tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16172093582634727252024-03-13T08:56:06.107-07:00<Insert title here>Musings, thoughts, diatribes, etc. Strap in and hang on.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06820590356364863913noreply@blogger.comBlogger87125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1617209358263472725.post-34935564378729596512012-04-20T13:48:00.000-07:002012-04-20T13:48:33.290-07:00Tithing and taxesThis little gem found its way into my Facebook news feed recently:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I'm all for a flat tax. Everyone above the poverty level pays 10% of their total income. It sounds pretty damn fair to me. Yes, this includes corporations too. 10% is good enough for God, it should be good enough for our government. If it's not, then why does our government need more money than God?</blockquote>
Well, gee; it's not much of a flat tax if some are excluded from it, now is it? Taxes are nothing more than a way to <a href="http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0606b.asp">transfer wealth</a> from one group to another. Even this proposed system would do exactly that.<br />
<br />
That's not the point I wanted to make, though.<br />
<br />
What I want to make clear is that tithes and/or charity (in God's name) and taxes should never be conflated or confused with each other. Taxes are involuntarily expropriated via the threat of government force. God, on the other hand, makes no such threats against person or property for failing to give. Not only that, but He doesn't even require that you give to a middle man. Whether you buy a meal for someone in need or give to a church that does, it's the same.<br />
<br />
I'm certainly no theologian or saint, so take the following for what it's worth: Our (Christian) salvation is gained through the sacrifice that Christ made by dying on the cross and our belief in what He said about Himself, namely that He is Christ. Paul explains this in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202:8-9&version=NIV">Ephesians 2:8-9</a>, saying:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<sup>8</sup> For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— <sup>9</sup> not by works, so that no one can boast.</blockquote>
I say this to make the point that our salvation is not dependent upon our charity, and thus there is no "donate or go to hell"-type threat looming over Christians. Now, certainly, those who are saved will, by virtue of their salvation, by and large be found to be donating (time, money, etc.) to the church and/or charity as God has instructed them. However, given what Paul said, I find it hard to believe that failure to do works (i.e. give to charity) invalidates salvation. After all, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:23&version=NIV">Romans 3:23</a>).<br />
<br />
There are volumes that could be written about these subjects, and I'm not qualified to write them, although I did find this <a href="http://christianity.about.com/od/whatdoesthebiblesay/i/churchgiving.htm">article</a> instructive. In short, tithing and charity are voluntary; taxes are enforced through violence and/or the threat thereof. Never confuse the two.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06820590356364863913noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1617209358263472725.post-26789716995627602152012-04-16T11:00:00.001-07:002012-04-16T11:01:34.168-07:00Taxes for thee but not for meDavid Axelrod <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/2012/04/15/david-axelrod-and-ed-gillespie-talk-general-election-strategies">was on</a> Fox News Sunday this past weekend and was asked about President Obama's taxes which were released this past week. I found the <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/2012/04/15/david-axelrod-and-ed-gillespie-talk-general-election-strategies?page=2">exchange</a> over the Obamas' taxes very interesting and telling:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>(CHRIS) WALLACE:</b> It turns out that he [President Obama] paid a tax rate of
20.5 percent, which is a lot less than the 30 percent he talks about and
yes, it is lower than what his secretary pays.<br />
<br />
<b>AXELROD:</b> It is.<br />
<br />
<b>WALLACE:</b> And the president has -- if I may, David,
the question I have for you is: if the president feels so strongly about
tax fairness, is he going to he contribute money to the Treasury and
they have a special department just for this, to help with the deficit?<br />
<br />
<b>AXELROD:</b> Listen, Chris, first of all, the reason
that his tax rate was so low was in part because 22 percent of his
income was donated to charity, mostly to these Fisher Houses around
veteran hospitals. So --</blockquote>
At this point Wallace interrupted Axelrod to point out that Mitt Romney also contributes to charity. Axelrod agreed and then began to point out the differences between President Obama's tax proposal/plan and Governor Romney's. Wallace eventually returned to the original question:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>WALLACE:</b> I take it that he's [President Obama] not going to contribute money to the Treasury to help with the deficit.<br />
<br />
<b>AXELROD:</b> Listen, well, that's not the way we operate
our tax system, OK? We don't run bake sales. It's not about
volunteerism. We all kick in according to the system. And the system
allows that -- look, the fact that Mitt Romney pays 14 percent on $20
million income is not the issue. The issue is that the system permits it
and he would perpetuate that and he would enhance it.</blockquote>
On the one hand, let me say, "good on Obama". If, as libertarians, we believe that <a href="http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2011/08/is-state-criminal-conspiracy.html">taxes are theft</a>, then we ought to commend any attempt to avoid paying them just as we would any defense against other criminal actions. On the other hand, it seems disingenuous of the president to call for the rich (millionaires, specifically) to pay 30% or more of their income in taxes while conspicuously failing to do so himself because the "system" allows it. Perhaps, it would have been wise for Mr. Axelrod to raise the point that the Obamas did not earn over a million dollars last year, and therefore, would not be subject to the president's proposal(s). But he didn't. In fact, he went on to defend the president's <b>use</b> of the system to lower his tax rate -- he's just following the rules. Nevermind that those rules permit him to contribute more.<br />
<br />
There are a number of points raised by this story, all of which deserve a post of their own, but I don't have the time or energy to delve into each so deeply. Here they are, briefly and in no particular order:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Taxes are not voluntary and are collected at the end of a government gun.<br /><br />Axelrod admits as much when he says [emphasis mine], "that's not the way we operate
our tax system, OK? We don't run bake sales. <b>It's not about
volunteerism.</b> We all kick in according to the system." The only issue I take with his description is the use of the phrase "kick in". Stop enforcing tax laws; only then can we truly know how "voluntary" taxes really are.</li>
<br />
<li>No person should ever pay more than the "system" requires, the criminality of the system itself, notwithstanding.<br /><br />Obama's actions and Axelrod's defense of them (see the quote under the previous point) bear this out.</li>
<br />
<li>It's hypocritical to call out Mitt Romney for paying "only" 15% of his income in taxes.<br /><br />Governor Romney lives under the same tax system that President Obama does. Why is it okay for Obama to "kick in according the system" while Romney is vilified for doing exactly the same thing?</li>
<br />
<li>President Obama, himself, doesn't believe in his own tax proposal(s).<br /><br />As the Fox News story points out, Obama paid less in taxes, percentage-wise, than did his secretary. If he believes that a system in which this kind of "inequity" is allowed is "unfair", why wait for the system to change? Nothing is preventing him from correcting this particular injustice <b>right now</b>. Thus, <a href="http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/10/follow-money-part-1.html">we can infer</a> that correcting this problem is less important to him than keeping his own money.</li>
<br />
<li>Why are taxes proportional to income <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/109803.html">but not other</a> things, too?<br /><br />If taxes are what we pay for government goods and services, why don't rich people pay more for everyday goods and services like groceries and carwashes?</li>
<br />
<li>War is a racket.<br /><br />I note that the overwhelming majority of the Obamas' donations went to the <a href="http://www.fisherhouse.org/">Fisher House Foundation</a>. It's been funny (interesting, not ha-ha) for me to see people on the political right who hate Obama with a passion turn around and lavish praise on him for donating money to this organization. Their love of war and support of those who fight it seemingly knows no bounds.<br /><br />The politics obscures the absurdity of it all. Why does the government pay for war and the private sector pay for cleaning up the messes left by it?<br /> </li>
</ul>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06820590356364863913noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1617209358263472725.post-72451997772783989762012-04-06T09:35:00.003-07:002012-04-06T09:36:19.397-07:00Twitter accountAnyone know the owner of <a href="http://twitter.com/johntyner">@johntyner</a>? Any chance he or she would be willing to turn that account over to me?Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06820590356364863913noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1617209358263472725.post-56652092126883324572012-04-04T14:00:00.000-07:002012-04-04T14:27:43.031-07:00Distinction without differenceI've seen a lot of commentary over the last few days about the so-called "individual mandate" in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that discusses how the mandate is beyond the power(s) of the U.S. federal government and that the Supreme Court would be right to strike it down. Those same commentaries, however, then concede that the same federal government <i>does</i> have the authority to raise taxes and then use that money to provide health care, a la Social Security.<br />
<br />
Two thoughts immediately come to mind:<br />
<ol>
