. Evil is Change. Any Change whatever is Evil. The correlation is absolute--perfect one-to-one.
The next stage above Tribesman is Barbarian.
The Barbarian represents the Ultimate Horror from the viewpoint of the Tribesman; he is the Pure Individual. The Barbarian does not put his faith, his sense of security, in the ancient wisdom of the Traditions--but in the wisdom and strength of a Hero, a living demigod-man, a Leader who solves all problems.
Barbarism, in other words, is the Dictator, without the Totalitarian State. There is a Hero, who is a strong, and unusually clever leader--an individual who stands out above the men around him.
Tribalism is "a government of laws, not of men," with the minor change that "traditions" replace "laws."
Barbarism becomes a government of Men, not of traditions.
It is the first development of human culture which recognizes the value of the individual. It is not true that only civilized people respect the dignity of the individual; any Barbarian will assure you that Citizens have no dignity, that Civilization does not respect the individual. That only Barbarians understand what it means to be an individual.
The Barbarian, in essence, "has too much Ego in his Cosmos."
It's perfectly true that all men seek security--but necessarily, that means they seek what they believe is security. A superstitious Tribesman, fleeing a ghost, would happily climb a 100,000 volt power-line tower because he knows that ghosts can't climb.
The Tribesman's security is his conviction that the Tribal Traditions have sure answers to all real problems.
The Barbarian's security is in his absolute conviction that he can handle any problem--and if he can't, why, of course his Leader-Hero can, and will.
...
Barbarism is one of the great breakthroughs in cultural evolution; for the first time, it establishes that the individual has great value, that the individual must be respected.
He also describes the relationship between Barbarians and Tribesmen. Tribesmen, who view change as violating the traditions and therefore evil, see the Barbarian as evil. Barbarians, who view obeying orders with which one disagrees as spineless and sub-human, sees Tribesmen as being fit only for slavery as they are not human. A Barbarian thinks it pitiful is someone obeys an order with which he disagrees.
Advancing beyond Barbarism, the third stage so far is Civilization.
When the Barbarian encounters Civilization, therefore, he is going to be enormously confused and baffled. The Barbarians of North Europe, meeting the Citizens of the Roman Republic, were meeting men who allowed others to order them about, to tell them what to do and when to do it. Who obeyed commands they didn't, themselves, agree with. Obviously, a pack of servile slaves!
But these cowardly Roman Legionnaires, for some incomprehensible reason, did not collapse in battle. These Legionnaires, who had no self-respect, who did not fight man-to-man, but used short swords so that no one of them could say, when he returned home, "I killed Urhtoth!" but only, "I am a member of the Fourth Legion,"--these Romans strangely didn't flee before the fiercest Barbarian charges.
To the Barbarians, the Citizen shows the symptoms of all the things the Barbarian rejects as vile and degrading--the essence of cowardice. The Citizen yields his will to the demands of others. He allows himself to be limited, and allows himself to be compelled against his own desires.
To the Barbarian, the Citizen shows the same loathsome abnegation that the Tribesman does.
Which makes it all the more incomprehensible that these sniveling Citizens win battle after battle. They who have sacrificed their Manhood, have given up their right to individual dignity, somehow prove able to fight like maddened demons!
He spends little time describing the Civil system, and given that it is the current system in the western world there should theoretically be little need to describe it. What he does describe is interactions between Barbarians and Citizens and between Tribesmen and Citizens. In both cases, as with Barbarian and Tribesmen, interaction between a later stage and an earlier stage dooms the earlier stage.
The key question then becomes what happens to a Barbarian who discovers he cannot beat a Civil System from the outside? Doing so from the outside turns the Barbarian into a criminal, as can be discovered from a cursory examination of most true criminals. At one point there was a belief that criminals had insufficient self esteem, but further examination found that many real criminals had excessive self esteem.
A smarter Barbarian would find the Civil system useful, to do from the inside what cannot be done from the outside, to use the system for looting by proxy. The first advantage of this is that it saves the Barbarian from the consequences of criminal activity. The second advantage is that Citizens are conditioned to have a basic respect for order, and thus are much less likely to defend themselves from crimes when committed by the government.
This actually solves one of the biggest riddles of the twentieth century: why did not the German people do more to assassinate Hitler or overthrow his regime? It is because the Germans were a civilized people, raised to have a basic respect for order. Even though they did not like it, the Barbarian Hitler achieved power working inside the system.
If faced with a Barbarian in an alley, a Citizen will fight back. If faced with a Barbarian with a government form, a Citizen is likely to give in and try to work within the system to stop the Barbarian. A stupid Barbarian becomes a criminal; a smart Barbarian becomes a politician.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Government Goods
One fact that makes things difficult for those who would argue against excessive interference by the state is that occasionally the state actually produces something that a sane person would actually pay for. This happens more often in first world nations, less often in the thug governments of third world countries, but it does happen.
After all, people do have a desire to get from point A to point B, and the government does produce roads. People do have a desire to educate the young, and the government does provide schools. People do have a desire for some basic security, and the government does provide some basic security with the military and the police.
The government provides these goods at twice the cost and half the quality, if one is feeling generous in the description of government provided goods, but they are produced. These good are provided in a very abusive and inept manner, but they are produced.
The fact that they are produced enables defenders of having an intrusive state to invoke the Statist Fallacy. This is an unfortunate, but deliberate, act on the part of the government, because in enables defenders of the state to accuse defenders of liberty of being against the production of those very goods.
It is, however, a sham. The point of providing those goods is to control those goods. By having the government provide education, the government controls the content of the education. By having the government provide the roads and provide security at the airports and the border, the government controls freedom of movement. By having the government guarantee the quality of medications taken through FDA approval, the politicians now have the ability to restrict the ability of the individual to choose which medications may work best for said individual.
The question then becomes; are those invoking the statist fallacy "useful fools" or are they the ones who actually aspire to control others? Or are they the final type of statist described in The Authoritarian Mindset, someone who actually desires to be a slave?
After all, people do have a desire to get from point A to point B, and the government does produce roads. People do have a desire to educate the young, and the government does provide schools. People do have a desire for some basic security, and the government does provide some basic security with the military and the police.
The government provides these goods at twice the cost and half the quality, if one is feeling generous in the description of government provided goods, but they are produced. These good are provided in a very abusive and inept manner, but they are produced.
The fact that they are produced enables defenders of having an intrusive state to invoke the Statist Fallacy. This is an unfortunate, but deliberate, act on the part of the government, because in enables defenders of the state to accuse defenders of liberty of being against the production of those very goods.
It is, however, a sham. The point of providing those goods is to control those goods. By having the government provide education, the government controls the content of the education. By having the government provide the roads and provide security at the airports and the border, the government controls freedom of movement. By having the government guarantee the quality of medications taken through FDA approval, the politicians now have the ability to restrict the ability of the individual to choose which medications may work best for said individual.
The question then becomes; are those invoking the statist fallacy "useful fools" or are they the ones who actually aspire to control others? Or are they the final type of statist described in The Authoritarian Mindset, someone who actually desires to be a slave?
Saturday, March 13, 2010
And the TSA actually reponds
In the blog entry The TSA Wants you Dead, strong accusations were made against the TSA based upon this blog entry at the TSA blog. The accusations were quite harsh, and quickly picked up on by critics of the TSA in the comments section of that entry of the TSA blog as well as on the Flyer Talk Forums Travel Safety and Security forum. The general harshness of the response has prompted a rapid response by the TSA.
The argument made by the TSA is that the dosage of X-Ray in an X-Ray backscatter is so low that it is safe. This ignores a couple of scientific facts: first, no level of ionizing radiation is actually safe, merely that some doses are safer than others, and also that ionizing radiation is cumulative so even safe doses contribute to a lifetime unsafe level.