<li>If the commentary, as described above, is correct, why is there such an uproar about the mandate? If the federal government really does have the authority--assuming it does so via the "proper" means--to force health care on every person within its jurisdiction, wouldn't it be far less injurious to individual liberty to allow people to choose from which provider they will get their insurance and the terms of that insurance? Furthermore, wouldn't it be far more economically efficient if individuals purchased insurance for themselves, saving the cost--both monetary and bureaucratic--of the government having to hire more IRS agents to collect the money and more functionaries to manage it?</li>
<br />
<li>Isn't the real problem that the U.S. Constitution is all but worthless at this point? That is, if the mandate is such an affront to individual liberty, but the constitution allows the government to achieve the same ends via different means, what good is it as a protector of that liberty?</li>
</ol>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06820590356364863913noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1617209358263472725.post-74618800369903385902012-03-27T17:07:00.000-07:002012-03-27T17:19:36.015-07:00Unjust laws<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OFSQufQuM3c/T3HowA29RtI/AAAAAAAAAKs/to4GLHL2vr0/s1600/mlk.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OFSQufQuM3c/T3HowA29RtI/AAAAAAAAAKs/to4GLHL2vr0/s1600/mlk.jpg" /></a></div>
For some reason, today, the quote alongside the picture of Martin Luther King, Jr. got me thinking. The phrase "unjust laws", in particular, struck me. What is an unjust law? Who makes the determination?<br />
<br />
King's quote is not new. It was said before by Aquinas who was in turn drawing on <a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo">Augustine</a>, quoted as saying, "an unjust law is no law at all". I tend to agree with the sentiment, as I imagine most people would, but the rub occurs, of course, when trying to determine exactly which laws are "unjust". Based solely on this quote, it seems that King is suggesting that humans have the ability to determine for themselves what is just and what is unjust. If this is the case, then we can infer that laws are completely unnecessary in the first place. For if a law is unjust, then no one is obligated to follow it. If, on the other hand, it <i>is</i> just, then there was no need for the law in the first place because people would have acted accordingly on their own.<br />
<br />
This latter point is predicated on the idea that humans are, by and large, innately interested in living in a peaceful and just society. I believe this to be true simply <a href="http://mises.org/daily/2429">because society exists</a> at all, because<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
no social system, whether anarchist or statist,
can work at all unless most people are "good" in the sense that they are
not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If
everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or
private, could succeed in staving off chaos.</blockquote>
The idea of no laws probably conjures images in people's minds of masked marauders throwing Molotov cocktails in the streets. I'll make the leap of suggesting that this is <i>objectively</i> unjust. (I'm skipping ahead with that assumption, but we'll circle back.) In order to right this injustice, we need to haul the perpetrators into court and try them. Without laws, however, the court--whether by judge or jury--is helpless to judge the actions of the defendants. In fact, any judgment against them should probably be tossed on the grounds that it would be based on the imposition of an <a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ex+post+facto"><i>ex post facto</i></a> standard. Since the law didn't exist before the "crime" was committed, no one can be convicted of having broken it.<br />
<br />
But, look. We've tossed the conviction based on the idea of <i>ex post facto</i> laws being unjust, an idea clearly introduced into our theoretical justice system <i>ex post facto</i>. Clearly, we need laws, if only to codify what is (believed to be) just. Whether these laws must be promulgated by a single authority, the state, or whether society can <a href="http://mises.org/daily/5270">adopt them on its own</a> is the subject of another article. Instead, this article is concerned with the idea of (un)just laws.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas2.asp">Aquinas</a> doesn't leave us hanging, fortunately. He lists three things, all of which must be true, in order for the law to be "just":<br />
<ol>
<li>The law is created for the "common good".</li>
<li>The law does not exceed the authority of the lawmaker.</li>
<li>The law burdens all equally.</li>
</ol>
For the sake of completeness, Aquinas also describes a law as being <i>un</i>just if it is opposed to the "divine good". In this way, he is adding a fourth requirement that for a law to be just it must not oppose the "divine good" as dictated by Aquinas' particular religion. This point violates the third point if we wish to allow for the possibility of the existence of other religions or even the right of individuals to choose not to observe any religion. Therefore, this requirement must be rejected.<br />
<br />
Let us now consider the remaining requirements. First, the "common good". The phrase, itself, suggests that this "good" can be objectively known and that there is some good or end to which <i>all</i> people subscribe. The only end to which we can confidently assert that all people are working toward is the preservation of their own lives. We know this because any who are not working toward this end presumably would have killed themselves. Thus, any remaining people can objectively be said to value life over death. Therefore, all just laws must be made in the pursuance of the preservation of life.<br />
<br />
Second, we consider the authority of the lawmaker. This must start by determining from where this authority comes in the first place. The simplest way to do this is to conduct a thought experiment in which one person and subsequently two people exist in isolation from anyone else. This has been <a href="http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2011/08/is-state-criminal-conspiracy.html">covered</a> before. The conclusion of this experiment is that each person exclusively controls his/her body. If one of these two people is to become the lawmaker, he or she can only assume that role with the consent of the other. That is, a lawmaker's authority extends no further than that which is given by those who would be subject to it.<br />
<br />
Given this, we can now determine the extent of that authority. In practice, the lawmaker can have no more authority than any individual, for an individual cannot grant authority that he himself does not possess. It is worth noting that the logical extension of this is that two individuals have no more authority than one; nor four more than two; etc. In order to determine the limits of individual authority, we return to the thought experiment in which we've already concluded that each person has the exclusive right to control his or her body. In order to maintain this right, it is necessary that neither person engage in aggressive (as opposed to defensive) force against the other. This simple rule--the golden rule--is all that is necessary to maintain that <i>status quo</i>. Thus, the authority of the lawmaker is limited to the prevention of the violation of the exclusive control of bodies--the use of aggressive force--between a person or people against another person or people.<br />
<br />
Finally, there is the idea that the law, to the extent that it burdens any, must burden all equally. Given the narrow constraints on the law created by the first two requirements, equal burden of the law is not a topic that requires much, if any, investigation except to say that the law must apply to all, including the lawmaker. Failure to apply the law equally, such as it may be under the first two requirements, would be to allow an individual or individuals to act contrary to Aquinas' second provision, and as already discussed, this authority cannot properly be granted by anyone. If the discussion had turned to taxes, a debate could be had on the equality of burden created by progressive vs. flat tax systems, but the imposition of taxes by the law again falls outside of, at least, the second of Aquinas' first two requirements.<br />
<br />
To sum up, we find under Aquinas' "modified" requirements (remember, the fourth was dropped), that just laws must be enacted to preserve life; that the scope of these laws is limited to the prevention of the use of aggressive force between persons or peoples; and that all must be subject equally to said laws. (Having arrived at these requirements through the objective observations of human actions, we can now return to the earlier statement that the masked marauders throwing Molotov cocktails were acting "unjustly". To the extent that these actions are against people, they are objectively unjust. A discussion of the propriety of such actions with respect to "property" is purposely excluded from this article.) Given these limitations on the law, we are led to the (perhaps, not so) startling conclusion that nearly all laws on the books today are "unjust".Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06820590356364863913noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1617209358263472725.post-40193461330136838362012-01-13T21:21:00.000-08:002012-01-14T21:04:39.380-08:00Bruce Schneier <3's TSAYesterday, Bruce Schneier wrote a <a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/01/abolish_the_dep.html">blog post</a> about abolishing the Department of Homeland Security. It was based, in large part, on a <a href="http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13650">CATO report</a> calling for the same citing that<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
DHS has too many subdivisions in too many disparate fields to operate
effectively. Agencies with responsibilities for counterfeiting
investigations, border security, disaster preparedness, federal law
enforcement training, biological warfare defense, and computer incident
response find themselves under the same cabinet official. This arrangement has not enhanced the government's competence. Americans
are not safer because the head of DHS is simultaneously responsible for
airport security and governmental efforts to counter potential flu
epidemics.</blockquote>
Schneier agrees, citing his own <a href="http://www.schneier.com/essay-007.html">writing</a> from 2003:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Our nation may actually be less secure if the Department of Homeland
Security eventually takes over the responsibilities of existing
agencies. [...] Security is the responsibility of everyone in government. We won't
defeat terrorism by finding a single thing that works all the time.