The TSA spokesperson Blogger Bob tried to make this argument by referencing many experts who argued that the dosage was relatively safe if it provides a definite benefit. There are constitutional and practical arguments about the security benefits of backscatter X-Ray, but the most telling is that all the arguments are based on the option being the choice between not having the security at all or having backscatter X-Ray along with the risks. That is not a true choice.
Putting aside the constitutional arguments (it doesn't), putting aside the argument over whether this device actually increases security in the first place (it doesn't) there’s still one safety argument not made.
All of the supporting information that was made available, on the links that worked and didn’t require a fee to access, said that the dosage was relatively safe, but didn’t say it was absolutely safe. The supporting information didn’t comment on the safety of Backscatter X-Ray as compared to Millimeters Wave. It appears that the TSA, when seeking supporting information, presented the choice of "backscatter or no security" when the choice is actually "backscatter or mmw or no security".
With millimeter wave technology, the only problems are that it is unconstitutional and that it provides minimal security in exchange for the cost of implementation. In terms of the health of the traveler, millimeter wave technology is completely safe at the dosages required.
So given that a completely safe equivalent alternative exists why then is the TSA going ahead with backscatter instead of millimeter wave?
It has been a suggested that the choice to use backscatter has to do with greasing the right palms, that it has something to do with who currently employs Chertoff. Is simple corruption the reason the TSA is using hazardous procedures and putting the health of the traveling public at risk?
The argument made by the TSA is that the dosage of X-Ray in an X-Ray backscatter is so low that it is safe. This ignores a couple of scientific facts: first, no level of ionizing radiation is actually safe, merely that some doses are safer than others, and also that ionizing radiation is cumulative so even safe doses contribute to a lifetime unsafe level.
The TSA spokesperson Blogger Bob tried to make this argument by referencing many experts who argued that the dosage was relatively safe if it provides a definite benefit. There are constitutional and practical arguments about the security benefits of backscatter X-Ray, but the most telling is that all the arguments are based on the option being the choice between not having the security at all or having backscatter X-Ray along with the risks. That is not a true choice.
Putting aside the constitutional arguments (it doesn't), putting aside the argument over whether this device actually increases security in the first place (it doesn't) there’s still one safety argument not made.
All of the supporting information that was made available, on the links that worked and didn’t require a fee to access, said that the dosage was relatively safe, but didn’t say it was absolutely safe. The supporting information didn’t comment on the safety of Backscatter X-Ray as compared to Millimeters Wave. It appears that the TSA, when seeking supporting information, presented the choice of "backscatter or no security" when the choice is actually "backscatter or mmw or no security".
With millimeter wave technology, the only problems are that it is unconstitutional and that it provides minimal security in exchange for the cost of implementation. In terms of the health of the traveler, millimeter wave technology is completely safe at the dosages required.
So given that a completely safe equivalent alternative exists why then is the TSA going ahead with backscatter instead of millimeter wave?
It has been a suggested that the choice to use backscatter has to do with greasing the right palms, that it has something to do with who currently employs Chertoff. Is simple corruption the reason the TSA is using hazardous procedures and putting the health of the traveling public at risk?
Friday, March 05, 2010
The TSA wants you dead
When the TSA first introduced the concept of Whole Body Imaging, since renamed Advanced Imaging Technology, there were many complaints. Many moral, legal, and constitutional issues were raised as to why Whole Body Imaging was a very bad idea. There were also safety concerns, but it was pointed out that if the topic is confined to milimeter waves then they are actually safe.
It was also pointed out that said explanation does not apply to backscatter x-ray technology.
It was explained that one of them was non-ionizing radiation, heat radiation. The other is ionizing radiation, cumulative radiation. One of them is safe because the only danger is in dosage and the moment the source is removed the exposure is over. The other is unsafe because each exposure adds to previous exposures, which is why doctors try to be sparing in the use of x-rays.
So what does the TSA do in response? The TSA is expanding the use of backscatter. Not mmw, but backscatter.
It is bad enough that the TSA has a perverted desire to strip search all passengers, on the premise that we are all criminals who have not yet been caught. It is bad enough that the TSA is going to use this same technology on children in violation of child pornography laws. But now the TSA has decided that in addition to violating our own fourth and fifth amendment rights that THEY WANT TO GIVE EVERYONE CANCER.
And the ironic point is that these security measures aren't effective to anyone wearing leather.
These questions were posted on the TSA blog, but the primary blogger - Blogger Bob - has not been willing to answer any questions on this subject.
How long until this abomination of an agency is dismantled and the employees are put on trial for treason? The Nuremberg defense is not supposed to be admissible in any court, and whatever constitutional basis there may have been in theory for this agency has long ago eroded by the TSA's unconstitutional terrorist activities in practice.
It was also pointed out that said explanation does not apply to backscatter x-ray technology.
It was explained that one of them was non-ionizing radiation, heat radiation. The other is ionizing radiation, cumulative radiation. One of them is safe because the only danger is in dosage and the moment the source is removed the exposure is over. The other is unsafe because each exposure adds to previous exposures, which is why doctors try to be sparing in the use of x-rays.
So what does the TSA do in response? The TSA is expanding the use of backscatter. Not mmw, but backscatter.
It is bad enough that the TSA has a perverted desire to strip search all passengers, on the premise that we are all criminals who have not yet been caught. It is bad enough that the TSA is going to use this same technology on children in violation of child pornography laws. But now the TSA has decided that in addition to violating our own fourth and fifth amendment rights that THEY WANT TO GIVE EVERYONE CANCER.
And the ironic point is that these security measures aren't effective to anyone wearing leather.
These questions were posted on the TSA blog, but the primary blogger - Blogger Bob - has not been willing to answer any questions on this subject.
How long until this abomination of an agency is dismantled and the employees are put on trial for treason? The Nuremberg defense is not supposed to be admissible in any court, and whatever constitutional basis there may have been in theory for this agency has long ago eroded by the TSA's unconstitutional terrorist activities in practice.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Libertarianism and Unions
The array of arguments against libertarianism that have no source is always impressive. Just as the traffic light argument comes from an argument that no libertarian ever made, there is also a belief that libertarians are anti-union.
Given that unions are covered under the right of free association, it should be obvious that libertarians are not anti-union. It is well known among opponents of libertarians that libertarianism supports free association, to the point where the fallacious argument is made that arguments in favor of free association are actually a cover, in the form of eloquent verbiage, for racism.
Yet for some reason a philosophy whose greatest pride is its consistency is expected to abrogate the right of free association if the association is called a union.
Unlike the traffic light argument there may be a somewhat reasonable source for the union argument. Given the current state of affairs, where the government is a club to be used against ones opponents, not wishing for one side to have the club is considered by default to want the other side to have the club.
A hypothetical scene from the Lord of the Rings may best describe it, the characters being familiar enough so that twisting them into slightly new roles is possible.
Given that many are incapable of imagining one actively not wanting either side to have power, and the Manichean outlook produced by the two party system, a person can be forgiven for initially thinking that since libertarians don't support special government favors for unions that they must support special government favors for businesses, but only until they actually meet their first libertarian.
Given that unions are covered under the right of free association, it should be obvious that libertarians are not anti-union. It is well known among opponents of libertarians that libertarianism supports free association, to the point where the fallacious argument is made that arguments in favor of free association are actually a cover, in the form of eloquent verbiage, for racism.
Yet for some reason a philosophy whose greatest pride is its consistency is expected to abrogate the right of free association if the association is called a union.
Unlike the traffic light argument there may be a somewhat reasonable source for the union argument. Given the current state of affairs, where the government is a club to be used against ones opponents, not wishing for one side to have the club is considered by default to want the other side to have the club.
A hypothetical scene from the Lord of the Rings may best describe it, the characters being familiar enough so that twisting them into slightly new roles is possible.