We'll defeat terrorism when every little thing works in its own way, and
together provides an immune system for our society. Unless the DHS
distributes security responsibility even as it centralizes coordination,
it won't improve our nation's security.</blockquote>
But Schneier takes issue with CATO's suggestion, later in the above linked report, that the TSA should abolished. Instead, he believes <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
abolishing the TSA isn't a good idea. Airport security should be rolled
back to pre-9/11 levels, but someone is going to have to be in charge
of it. Putting the airlines in charge of it doesn't make sense; their
incentives are going to be passenger service rather than security. Some
government agency either has to hire the screeners and staff the
checkpoints, or make and enforce rules for contractor-staffed
checkpoints to follow.</blockquote>
It would be very easy, at this point, to attack Schneier on the basis that the TSA is a colossal failure. However, that TSA is not a failure of epic proportions is not what he is arguing. In fact, Schneier himself is the <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/the-things-he-carried/7057/?single_page=true">progenitor of the idea</a> that exactly "two things have made flying safer: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers". Furthermore, just this week, he penned an article calling the TSA <a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/01/the_tsa_proves.html">irrelevant</a>. So, let's look at exactly what he did say: that airline security should return to pre-9/11 levels with the government being in charge of it, either directly (government-hired goons staffing the checkpoints) or indirectly (private contractors acting under government regulation). If we hearken back to the pre-9/11 days, we find that his statement is redundant. Prior to 9/11, the government via the FAA <b>was</b> in charge of airline security, and what Schneier is suggesting is <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6944933/ns/us_news-security/t/report-faa-hadmany-warningsbefore-sept/">exactly how we arrived</a> -- ignoring the reason(s) <i>for</i> the attacks themselves -- at 9/11 in the first place.<br />
<br />
Before addressing Schneier's claim that putting the airlines in charge of airport security doesn't make sense, let's start with why his own solution doesn't make sense. First, there is the empirical evidence. As I just pointed out, 9/11 happened <b>on the government's watch</b>. While I agree that airline security should be rolled back to pre-9/11 levels, putting/leaving the government in charge of it is ludicrous, and the reason for that is that the government's interests do not align with that of the traveling public. Ostensibly, both care about flight safety. But in reality, as Schneier himself points out relentlessly, the TSA fails to provide this on any level. Just last month, a Vanity Fair writer explained how Schneier helped him <a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/12/tsa-insanity-201112">circumvent TSA security</a> to meet Schneier at the gate when his flight arrived. Then there's my own <a href="http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html">personal experience</a>: after leaving the screening area (without being screened), the TSA demanded that I return because they feared that I may have an explosive device on my person. Why would they usher me back to the most crowed area of the airport if they feared that I had explosives? In reality, the government's interest(s) lie in an ever increasing role in security. This provides, not an actual increase in security, but an ever increasing ability to <a href="http://thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/5240-getting-rich-from-the-naked-body-scanners">funnel money to favored contractors</a> and further ratchet up the police state apparatus for the same reason.<br />
<br />
The other reason that having the government in charge of airline security doesn't make sense is the same reason that letting the airlines manage their own security does: the <a href="http://mises.org/why_ae.asp">profit</a> and <a href="http://mises.org/daily/5654">loss</a> test. The basic idea is that when a business produces a product that consumers want at a cost that is less than what consumers are willing to pay, then the business profits. If any of these conditions are not met, the business suffers a loss. If the business does not change, then it goes out of business, government intervention notwithstanding.<br />
<br />
Let's apply this test to the government's handling of airline security. It is producing a product that consumers want, namely, security. It is producing it at a cost of approximately $8.8 billion per year according to the federal government's 2011 <a href="http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/budget_bib_fy2011.pdf">budget</a>. But this is where the profit and loss test ends for the TSA or any government entity. The profit and loss test requires that consumers of a product voluntarily pay or not pay for it. The government is funded via <a href="http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2011/08/is-state-criminal-conspiracy.html">compulsory taxation</a>. Therefore, the government need not concern itself with whether or not it is producing a product that people want or, more importantly, in a way that they want. That the government acts in exactly this way is borne out by reality. The TSA's <a href="http://www.dot.gov/bib2003/tsa.html">budget during its first full year</a> of funding in 2003 was $4.8 billion. It's current budget, only 8 years on, is a near 100% increase from that initial budget. This comes despite <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Administration#Criticisms">repeated TSA bungles</a> including <a href="http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/9335428/detail.html">sleeping</a> <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20080618075026/http://www.cnn.com/2003/TRAVEL/03/11/sleeping.screener.ap/index.html">on the</a> <a href="http://www.kitv.com/news/6692360/detail.html">job</a>, <a href="http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/passenger-removes-nipple-ring-with-pliers/2008/03/28/1206207352355.html">physically</a> <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2006-12-01-airport-screening_x.htm">harassing</a> passengers, allowing <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362184/TSA-worker-helped-drug-dealers-evade-security-checks-Buffalo-Airport.html">criminal activity</a> to bypass security, <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/20/tsa-theft-of-passenger-valuables-a-nationwide-problem/">stealing</a> from passengers... the list goes on and on. If the TSA was a private corporation, consumers would have put it out of business almost 10 years ago. Instead, its costs are higher than ever and rising with no end in sight. In fact, the TSA's only measurable goal is total security, something that requires an <a href="http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2011/01/cost-of-liberty.html">absolute police state</a>. Despite the desire on the part of the traveling public for total security, I'd wager that none would actually want to pay for it in terms of money or liberty required to implement said police state.<br />
<br />
Now we can return to Schneier's claim that putting airline security in the hands of the airlines makes no sense. He believes this because he thinks that the airlines' focus will be on passenger service instead of security. Somebody didn't think through his rationale, completely. Tsk, tsk. Security is part and parcel of the service provided by the airlines. No passenger is going to be concerned about a glass of soda and a bag of peanuts or that he didn't get a blanket and a fluffy pillow if his plane is commandeered or blown up by a terrorist. Not only that, but the loss of a plane costs an airline hugely. There is of course the capital loss of the plane and the fuel, but more than that, if the airline wants to stay in business it's not only going to have to beef up its security, but it is going to have to figure out how to prove to passengers that it had changed its ways so that they'd be willing to fly again. We see then, that the airlines' interests, unlike the government's, align perfectly with the traveling public. In addition, airlines carry insurance for their operations. This means that airlines want their operations to be safe and secure because they don't want their premiums to rise in the event of an accident, and the airlines' insurance companies have every incentive to pressure the airlines to keep their operations safe and secure lest the insurance company have to pay out a multi-million, possibly billion, dollar claim.<br />
<br />
"We can't trust the airlines", I hear you scream. "They're greedy capitalists!" Indeed they are, and that's exactly why the system would work. The airlines, unlike the government, cannot just take consumers' money to fund their operations. They must induce consumers to <i>voluntarily</i> give money to them. Thus, the airlines are subject to the profit and loss test described earlier. If the airlines provide too little security, passengers won't be willing to fly. The airlines will have saved some money by skimping on security, but the lack of income will ultimately result in losses. If they provide too much security, either the costs will drive ticket prices to a level that consumers are unwilling to pay, or consumers will find alternate means of travel because they find the security required by the airlines too onerous. In either event, the airlines will again find themselves losing money. In order to make money, the airlines will have to provide enough security to satisfy their passengers' desire for safety and their insurance companies' risk tolerance while not imposing so much security that passengers seek other airlines or other modes of travel entirely to avoid the costs and hassles.<br />
<br />
Astonishingly, a self-correcting and self-policing system like this hasn't taken hold. Part of the reason for this is human nature. Humans have demonstrated a surprising inability to correlate events with the likelihood of their occurrence. For example, very few people are concerned about choking to death on their own vomit. However, it turns out that one is <a href="http://libertyflair.com/all-products/libertyflairoriginals/the-risk-of-terrorism-poster/">9 times more likely</a> to die by this method than via an act of terrorism. This is a topic that Bruce Schneier has also <a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/11/perceived_risk_2.html">written about</a> repeatedly. Because of this, people always demand ever more security in the event of some kind of accident or attack. Normally, the costs of these demands would temper them somewhat, but this doesn't happen because of government involvement. This is the other reason that a free market system has not taken hold: the government provides <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard">moral hazard</a>. The airlines prefer that the government be involved because by using government provided security and/or standards, responsibility for security failures falls on the government, not the airlines. When something tragic occurs, the airlines can point to the government as the failure. Insurance companies are likewise not terribly worried about having to pay airline claims because the government has proven willing to bail them out. Even consumers are unwitting accomplices in this system because the costs of security have been separated from the cost of a ticket. Instead, these costs are (or would normally be) imposed as taxes, but even if one went looking for them, they would be difficult to find as the government has taken to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k">inflating the currency</a> in order to finance its operations. The increased costs of security are found in the rising prices of everyday items like milk, rent, electricity, and gasoline.<br />
<br />
The government's involvement in airline security is not only an abject failure but an impediment to allowing a free(d) market to discover what the people really want when it comes to airline security. Bruce Schneier is a smart guy, and he's one of the TSA's harshest critics. He's written extensively about security and the trade-offs made in its name; he's no stranger to economics, especially when it comes to security. In light of this, I can only conclude from his desire to keep the government involved in airline security that he secretly loves the TSA.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06820590356364863913noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1617209358263472725.post-64071539896063687162012-01-05T12:09:00.000-08:002012-01-05T12:09:42.720-08:00Who's still standing?This morning I was reading a <a href="http://volokh.com/2012/01/04/georgia-administrative-law-judge-allows-case-challenging-president-obamas-qualification-to-go-forward/">story</a> on the Volokh Conspiracy about how a judge in Georgia has allowed a lawsuit challenging Obama's listing on that state's presidential election ballot. A sentence in the middle of the article caught my attention:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Similar challenges have generally been rejected on procedural grounds,