Sauron (representing big business) and Saruman (representing unions) are both trying to convince Frodo (representing libertarians) to hand over the Ring of Power (representing power).
Saruman: Frodo, you must give me the ring, otherwise Sauron will have it. I only have your best interests at heart.
Frodo: But I want to destroy the ring.
Saruman: No, since you don’t want to give it to me, it is proof that you actually want to give it to Sauron.
Frodo: What? No, I want to destroy it because I don’t want anyone to have it.
Saruman: No, that’s just fancy words you are using to cover up your true desires. I’m tired of your hobbit double talk. You really support Sauron. Look, by walking to the Cracks of Doom, you are walking to Mordor, which shows you want to give him the ring.
Given that many are incapable of imagining one actively not wanting either side to have power, and the Manichean outlook produced by the two party system, a person can be forgiven for initially thinking that since libertarians don't support special government favors for unions that they must support special government favors for businesses, but only until they actually meet their first libertarian.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
The recovery is still elusive
A year after the stimulus packages were enacted, Barack Obama is still claiming that the stimulus worked, that it created or saved jobs, and that without it the country would still be in a recession, or perhaps even a depression. Most libertarians would laugh at the claim, but as Ayn Rand pointed out, if you want to know if something is right you have to ask "by what standard?"
What exactly did the stimulus do? The stimulus created temporary government jobs to mask unemployment. Since government spending is included in GDP calculations, it increased the GDP, and then later when the money cycled through the banks it enabled failing banks to show a profit and give bonuses, thus creating a secondary GDP boost. The true point of the stimulus was to make the numbers look good, and since the stimulus made the numbers look good the stimulus actually worked.
By the standard of creating an economic recovery the stimulus was a failure though. The money to pay for the stimulus was borrowed, creating an imminent threat of massive inflation, perhaps even hyper-inflation. While make-work jobs, supposedly shovel-ready, were created, those jobs were not jobs that add to the economy in the long run.
Since "recession" is defined by consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, it is true that the stimulus put a hiccup in the recession. Some analysts will undoubtedly say that the recession ended and a new one began a quarter later. If the current method of calculating is to be believed, then yes, the stimulus ended the recession - but at the cost of exacerbating the depression.
What exactly did the stimulus do? The stimulus created temporary government jobs to mask unemployment. Since government spending is included in GDP calculations, it increased the GDP, and then later when the money cycled through the banks it enabled failing banks to show a profit and give bonuses, thus creating a secondary GDP boost. The true point of the stimulus was to make the numbers look good, and since the stimulus made the numbers look good the stimulus actually worked.
By the standard of creating an economic recovery the stimulus was a failure though. The money to pay for the stimulus was borrowed, creating an imminent threat of massive inflation, perhaps even hyper-inflation. While make-work jobs, supposedly shovel-ready, were created, those jobs were not jobs that add to the economy in the long run.
Since "recession" is defined by consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, it is true that the stimulus put a hiccup in the recession. Some analysts will undoubtedly say that the recession ended and a new one began a quarter later. If the current method of calculating is to be believed, then yes, the stimulus ended the recession - but at the cost of exacerbating the depression.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
TSA follies
It has been a difficult season for the Transportation Security Agency.
December started with a leaked TSA screening manual, unredacted, appearing on Wikileaks. Following shortly after that was a particularly inept attempt at a home vasectomy which unfortunately took place on an airplane. The TSA tried to claim credit for the passengers stopping the bomber by saying that the fellow passengers are a "layer of security", even though these same passengers are the ones that the TSA considers to be terrorist suspects, guilty until proven innocent.
Even though the Whole Body Imaging would not have found these insufficient explosives, the move to install them at every airport was accelerated, along with additional proposed nonsensical rules such as having nothing on the lap and not leaving the seat for the entire last hour of the flight. Fast on the heels of the move to accelearate Whole Body Imaging, the news discovered two separate sexual improprieties involving the TSA.