such as on the grounds that plaintiffs lack standing to sue because they
have no greater stake in the matter than any other citizen. Generally
speaking, federal courts have concluded that in such cases where the
plaintiff doesn’t have a particularized stake in the matter, the
resolution even of constitutional controversies should be left to the
political process and not to courts.</blockquote>
This reminded me of the Kucinich <a href="http://volokh.com/2011/10/23/war-powers-suit-dismissed/">lawsuit</a> against Obama claiming the latter's <a href="http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2011/03/demise-of-rule-of-law.html">violation of the War Powers Act</a> in sending forces to Libya in early 2011. This lawsuit was dismissed for a similar reason -- lack of standing:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Judge Walton held the members of Congress lacked standing to bring the
challenge, as they had ample legislative means at their disposal to
oppose the President’s use of military force.</blockquote>
I haven't read the decision in this case, but I suspect that the judge's decision rested, at least partially, on the "political question" doctrine. This is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_question#Origin">idea</a> that the judicial branch should "avoid inserting itself into conflicts between branches of the federal government" and that "some questions [are] best resolved through the political process". This strikes me as incorrect, as it should be justiciable as to whether or not the president's actions were in accordance with the War Powers Act (or whether that act is itself constitutional). But I digress.<br />
<br />
The point is that if the government breaks the law (in a general enough way), it would seem that no one has standing to challenge that action. Say the executive branch eavesdrops on <i>everyone's</i> communications, in clear violation of the fourth amendment, and that this is readily provable and a potential court case is not subject to being tossed under the <a href="http://www.aclu.org/national-security/background-state-secrets-privilege">state secrets doctrine</a>. It seems that the case would still be tossed under the theory that everyone is equally harmed/oppressed, so none have standing to challenge. Furthermore, Congess is powerless here (via the courts) for the same reason Kucinich was unable to stop Obama's action in Libya: Congress has "ample legislative means at their disposal to oppose the President", namely defunding and impeachment.<br />
<br />
But defunding and impeachment are themselves political, not judicial actions. They require the votes of members that (may) have an interest in the outcome of these actions that is not necessarily aligned with upholding the constitution or the laws or even the interests of justice. The entire idea underlying the court system is that it is comprised of impartial, disinterested officials. (Whether or not this is true in practice is a separate matter.) The executive and legislative branches are explicitly <b>not</b> comprised of such people. If the court is unwilling to get involved, then we must resign ourselves to the idea that the law is whatever the majority of the Congress says it is (or fails to say that it isn't).<br />
<br />
While this may be comforting to some, in that these officers are (in theory) the "people" themselves, democracy is <a href="http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-democracy.html">no panacea</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But what <a href="http://mises.org/daily/4739">kind of person</a> runs
for public office? Madison failed to foresee that even the so-called
"separation of powers" could not restrain men forever. Entry into
politics does not require any particular skill or morality. It simply
requires some combination of money, connections, personality, and a
desire to rule others, particularly the last one. In fact, that last
reason is probably the main reason that anyone runs for office. The idea
that the world would be a better place if <insert here="" name="" your="">
was in charge is probably not foreign to anyone. To succeed in
government, however, involves backroom deals and "compromises" ensuring
that only the least moral and most willing to deal away their principles
will rise to the top. Thus, government will ultimately be populated
with the worst people in society, and it is only a matter of time before
they decide to work together to turn their legal authority to use force
on the people themselves.</insert></blockquote>
It would seem that we are inexorably on a path to this end in which we will be ruled by the oligarchs in office and their benefactors or by the "people" both of which, in practice, believe that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_law">positive law</a> is superior to and therefore trumps <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law">natural law</a>. No matter which prevails, one thing is certain: it's not going to be pleasant.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06820590356364863913noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1617209358263472725.post-39830974162604075932012-01-02T21:09:00.000-08:002012-01-02T21:09:44.434-08:00Father(land) knows bestHere in California, a slew of <a href="http://www.pe.com/local-news/politics/jim-miller-headlines/20111230-laws-new-year-brings-new-laws.ece">new laws</a> went into effect yesterday, and many of them seem to have to do with children. New laws add additional regulations to what children can eat (child care centers, which serve up to 1.2 million children, can provide only unflavored nonfat or low-fat milk and beverages that lack added sweeteners), where they can spend their money (people under the age of 18 cannot use ultraviolet tanning devices (even with parents' permission)), and how they can travel:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Many young car passengers, meanwhile, will have to get back in the booster seat Sunday under legislation signed in October. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The law requires kids to be in booster seats until they are at least 8 years old or 4 feet, 9 inches or taller. Since 2002, children have had to ride in booster seats until they are 6 years old or 60 pounds.</blockquote>
Note the first sentence... "will have to get <b>back</b> into the booster seat". Yes, that's right, a 6 or 7 year old who graduated from the nanny state's previous overbearing protection, who has safely ridden with a regular seat belt for possibly a year or more, has suddenly found him/herself in grave danger. Overnight, without warning, and by state decree, the world has once again become unsafe. What was legal (and safe) yesterday is illegal (and unsafe) today. Funny how that works, isn't it?<br />
<br />
What's even more interesting is that <a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_929&sess=1112">SB 929</a> was signed by the same man who, only three months earlier, <a href="http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/09/helmet-bill-veto-jerry-brown.html">vetoed SB 105</a>, saying, "Not every human problem deserves a law." For those unaware, <a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_105&sess=1112">SB 105</a> would have criminalized the act of skiing or snowboarding by a minor without a helmet. Given the intellectual inconsistency between the passage of SB 929 and the veto of SB 105, one might be given to believe that companies like <a href="http://www.thebellstore.com/Helmets/snow.html">Bell</a> and <a href="http://www.giro.com/us_en/snow/snow-helmets.html">Giro</a> simply missed their opportunity to "grease the palm" of government. Fortunately, companies like <a href="http://www.gracobaby.com/catalog/pages/carseat.aspx?catid=10:41||1">Graco</a> and <a href="http://www.britaxusa.com/car-seats">Britax</a> can rest easy knowing that the state is coercing consumers via the force of law into buying their products for at least two more years.<br />
<br />
It's amazing to me that people will cry out when forced to purchase health insurance at the end of a government gun but see no trouble with imposing the purchase of car seats in the same manner. It's for the children, though! I mean, isn't it? Maybe not. For 7 years, at least, the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/magazine/10FREAK.html">data have been staring everyone in the face</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The answer can be found in a trove of government data called the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), which compiles police reports on all fatal crashes in the U.S. since 1975. These data include every imaginable variable in a crash, including whether the occupants were restrained and how. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Even a quick look at the FARS data reveals a striking result: among children 2 and older, the death rate is no lower for those traveling in any kind of car seat than for those wearing seat belts. There are many reasons, of course, that this raw data might be misleading. Perhaps kids in car seats are, on average, in worse wrecks. Or maybe their parents drive smaller cars, which might provide less protection. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But no matter what you control for in the FARS data, the results don't change. In recent crashes and old ones, in big vehicles and small, in one-car crashes and multiple-vehicle crashes, there is no evidence that car seats do a better job than seat belts in saving the lives of children older than 2. (In certain kinds of crashes -- rear-enders, for instance -- car seats actually perform worse.)</blockquote>
If you're still not convinced that these laws serve no useful purpose except to enrich the companies that make the products that consumers are compelled to buy, then you need look no further than an earlier excerpt from the same article:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Perhaps the single most compelling statistic about car seats in the NHTSA manual was this one: ''They are 54 percent effective in reducing deaths for children ages 1 to 4 in passenger cars.'' </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But 54 percent effective compared with what? The answer, it turns out, is this: Compared with a child's riding completely unrestrained.</blockquote>
You read that right; in order to scare you into compliance, the government compares the effectiveness of child car seats, not against the effectiveness of seat belts, but against that of riding in a car completely unrestrained! The data show that car seats are no more effective than seat belts for children over 2 and in some cases can actually be worse. Why then is the government pushing car seats onto the populace for another 6 years?! Whether totalitarianism or corporatism, I'll leave for you to decide. One thing is for certain, however; it is <b>not</b> for your benefit.<br />
<br />
<br />Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06820590356364863913noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1617209358263472725.post-90647383722238699722011-12-27T10:06:00.000-08:002011-12-27T10:08:19.183-08:00Eyesores vs. Property Rights in a Libertarian SocietyNon-libertarians love to come up with ideas about how, in a libertarian society, some ill would occur which (in their mind(s)) cannot be corrected without the violent force of government. Eyesores -- the kind of blight upon a neighborhood that lowers property values -- were recently considered at <a href="http://www.libertariannews.org/2011/12/24/dealing-with-eyesores-in-an-anarcho-capitalist-society/">Libertarian News</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The way [an eyesore] would be dealt with, in the absence of home owners associations, state regulations, zoning restrictions, etc…, is through the homesteading principle. Private law courts would basically look at who was there first and decide based on the homesteading principle. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Consider this example: </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
If a person owns a home in a nice neighborhood and a pig farmer decides he’s going to setup shop across the street from them, private law courts would uphold any eyesore/smell complaints brought by that homeowner as being legitimate. However, if a person buys a home across the street from a pig farm, then comes to the courts to complain about the eyesore/smell of the farm, the courts would not recognize that complaint as being legitimate. The homeowner bought the home in full knowledge of the condition of the environment around it and agreed to purchase the home at that price, which would surely be at a bargain because of the pig farm.</blockquote>
This homesteading principle applies to all businesses and homes. If a person moves in next door and starts destroying their lawn and putting junkers up on blocks in the front yard, their neighbors have a legitimate right to sue for property value damages if the previous condition of the lot was in good upkeep.</blockquote>