First there was the TSO who was found to be a child molester, seeking a "sex slave" from a girl he had groped. Then there was the TSO who was arrested for posession of child pornography. While normally a persons criminal acts do not reflect on their employer, this is the employer who wants these deviants to perform virtual strip searches of travelers - including children.
So what of actually stopping actual threats? After all, one might actually forgive the TSA for these follies if they contributed to security, but that does not seem to be the case. It was discovered that yet another child was on the extra screening selectee list, a feeding tube was thrown away even though it was medically necessity, and someone who was so dangerous he studied his Arabic homework in an airport was subjected to extra screening. Not able to find actual criminals, they pretended to find one by planting drugs to find in the bag of an innocent traveler as part of a "training exercise." But they failed to stop a fake federal marshal who was allowed through security with his firearm in order to place an unwilling passenger on a plane to another country.
Perhaps it is time to replace the TSA with an actual security agency, before the move to unionize the screeners gains any momentum.
December started with a leaked TSA screening manual, unredacted, appearing on Wikileaks. Following shortly after that was a particularly inept attempt at a home vasectomy which unfortunately took place on an airplane. The TSA tried to claim credit for the passengers stopping the bomber by saying that the fellow passengers are a "layer of security", even though these same passengers are the ones that the TSA considers to be terrorist suspects, guilty until proven innocent.
Even though the Whole Body Imaging would not have found these insufficient explosives, the move to install them at every airport was accelerated, along with additional proposed nonsensical rules such as having nothing on the lap and not leaving the seat for the entire last hour of the flight. Fast on the heels of the move to accelearate Whole Body Imaging, the news discovered two separate sexual improprieties involving the TSA.
First there was the TSO who was found to be a child molester, seeking a "sex slave" from a girl he had groped. Then there was the TSO who was arrested for posession of child pornography. While normally a persons criminal acts do not reflect on their employer, this is the employer who wants these deviants to perform virtual strip searches of travelers - including children.
So what of actually stopping actual threats? After all, one might actually forgive the TSA for these follies if they contributed to security, but that does not seem to be the case. It was discovered that yet another child was on the extra screening selectee list, a feeding tube was thrown away even though it was medically necessity, and someone who was so dangerous he studied his Arabic homework in an airport was subjected to extra screening. Not able to find actual criminals, they pretended to find one by planting drugs to find in the bag of an innocent traveler as part of a "training exercise." But they failed to stop a fake federal marshal who was allowed through security with his firearm in order to place an unwilling passenger on a plane to another country.
Perhaps it is time to replace the TSA with an actual security agency, before the move to unionize the screeners gains any momentum.
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Top Two
Recently a political advertisement arrived in the mail from CAIVP - the California Independent Voter Project or California Independent Voter Network. They are an organization backing a "Top Two" initiative.
The proposal is to open the primaries to everyone, and then the two candidates who receive the most votes, regardless of party, will appear on the final election ballot. This means that in the final race the votes could be limited to just choosing between a Republican and a Democrat, or they could be limited to just choosing between two Republicans or between two Democrats.
CAIVP assures the voters that third parties will not be negatively impacted.
It is bad enough that this attacks free association, as the individuals in political parties have a right to say who they are and are not associated with, but the position put forth by CAIVP stands in stark contrast to reports by third parties in states where "top two" has been implemented. The effect has been to shut out Greens and Libertarians in the state of Washington except in races where there was no major party opposition to major party incumbents.
Even when someone claiming association with a third party did make it to the November ballot (as in the cases where there was no major party opposition) there really is a "purity of message" issue. A hard core libertarian could claim "Green" and thus dilute the message of the Green Party, and a hard core green could claim "Libertarian" and thus dilute the message of the Libertarian Party. It is bad enough that Libertarians have to deal with the No True Libertarian argument as well as other baseless accusations, this would truly make it impossible for third and minor parties to get their message out.
If reform is the goal, try attacking the obstacles to ballot access instead, or try attacking safe districts or campaign finance limits. Phony reform is not what is needed.
The proposal is to open the primaries to everyone, and then the two candidates who receive the most votes, regardless of party, will appear on the final election ballot. This means that in the final race the votes could be limited to just choosing between a Republican and a Democrat, or they could be limited to just choosing between two Republicans or between two Democrats.
CAIVP assures the voters that third parties will not be negatively impacted.
How will Top Two Candidates Open Primary impact third party candidates?
The Top Two Open Primary will level the playing field for third parties by allowing them to appeal to broader base of voters in the primary. Under the current election system, third parties have an extremely difficult time winning legislative, congressional and statewide elections. Only one third party candidate has served in the state legislature in modern California history. Under a Top Two Open Primary system, for example, a general election could conceivably pit a Democrat against a Green party candidate in San Francisco or a Republican and Libertarian candidate against each other in Orange County.
It is bad enough that this attacks free association, as the individuals in political parties have a right to say who they are and are not associated with, but the position put forth by CAIVP stands in stark contrast to reports by third parties in states where "top two" has been implemented. The effect has been to shut out Greens and Libertarians in the state of Washington except in races where there was no major party opposition to major party incumbents.
Even when someone claiming association with a third party did make it to the November ballot (as in the cases where there was no major party opposition) there really is a "purity of message" issue. A hard core libertarian could claim "Green" and thus dilute the message of the Green Party, and a hard core green could claim "Libertarian" and thus dilute the message of the Libertarian Party. It is bad enough that Libertarians have to deal with the No True Libertarian argument as well as other baseless accusations, this would truly make it impossible for third and minor parties to get their message out.
If reform is the goal, try attacking the obstacles to ballot access instead, or try attacking safe districts or campaign finance limits. Phony reform is not what is needed.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Don't Blame Proposition Thirteen
California is once again facing a budgetary shortfall, after the politicians managed to come up with a "fix" that balanced the state budget for a few more months. This has happened several times over the past year, and each time there is a predictable chorus of people blaming Proposition Thirteen for the inability of politicians to not spend more than is collected in taxes.
The first argument is that Proposition Thirteen makes it impossible to raise taxes. Given that in February of 2009 the largest state tax increase in the history of the United States was passed, that is truly an absurd argument to make. If Proposition Thirteen really did make it impossible, instead of merely more difficult, to raise taxes, the tax increase of 2009 would never have happened.
The other argument is that Proposition Thirteen somehow leads to minority rule. The problem with that argument should be obvious to everyone - two thirds is not a minority. If two thirds of politicians vote for something, a majority has voted for that something.
A more sophisticated version of that false argument is that the majority, in order to pass anything, the majority must convince part of the minority to vote with the majority, and this in a very weak way this results in minority rule. But in truth this once again is still majority rule, and if the minority under persuasion demands something the majority is unwilling to give that minority cannot pass anything - it is a minority.
The real reason there is a budget crisis is because those in government are unwilling to control their spending. The situation in California is identical to a person who continuously lives beyond his means and then blames his employer for not giving him enough money once the credit card bill is due. If an individual makes that argument, the absurdity of the claim is readily apparent.
But when a government official makes that claim, for some reason people actually take it seriously. Assemblywoman Noreen Evans made exactly that claim: "There is this mantra out there 'living within our means' and while it sound really nice it sounds really simple and it sound really responsible it's meaningless. Our means are completely within our control". It's not her fault that she approves spending far beyond what tax revenues will allow, it's the tax payers for not writing her a blank check.
She blames Proposition Thirteen for the lack of a blank check. The real reason there is no blank check is because they don't exist.
The first argument is that Proposition Thirteen makes it impossible to raise taxes. Given that in February of 2009 the largest state tax increase in the history of the United States was passed, that is truly an absurd argument to make. If Proposition Thirteen really did make it impossible, instead of merely more difficult, to raise taxes, the tax increase of 2009 would never have happened.