I don't think this is right at all. The first (and probably least costly) mistake, in my mind, is lumping homeowners associations in with state regulations and zoning restrictions. The latter are imposed by the state; the former is usually structured as a private corporation owned and run by the homeowners themselves -- one which would fall completely within the homesteading principle as the author describes it. It is very rare for someone to buy a home and have an association <i>imposed</i> on the property at some later date. Rather, the homeowners association is, almost without exception, the prior existing entity. In this situation, the prospective owner chooses to enter an agreement with the association upon buying a the property, or he selects a different property. The source and legitimacy of homeowners associations' power are of course muddied by state interference; however, for the purpose of this discussion, they can be considered to be completely private, voluntary entities relying solely on contract enforcement to achieve their ends. Inasmuch as this is the case, it is clear that there is at least one means by which eyesores can be dealt with in the absence of state regulation.<br />
<br />
The more egregious mistake in the original article is in declaring that property owners have a right or ownership in the <i>value</i> of their property. One of the commenters to the original article jumped on this point:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Nobody has a right to the _value_ of their property, since value is subjective and exists in people's heads. Consider the entrepreneur who creates a brilliant new mode of transport, he hasn't infringed on the rights of car manufacturers, even though his invention has harmed the market price of the cars they're trying to sell. The same is true of the person who decorates his property in a way his neighbor disapproves of--absent a contractual breach, he hasn't infringed on anyone's rights.</blockquote>
And the author conceded the point:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Yeah, you are right that pollution needs to be some kind of physical violation of their property's integrity.</blockquote>
I'm actually not surprised by this mistake. It took me a day of thinking to figure out exactly where the fallacy was. What tipped me off to it, though, was the authors use of the homesteading principle to solve the problem. For those unfamiliar with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle">homesteading principle</a>, it is the idea that one becomes the rightful owner of some previously unowned property (land) by "mixing his labor" with it. In the author's example, the prior landowner had some amount of veto authority over the latecomer. Using the idea of homesteading, this implies that the prior landowner/homesteader gains not only an interest in the land with which he <i>actually</i> mixes his labor but also in the surrounding land. Not only that, but his interest in the surrounding areas would have to be superior to the latecomer(s) by virtue of the fact that he (apparently) has veto authority over what the latecomer would do with his property. If we follow this line of reasoning further, we'd eventually find that the prior owner could restrict the latecomers free speech rights by declaring that political placards/signs were offensive, freedom of expression by vetoing his choice of color to paint his house, and possibly even his choice of Ford vs. Chevy.<br />
<br />
Property rights must be (nearly) absolute as they are the basis for the idea that one owns his own body, the only restriction being that one does not use his property rights to violate another's. And, as I've often heard Stephen Kinsella <a href="http://c4sif.org/2011/11/the-petition-to-stop-internet-censorship-and-the-great-firewall-of-america/">say</a>, "genuine rights cannot conflict". Therefore, either the latecomer doesn't really own his property -- and, by extension, the first owner owns not only his own land but also has controlling interest in all of the surrounding land -- or the first owner does not really have a right/ownership in the <i>value</i> of his property. I reject the first proposition simply on the basis of the homesteading principle. This owner has not "mixed his labor" with his neighbor's property. Furthermore, assuming the implications of the original author's description of homesteading, there is no logical end to the amount of land to which the first owner could lay claim. This solution is simply unworkable.<br />
<br />
We are then left, as the quoted commenter points out, with the idea that there is no ownership in the value of property. This, in my opinion is the correct view. Values are subjective and therefore exist individually only in the minds of the people attempting to appraise the value of an object. As such, attempting to fix or determine a value by law or decree is essentially a form of (attempted) thought control. For more on this subject, Rothbard gives the ownership of "ideas" a thorough treatment in <a href="http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/sixteen.asp">chapter 16</a> of The Ethics of Liberty.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06820590356364863913noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1617209358263472725.post-66898162498388084902011-12-02T09:40:00.001-08:002011-12-02T11:29:16.116-08:00Where's the beef (with capitalism)?Over at <a href="http://georgedonnelly.com/">Arm Your Mind for Liberty</a>, a <a href="http://georgedonnelly.com/libertarian/my-beef-with-capitalism-in-a-nutshell">recent article</a> takes issue with capitalism. I read this article with great interest because (I assume) it grew out of a discussion between myself and the author as well as some others regarding capitalism. When I read it, though, I couldn't find that the "beef" is really with capitalism at all. Before going too much further, we should probably start with a (common) definition of capitalism, but I'm not going to attempt to define capitalism in great detail. It seems that if you ask ten different people, you'll get ten different answers about what capitalism means to them as the linked article states:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
‘Capitalism’ is a funny word. It means so many different things to so
many different people, that it’s become entirely useless as a basis for
any kind of rational or constructive communication. [...] Some will mention wage labor, others exploitation and yet others will
talk of free trade. But I think the defining feature is the ability to
accumulate lots and lots and lots of <b>stuff</b> (capital).</blockquote>
Fair enough. The ability to accumulate lots (and lots and lots) of stuff, or capital, is most assuredly a characteristic of capitalism and, as we will see, the article's main problem with it, so let's focus our attention there. Before we do so, the original article takes a slight detour:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
And then, most importantly, [a characteristic of capitalism is] to have a third party protect your ability
to control that stuff even when you’re not using it. That third party,
of course, is the state (the government). [...] Without this ability to accumulate and have your title to said stuff
protected at little to no cost to yourself, things like wage labor,
exploitation and managed trade could not happen. These all depend on the
power imbalances that stem from the state protecting capitalists’
control of their property.</blockquote>
Whoa, wait just a minute! Now, we're not talking about capitalism any more. We're talking about a state-directed ("managed trade") and state-enforced ("stuff protected at little or no cost to yourself", presumably via taxation on the whole population and "power imbalances" in the form of state-chartered police and enforcement mechanisms) economic system, our current system, what many call crony-capitalism. So, we can already see that the author's problem is not with capitalism, per se, but with crony-capitalism and the state enforcement of it. The author continues by stating that he doesn't "think capitalism would survive without the state".<br />
<br />
But we're not talking about capitalism any more. We're talking about the state. The author offers no evidence or theories as to why capitalism cannot or will not exist without a state other than to say, "I don’t think a non-aggressive organization will go to the same lengths as the state to protect property". This is <a href="http://www.libertariannews.org/2011/11/23/shock-statistic-americans-freely-spend-twice-the-amount-on-private-security-vs-police/">demonstrably false</a>, however:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Just think for a moment about the following:<br />
<ul>
<li>Who is responsible for protecting you at most major shopping centers? Ever see a private mall cop? I bet you have.</li>
<li>How about casinos? Almost all casinos have private armed security.</li>
<li>What about at the dance club? Ever see a bouncer throw out a belligerent drunk?</li>
<li>What about at the university? You’d be hard pressed to tell the difference between a public safety officer and a cop. Many universities have private police forces.</li>
<li>How about warehouses, ports and apartment complexes? It is not uncommon to have private security guards protecting all of those. My apartment complex has its own security.</li>
<li>Airports used to be entirely protected by private security – and guess what? No one was complaining about being molested. Further, after 9/11, it was the airlines who made real improvements to security by putting in steel cockpit doors and arming the pilots.</li>
<li>Banks? - Almost all bank cash transfers are dealt with by way of private armored car, and many banks have private armed security as well.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
Now I've been drawn into a digression about capitalism on a larger scale. Let's return to the accumulation of stuff in the original article and look at an example provided by the author describing his issue with it: "if someone fences off 1,000 acres of land but consistently uses only 2, I don’t consider that legitimate". This situation draws its basis from the Lockean idea of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle">homesteading</a>, that one becomes an owner of land by "mixing" his labor with it. I'm not going to argue whether fencing 1,000 acres constitutes a mixing of labor. A debate on such a matter is not likely easily resolved.<br />
<br />
Instead, what if we arrived at this situation differently, voluntarily? Let's assume two people and call them A and B. Each of them own 501 acres (via legal means, homesteading or otherwise) and farm the entirety of their respective plots. A and B both consume only what they need to survive and sell the rest of their produce into the marketplace. A saves the proceeds from his sales under his mattress while B spends his money on vacations and house keepers and other consumable goods and services. (One has to wonder, at this point, if B has a claim to A's money since storage under A's mattress is not "productive" use in B's mind.) At some point, bad weather conditions befall A and B. A, having saved his money, is able to buy what he needs from the marketplace, but B has nothing. Seeing B's plight, A offers to use some of the rest of his savings to buy 499 acres of B's land. B, needing to feed himself and his family, reluctantly agrees. Now A owns 1,000 acres, and B owns 2. We've arrived at the evil capitalist situation described by the author in the original article, but we've arrived by completely legal and voluntary means.<br />
<br />
Let's assume that A, having just bought the land and exhausting much of his savings, does not have the capacity to expand his farming operations into his newly acquired 499 acres. When the weather improves, does B have a legal right to reacquire the land, via homesteading? What if B had kept the land but sold his farming equipment to A to pay for his food? Now that B is incapable of farming his land (and has no reasonable prospects for doing so since he has no farming equipment and no savings with which to buy any), can A also freely acquire B's land under the homesteading principle?<br />
<br />
The author of the original article seems to think so: "If someone needed land and had a solid intention to use it to sustain
his life, I would support that person in any attempt to homestead a
reasonable parcel out of the 1,000 acres". B, in our example, has every "intention to use [the land] to sustain
his life" as well as others'. The author goes so far as to suggest that force is an appropriate means to affect this outcome:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In a stateless society, people would be freer to rise up against people
who attempt to control more property than they actually use. Acting in
concert, great numbers of people could, in the worst case, purchase
arms, form a defense force and fight capitalists on a more level playing
field. Squatters, worker-owned cooperatives and similar direct actors
would take control of more of the capitalists’ property. In the process,