The other argument is that Proposition Thirteen somehow leads to minority rule. The problem with that argument should be obvious to everyone - two thirds is not a minority. If two thirds of politicians vote for something, a majority has voted for that something.
A more sophisticated version of that false argument is that the majority, in order to pass anything, the majority must convince part of the minority to vote with the majority, and this in a very weak way this results in minority rule. But in truth this once again is still majority rule, and if the minority under persuasion demands something the majority is unwilling to give that minority cannot pass anything - it is a minority.
The real reason there is a budget crisis is because those in government are unwilling to control their spending. The situation in California is identical to a person who continuously lives beyond his means and then blames his employer for not giving him enough money once the credit card bill is due. If an individual makes that argument, the absurdity of the claim is readily apparent.
But when a government official makes that claim, for some reason people actually take it seriously. Assemblywoman Noreen Evans made exactly that claim: "There is this mantra out there 'living within our means' and while it sound really nice it sounds really simple and it sound really responsible it's meaningless. Our means are completely within our control". It's not her fault that she approves spending far beyond what tax revenues will allow, it's the tax payers for not writing her a blank check.
She blames Proposition Thirteen for the lack of a blank check. The real reason there is no blank check is because they don't exist.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Government steals retirement funds
It is being reported that agencies with governmental power are considering mandating that people with retirement investments, either in IRAs or 401(k)s, convert part of their savings into government bonds for the purpose of making annuity payments. Allegedly this is to protect investors who have seen the value of their investments decline due to the decay of the housing bubble and the decay of the stock market.
China is unwilling to buy ever increasing amounts of government debt, and private investors are unwilling to buy debt at what amounts to a negative interest rate. The Federal Reserve cannot, at this point and for political instead of economic reasons, raise interest rates. So how will the government unload these toxic assets?
It is noted due to recent United States interactions with Switzerland, that the United States government is desperate for cash. Increased pressure on tax evaders will slightly slow but will not stop this crisis as the true cluprit is spending far in excess of what the government receives in tax reveues.
That leaves the government searching for what money is still available to be seized.
Those who are currently working are not using their retirement funds. They will not notice in the short run if those funds disappear. Eventually, when it is time to collect on the government debt that the retirement money was used to buy, it will become obvious that the funds are no longer there.
This would turn every retirement fund into Social Security, a pile of promises from the government to repay what has been taken, backed by no real value other than the potential of future taxes collected. It is well known that it is difficult for a person to live off of Social Security when retired, that a retiree must have either other savings or family that can be relied on. This move, if it happens, would eliminate the other savings.
The end result, should this pass, is to ensure that when it is time to retire, everyone who was saving will be poorer.
Sources:
Doug Casey on Lew Rockwell
Wendy McElroy
Seeking Alpha
Business Week
China is unwilling to buy ever increasing amounts of government debt, and private investors are unwilling to buy debt at what amounts to a negative interest rate. The Federal Reserve cannot, at this point and for political instead of economic reasons, raise interest rates. So how will the government unload these toxic assets?
It is noted due to recent United States interactions with Switzerland, that the United States government is desperate for cash. Increased pressure on tax evaders will slightly slow but will not stop this crisis as the true cluprit is spending far in excess of what the government receives in tax reveues.
That leaves the government searching for what money is still available to be seized.
Those who are currently working are not using their retirement funds. They will not notice in the short run if those funds disappear. Eventually, when it is time to collect on the government debt that the retirement money was used to buy, it will become obvious that the funds are no longer there.
This would turn every retirement fund into Social Security, a pile of promises from the government to repay what has been taken, backed by no real value other than the potential of future taxes collected. It is well known that it is difficult for a person to live off of Social Security when retired, that a retiree must have either other savings or family that can be relied on. This move, if it happens, would eliminate the other savings.
The end result, should this pass, is to ensure that when it is time to retire, everyone who was saving will be poorer.
Sources:
Doug Casey on Lew Rockwell
Wendy McElroy
Seeking Alpha
Business Week
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)