their power would be eaten away.</blockquote>
In fact, A has saved B's life as well as his family's, and in return B should have the right to use violent force to take back from A what was voluntarily given/traded (by B himself!) to A? What the author is suggesting is either a clear violation of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle">non-aggression principle</a> or will require a state, with a legal monopoly on the use of violence, to forcibly give A's land to B.<br />
<br />
The only other argument in favor of what the original author is suggesting hinges on the word "reasonable". Perhaps 1,000 acres is an "unreasonable" amount. Much like the hypothetical debate about homesteading to which I alluded earlier, a common definition of what is "reasonable" is not easily resolved. As an <a href="http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=506235">example</a>, here are a bunch of pro-gun people on a pro-gun forum disagreeing about what "reasonable" gun laws would look like. At any rate, the example I gave above works with any sized parcel of land. In fact it becomes even more difficult to reason out on a smaller scale. Consider if A and B each owned two acres and A bought 1 acre from B. A is in a much better position to farm an additional 1 acre than he is an additional 499. What if A incrementally continues the process, voluntarily acquiring parcels from C, D, E, etc. in a similar manner? When does the amount of land that A owns become "unreasonable"? Does the situation change if A rents the land back to B, C, D, E, etc.? Who makes that decision and who enforces it? What authority does this entity have when A can show that his property was acquired legally? None, according to the author of the original article: "If a person prospers legitimately, I have no basis to challenge any accumulation of wealth." Wait, what? Does B have a claim to A's legitimate accumulation of wealth (in the form land) or not?<br />
<br />
In short, capitalism, true capitalism, is not an economic system that is imposed on anyone. It is an economic system that arises from, or rather is the result of, voluntary interactions in a truly free society. In fact, the economic system proposed in the original article is not only incoherent but, in the author's own words, requires violent enforcement. I suggest that the author's "beef" is not with capitalism but with a free and voluntary society.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06820590356364863913noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1617209358263472725.post-19567007318618807832011-11-03T12:08:00.000-07:002011-11-03T12:09:21.497-07:00Torture instead of prison<a href="http://www.law.upenn.edu/cf/faculty/lkatz/">Leo Katz</a> has been <a href="http://volokh.com/author/leokatz/">blogging</a> over at the <a href="http://volokh.com/">Volokh Conspiracy</a> this week. He's written a book called <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Why-Law-Perverse-Leo-Katz/dp/0226426033">Why the Law Is So Perverse</a>, and Volokh is giving him the opportunity to pimp it by writing about subjects covered within it. Today, he posted an entry entitled <a href="http://volokh.com/2011/11/03/the-problem-of-voluntary-torture/">The Problem of Voluntary Torture</a> in which he lays out the following (imaginary) proposal:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Imagine the following proposal by a wild-eyed legislator for making our criminal justice system more efficient. “The point of punishment is pain,” he explains.”Obviously. Without pain, we don’t get deterrence and we don’t get retribution. But prison happens to be a very expensive pain delivery system. There is a much cheaper one which for some reason we haven’t really adequately considered. Instead of making a prisoner’s life moderately painful for a prolonged period of time, which is what prison does, why not just make it intensely painful for a very short period of time: a lot of pain, but for a short duration—that should give us as much retribution and deterrence as before but at a fraction of the cost.”</blockquote>
He then gives his own opinion of it:<br />
<blockquote>
I view the deal the legislator is suggesting we offer each prisoner as the quintessential win-win transaction. Everyone is better off. The prisoners (though only marginally so, to be sure) and society at large which now has to pay only a fraction of what it used to have to pay for deterrence and retribution. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Nevertheless, like most other people, I would not for a moment contemplate seriously adopting the legislator’s proposal. The question is why?</blockquote>
In answering his own question, he assumes the win-win nature of the proposal to be a given and then argues that there are valid reasons for certain kinds of mutually beneficial arrangements to be prohibited including "force or fraud or incompetence or bad effects on third parties", none of which, he admits, are applicable in this case. Ultimately, he concludes "that some other as yet unidentified reason must be at work here". He, of course, will explain this in another post or, for the impatient reader, already does in his book which the reader is invited to purchase.<br />
<br />
First, Mr. Katz' belief that this proposal, despite his reticence to implement it, is a win-win is spectacularly incorrect. Given his starting point, the current prison system, it's not hard to see why he went wrong. Society already already pays a great price to imprison criminals. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the U.S. <a href="http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/exptyptab.cfm">spend almost $75 billion</a> per year to house inmates. States vary widely on costs, but with the prison population hovering a little under 3 million, the average is just over $23,000 per inmate per year. Just imagine if instead society tortured these individuals mercilessly for a few days or a week or even a month! If the costs scale linearly, then society would pay less than $2,000 per inmate per <i>incarceration</i>, and surely torture would provide enough deterrent to keep prisoners from committing their crimes again.<br />
<br />
The obvious problem with this is that torture is not simply a physical act that ends when the pain subsides. It is also has psychological components, and both of these have <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=psychological+effects+of+torture">long lasting effects</a>. Nor are these effects limited to the recipients of this torture. Imagine being an employee at a facility that offers this type of "correction". It would be like watching the Saw movies back-to-back-to-back for at least 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, only the characters are real people, and there is no way to turn off the movie. Employees of such a facility would, in the end, suffer just as much -- probably more -- than the prisoners themselves. Imagine further those actually charged with carrying out the torture as a regular profession. We would literally have to find the worst of the worst of society -- worse than the prisoners themselves -- train those people to become perfect in their craft, and then pay them to carry out the most heinous acts that one human being could commit against another. That, I submit, is not a society.<br />
<br />
Exposing the sheer insanity of this proposal has probably been a waste of time given that even Mr. Katz is against it. But the fact that it is even brought up is incredibly ironic, given the reaction to the idea of torturing prisoners. Mr. Katz, like the rest of the population, doesn't fully comprehend the nature of the prison system even though he mentions it a number of times in his post. It is so ingrained in most people's minds that they don't even see it. Look back to the "wild-eyed" legislator's first words:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“The point of punishment is pain,” he explains.”Obviously. Without pain, we don’t get deterrence and we don’t get retribution.</blockquote>
The purpose of the prison system is to punish, and "the point of punishment is pain". If we accept this premise, then society is already engaging in torture of a more mild variety. A variation on an old <a href="http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/what_kind_of_woman_do_you_take_me_for_madam_weve_already_established_that_c/">joke</a> springs to mind:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A: Should society imprison criminals?<br />B: Absolutely.<br />A: Should society torture criminals?<br />B: Absolutely not; what kind of society would that be?<br />A: We've already established that; now we're just seeing how far it will go.</blockquote>
Back to the legislator's words, the point of punishment is pain and the point of pain is deterrence and retribution. Deterrence is well and good, but the fundamental problem with the prison system is the retribution. When someone commits a crime, the justice system metes out retribution. Who benefits from this retribution? Only the justice system -- and, to an extent, the prisoner -- benefits. The victim doesn't benefit in any tangible way. Whatever damage may have been done is not repaired, nor is the victim compensated (over and above the actual damages) for the "inconvenience" of being victimized. Nor does society benefit since society has to pay for the trial and incarceration of the criminal. Furthermore, it has to deal with the effects of prison on the criminal (no marketable job skills, inability to function in the "real world") when the criminal has finally served his/her time and is released. But the justice system benefits as money must be poured into it to house an ever growing number of inmates. And while incarceration is certainly no picnic, the incarcerated "enjoy" 3 meals, a bed, and a roof over their heads at the victims' expense.<br />
<br />
What if, instead, the criminal justice system focused on restitution instead of retribution? First, a number of crimes would simply disappear. If police picked up a prostitute, to whom would he/she pay restitution? In order to answer that, we would have to pinpoint the damages caused of which there are none. The same goes for someone getting high in his garage. Second, victims, instead of the justice system would be compensated for the commission of a criminal act. This is obviously straightforward in the case of crimes involving money or things that can easily be assigned a monetary value. The victim is repaid his loss plus some extra as compensation for the inconvenience and to serve as deterrence of future crime on the aggressor's part. It seems less straightforward in the event of non-monetary damages like physical violence, but this should not be so. Society has already decided how long a prison sentence should be based on murder, manslaughter, physical violence, etc.; it is not a far leap to think that money could be substituted for time. And what of failure to abide by a sentence? Imagine if when someone refused to obey the law and by extension punishment for breaking it, society simply refused to extend the <i>protections</i> of the law to that person? This is what a criminal justice system in a voluntary society, one without an entity granted the legal ability to use force might look like.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06820590356364863913noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1617209358263472725.post-7060583957614676382011-10-27T10:44:00.000-07:002011-10-28T09:21:26.465-07:00Climate change denial != science-averseI just watched this clip from last night's Daily Show:<br />
<br />
<embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" base="." flashvars="" height="288" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:400762" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512"></embed>
<br />
<br />
Another <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-26-2011/weathering-fights">segment</a> of this show was devoted to poking fun at various pundits' criticism of science and scientists. Putting this interview in the context of that previous segment sheds a little more light on Mr. Stewart's apparent confusion about the "resistance" to science. The reason is apparently that climate change deniers are all crazy, liars, or idiots or possibly all of the above.<br />
<br />
Let me suggest another alternative: people don't want more government intervention. Assuming for a second that climate change is real and further that it is man-made (thus implying that it is man-reversible), then the logical next step is government intervention to combat this scourge. This likely entails more regulations on emissions which means increased costs for fuel and cars, government subsidies to "green" businesses which means gambling tax dollars on politically connected businesses, and limitations on production of goods considered to be non-"green" or produced via non-"green" methods which means violation of property rights.<br />
<br />
My point is that climate change "deniers" are not necessarily science averse. Their reticence to accept it may be based more on a desire to prevent greater government intervention or simply on the idea that climate change better be really "for-damn-sure" before government guns are used to forcefully reorganize society around its implications.<br />Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06820590356364863913noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1617209358263472725.post-68886135495961209602011-10-11T12:57:00.000-07:002011-10-11T13:06:16.481-07:00How quickly we forgetI received an email containing a number of complaints about the current administration. On the theory that, in reality, this administration is no different from the last, or any other for that matter, I present the following.<br />
<br />
<i>If any other of our presidents had doubled the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?</i><br />
<blockquote>
When Clinton left office, the federal debt stood at 5.8 trillion. Bush increased this to 10.4 trillion by the time he left office. The current federal debt as of the government's last fiscal year stood at 11.9 trillion. Bush <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms">doubled the debt</a>, not Obama.</blockquote>
<i>If any other of our presidents had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?</i><br />
<blockquote>
In Bush's last year in office, the federal government spent 3.1 trillion dollars. The federal government spent 3.09 trillion in the last fiscal year on record, a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms">2.4% decrease</a> from Bush's last year.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
One also has to remember that Bush refused to make the wars part of his budget and continually funded them through emergency funding measures. So, any claims that Bush was going to <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18672648">balance the budget</a> are without merit.</blockquote>
<i>If any other of our presidents had criticized a state law that he admitted he never even read, would you think that he is just an ignorant hot head?</i><br />
<blockquote>
"As a governor, he did not appreciate the federal government stepping in, telling states what to do," Fleischer said. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Later, he <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2002/sep/24/local/me-cell24">amended his comments</a>: "The president believes that all policies, state or federal, need to respect the culture of life. He differs with Gov. Davis on this."</blockquote>
<i>If any other of our presidents joined the country of Mexico and sued a state in the United States to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration, would you question his patriotism and wonder who's side he was on?</i><br />
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341316,00.html">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341316,00.html</a></blockquote>
<i>If any other of our presidents had pronounced the Marine Corps like Marine Corpse, would you think him an idiot?</i><br />
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.ehow.com/how_2272065_mispronounce-words-like-george-bush.html">http://www.ehow.com/how_2272065_mispronounce-words-like-george-bush.html</a></blockquote>
<i>If any other of our presidents had put 87,000 workers out of work by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling on companies that have one of the best safety records of any industry because one foreign company had an accident, would you have agreed?</i><br />
<blockquote>
<a href="http://articles.latimes.com/1990-09-18/news/mn-596_1_offshore-drilling">http://articles.latimes.com/1990-09-18/news/mn-596_1_offshore-drilling</a> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<a href="http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/bush-pelosi-and-reid-deserve-scorn-for-destroying-jobs-for-teenagers/">http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/bush-pelosi-and-reid-deserve-scorn-for-destroying-jobs-for-teenagers/</a> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/04/01/us-usa-economy-employment-idUSTRE5303F820090401">http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/04/01/us-usa-economy-employment-idUSTRE5303F820090401</a></blockquote>
<div>
<i>If any other of our presidents had used a forged document as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87000 American workers unemployed would you support him?</i><br />
<blockquote>
<a href="http://articles.cnn.com/2003-03-14/us/sprj.irq.documents_1_weapons-inspectors-documents-nuclear-weapons?_s=PM:US">http://articles.cnn.com/2003-03-14/us/sprj.irq.documents_1_weapons-inspectors-documents-nuclear-weapons?_s=PM:US</a></blockquote>
<i>If any other of our presidents had been the first President to need a Teleprompter instaled to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?</i><br />
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/weird/jorj-booshs-fo-ne-tik-promt/story-e6frev20-1111114505516">http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/weird/jorj-booshs-fo-ne-tik-promt/story-e6frev20-1111114505516</a> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/world/blundering-bush-winks-at-queen/story-e6frev00-1111113491771">http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/world/blundering-bush-winks-at-queen/story-e6frev00-1111113491771</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<i>If any other of our presidents had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take his First Lady to a play in NYC, would you have approved?</i><br />
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-bush-vacation">http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-bush-vacation</a> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-06-01-air-force-one_x.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-06-01-air-force-one_x.htm</a></blockquote>
<i>If any other of our presidents had reduced your retirement plan holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?</i><br />
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16740.html">http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16740.html</a></blockquote>
<i>If any other of our presidents had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?</i><br />
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/26/usa.iraq">http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/26/usa.iraq</a></blockquote>
<i>If any other of our presidents had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?</i><br />
<i><br />If any other of our presidents had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought it a proud moment for America?</i><br />
<blockquote>
Is this what it's come to? Gift giving? <a href="http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=24491">Fine</a>.</blockquote>
<i>If any other of our presidents had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia would you have approved?</i><br />
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=bush+bows+to+saudi+king">http://www.google.com/search?q=bush+bows+to+saudi+king</a></blockquote>
<i>If any other of our presidents had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?</i><br />
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/bush-slips-up-at-apec-on-opec/story-e6frev8r-1111114365415">http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/bush-slips-up-at-apec-on-opec/story-e6frev8r-1111114365415</a></blockquote>
<i>If any other of our presidents had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?</i><br />
<blockquote>
<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2006/04/28/5088/rove-legal-trouble-more-extensive/">http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2006/04/28/5088/rove-legal-trouble-more-extensive/</a> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers#Supreme_Court_nomination_and_withdrawal">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers#Supreme_Court_nomination_and_withdrawal</a> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Brown#Resignation_from_FEMA">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Brown#Resignation_from_FEMA</a></blockquote>
<i>If any other of our presidents had stated that there were 57 states in the United States, wouldn't you have had second thoughts about his capabilities?</i><br />
<blockquote>
<a href="http://quietmumblings.blogspot.com/2006/08/bushisms-bush-and-geography.html">http://quietmumblings.blogspot.com/2006/08/bushisms-bush-and-geography.html</a></blockquote>
<i>If any other of our presidents had flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in his home town, would you not have thought he was a self-important, conceited, egotistical jerk.</i><br />
<blockquote>
<a href="http://andyfinn.us/bush_league/bushisms20_bush_bravado.htm">http://andyfinn.us/bush_league/bushisms20_bush_bravado.htm</a></blockquote>
<i>If any other of our presidents had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it </i><i>when he tried again, wouldn't you have winced in embarrassment?</i><br />
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/bush-takes-stab-at-speaking-spanish-with-mixed-results-673744.html">http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/bush-takes-stab-at-speaking-spanish-with-mixed-results-673744.html</a> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcHlXNFpr-s">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcHlXNFpr-s</a></blockquote>
<i>If any other of our presidents had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?</i><br />
<blockquote>
<a href="http://whateveritisimagainstit.blogspot.com/2006/04/george-w-bushs-earth-day.html">http://whateveritisimagainstit.blogspot.com/2006/04/george-w-bushs-earth-day.html</a></blockquote>
<i>If any other of our presidents' administrations had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?</i><br />
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/tom-ridge-i-was-pressured_n_264127.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/tom-ridge-i-was-pressured_n_264127.html</a></blockquote>
<i>If any other of our presidents had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?</i><br />
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11627394/ns/us_news-katrina_the_long_road_back/t/video-shows-bush-got-explicit-katrina-warning/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11627394/ns/us_news-katrina_the_long_road_back/t/video-shows-bush-got-explicit-katrina-warning/</a> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11255379/ns/us_news-katrina_the_long_road_back/t/brown-blames-homeland-katrina-response/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11255379/ns/us_news-katrina_the_long_road_back/t/brown-blames-homeland-katrina-response/</a></blockquote>
<i>If any other of our presidents had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have ever approved.</i><br />
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=bush+bypasses+congress">http://www.google.com/search?q=bush+bypasses+congress</a></blockquote>
<i>If any other of our presidents had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?</i><br />
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/14/us-banks-bailout-bush">http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/14/us-banks-bailout-bush</a> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/19/bush-administrations-holi_n_152292.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/19/bush-administrations-holi_n_152292.html</a></blockquote>
<i>So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive?</i><br />
<blockquote>
Nothing. He's exactly the same as every other politician.</blockquote>
</div>
Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06820590356364863913noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1617209358263472725.post-20099172125601549132011-08-31T15:52:00.000-07:002011-08-31T15:52:39.697-07:00Is the state a criminal conspiracy?Murray Rothbard famously <a href="http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentytwo.asp">called the state</a> "a bandit gang writ large", or as it is more commonly rephrased, "a gang of thieves writ large". I have to admit that the first time I read this I was quite taken aback. I think I was first exposed to this idea early on after becoming a libertarian, and I wrote it off, in large part, to fiery rhetoric intended to get readers' attentions. Fortunately, it didn't scare me off, and as I read more and more, I came to understand the logic behind the assertion. As it usually goes for me, I have trouble seeing the forest for the trees right away.<br />
<br />
This assertion -- government as a criminal gang -- often accompanies, or occurs during, a discussion of taxes. In fact, I had a discussion with someone just this past weekend during which I said that taxes were theft because I had never consented to them. Invariably, this leads (as it did in this case) into discussion about helping the poor, benefits of services paid for by tax revenue, and "civic duty" and what it means to be a "good citizen". The argument goes: taxes are fine and good as long as we put them to "good" use; to be against taxes is to be against the good that taxes provide. Don't get me wrong. I believe in helping the poor; I drive my car on roads; and I'm all for peaceful cooperation and being a productive member of society. I simply differ from the bulk of the population on how these ends should be achieved.<br />
<br />
Since I'm likely in agreement with most about what can be achieved with the proper use of tax revenue (assuming the "proper" use could really be known), let's back up a bit and look at taxes themselves. A <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax">tax</a> is simply a financial charge imposed by a state (or functionally equivalent "legal" entity), the payment of which is enforced under penalty of law. This is a somewhat euphemistic definition, though. A tax "is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority" <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax#cite_note-Black-0">according</a> to Black's Law Dictionary. With that definition in mind, we begin to see now the shape of the criminal gang metaphor. The state imposes a financial charge on its subjects and enforces the payment of said charge with force. In less civilized societies, failure to pay may be immediately met with the state's armed enforcers stopping by to collect the charges. In more civilized societies, one might first be given a trial in a state-run court, after which failure to pay will be met by the state's armed enforcers. The result is always the same, though. Taxes are ultimately, always collected by force be it through property confiscation or (the threat of) incarceration. (A discussion of the equality of the threat and actual use of force is omitted.)<br />
<br />
When a criminal gang takes money by force, it is theft. When the state does it, it is taxation. The difference is curious, to say the least. Looking back at Black's definition of taxation, note that taxes are "exacted pursuant to legislative authority". So, despite all outward appearances, taking money from someone against their will is not always a crime; the legality of the act depends on who is doing the taking. The state is empowered by "legislative authority" while the "criminal" gang has no such authority. So, let's step further back and examine from where the state derives this authority.<br />
<br />
Imagine, for a second, a person living alone on an island. For all intents and purposes, this person owns the island and everything on it, if for no other reason than there is no one else contending for ownership. Now let's add a second person into the mix. There are myriad ways for the two to decide how to divide up the land and coexist, but they all begin with the question of the proper ownership of each person's body. The simplest, most common sense solution to this question is that each person is the exclusive owner of his or her body. After all, it doesn't make sense for each person to own the other's body but not his or her own. Nor does it make any sense for the two to own both bodies jointly. These latter solutions would only produce conflict as the two would never be able to agree on how best to use their bodies. Indeed, the <a href="http://mises.org/daily/5270/State-or-PrivateLaw-Society">only viable solution</a> is for each person to be the exclusive owner of his or her own body.<br />
<br />
If we accept this premise, then it follows that the initiation of force/violence against another (without this other's consent) is never justified as it constitutes a violation of the person's ownership of his or her body and sole discretion as to how that body should be used. It further follows that if a person does not have the authority to initiate violence against another, he or she cannot contract this authority out to a third party, namely, the state. That is, one cannot grant power or authority to another that one does not have in the first place. Thus, we arrive at the conclusion that the initiation of force/violence by the state is never justified, and since all state actions are predicated on the use of force, we must further conclude that all state actions are without proper authority, at a <i>minimum</i>, with respect to those who do not consent to violence against them.<br />
<br />
By now, it should be clear that there is little difference between the actions of a "criminal gang" and the state in terms of their authority to commit those actions. The only place where the two may differ is in the fact that, occasionally, the state may use its ill-gotten gains to help the public in the form of welfare, roads, etc. But the state is no Robin Hood. It steals from the rich, the middle class, and the poor, alike. Not only that, but it <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/members-congress-paid-enough-165641960.html">pays its bureaucrats first</a> and then uses what's left to pay for these services. So, even when the state does good, the taxpayers are forced to overpay for these services since they can be provided by and found in the private sector -- often the state ends up contracting with private sector businesses -- with less bureaucracy and the added benefit of market competition to keep prices down. We must also note that money left, after paying bureaucrats, is further reduced by the state's spending on warfare and all that that entails. Taxpayers really aren't getting a good bang, no pun intended, for their buck.<br />
<br />
All of this talk about how the state spends money, though, is simply a giant misdirection intended to confuse the issue. After all, we don't tolerate crime when the proceeds are used for ostensibly "good" purposes. Nor would we tolerate it if the criminal offered to give us a partial say -- a vote if you will -- in how he or she might use the proceeds. The criminal act must be addressed first and foremost, and this should be no different when it applies to the state. When there are different rules for the state and for the subject/citizen, what we have is most definitely <i>not</i> the <a href="http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2011/03/demise-of-rule-of-law.html">rule of law</a>.<br />
<br />
The state is indeed criminal in its actions; the next step is to establish conspiracy. Strictly speaking, a <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conspiracy">conspiracy</a> is "an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud,or other wrongful act". Under this definition, a conviction of the state is all but certain. This isn't exactly what I have in mind, when I say conspiracy, however. Conspiracy, in reference to the state, implies to me some larger goal: not only to keep power but to further and further enhance and centralize it. It also implies that the state is always working toward this goal as an end unto itself. Now, I won't argue that this isn't what happens, in practice; however, I have a hard time believing that the state, at all levels, is always and everywhere conspiring toward this end for one simple reason. <a href="http://mises.org/daily/2429">Again</a>, Murray Rothbard:<br />
<blockquote>
[I]n a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are "good" in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos.</blockquote>
If Mr. Rothbard is correct, which I believe him to be, that most people are "good", then we must conclude that either a significant number of people working for the state are "good" or that by some sort of social malfunction the state exclusively employs the "bad" people in society. There is certainly a <a href="http://mises.org/daily/4739">good argument</a> to be made for the latter possibility, but I'm a believer in the former.<br />
<br />
If I am correct in that belief, then there only remains the question of why the state continues to exist. I believe there are two, related reasons: 1.) people do not understand the nature of the state, and 2.) people believe that they are not responsible for the actions of the state. I've addressed the former in this post; I'll try to address the latter in the next.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06820590356364863913noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1617209358263472725.post-68813312355131416102011-08-19T15:53:00.000-07:002011-08-19T15:53:51.826-07:00Pardon the dust, centralization in progressA couple of weeks ago, California became the 8th state, joined by the District of Columbia, to pass a law that will <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61606.html">give all of its electoral votes</a> to the winner of the nationwide, popular vote. In order for this law to take effect, however, a number of states whose combined electoral votes total 270 (enough to win in the electoral college) must all pass similar legislation. If that happens, then the electoral college, while (likely) still in place, would be rendered moot.<br />
<br />
Disturbingly, this change seems to have broad appeal and public support. According to Gallup surveys in 2001 and in 2004, about <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/13918/Public-Flunks-Electoral-College-System.aspx">60% of the population supports</a> electing the president by popular vote. Editorial writings seem to hold an especially <a href="http://articles.philly.com/2011-08-16/news/29892742_1_electoral-votes-popular-vote-today-s-electoral-college">dim view</a> of the federal government's presidential election process, stating that "[i]n a country that purports to be the world's greatest democracy, the Electoral College is an <b>undemocratic embarrassment</b>." <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61606.html">Politico</a> says that the bill signed by (California's) governor Jerry Brown is "designed to <b>fix our broken</b> presidential election system." And according to <a href="http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/">nationalpopularvote.com</a>, 2,110 state legislators have endorsed the change.<br />
<br />
I say disturbingly because this represents a serious misunderstanding of the nature of the design and history of the federal government. There is evidence for this in Ali Velshi's comments on Jon Stewart's show from earlier this week (starting at about 4:50, specifically 5:18) in which he complains that members of congress are representing their constituents instead of the "entire country":<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" base="." flashvars="" height="216" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:394632" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="384"></embed></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">In his comments, he explicitly states that he believes that there is some solution to our problem(s) that benefits everyone. For someone who reports on business and markets, this is a surprising position. It has a very "central planning" ring to it. That is, if we would all just trust the government, they'll do what's best for us because they <i>know</i> best. But a discussion of (the evils of) central planning is for another article. More to my current point, who should <b>representatives</b> represent if not their constituents -- the very people who elected them? Representatives are not sent to congress to do what's best for the country. They're sent to represent the interests of their constituents -- apparently much to the chagrin of Mr. Velshi -- and in doing so, the ideas that move forward are the ones shared by a majority of the people. (Don't get me wrong; I'm no fan of <a href="http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-democracy.html">democracy</a> or what has become of our republic.)<br />
<br />
This misunderstanding extends beyond the punditocracy, though. I found this comment (<a href="http://georgedonnelly.com/opinion/ron-paul-does-not-speak-for-all-libertarians">repeated in a blog</a> by an author who took issue with it for a different reason):<br />
<blockquote>...no federal protections for us is just a wee bit troublesome too; we're either one country or fifty different ones. You can't have one State treating minorities as equals while another treats them like dirt.</blockquote>The fact is that the United States <b>are</b> (or were intended to be) fifty different countries. Because these countries are small and share a common geography, they decided to form a federal government that would allow them to act together for mutual benefit in areas like defense and economics. This federal government was never intended to regulate individuals so much is its function was to govern the states. The states would in turn govern their individual populations. (I've written previously about the <a href="http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2011/05/state-or-people-who-is-sovereign.html">sovereignty of the states</a>.)<br />
<br />
If the federal government were kept small and limited to its original intent, <a href="http://volokh.com/2011/07/05/california-dreamin-of-secession/">then</a><br />
<blockquote>dysfuctional state policies are constrained by the possibility of "voting with your feet." If a state imposes overly high taxes, adopts flawed regulations, or provides poor public services, people and businesses will tend to migrate elsewhere, thereby incentivizing the state government to clean up its act in order to preserve its tax base.</blockquote>Instead, as the federal government grows and the states weaken, this ability to vote with one's feet will be no more. If you think that the taxes, regulations, or public services of a particular state are bad, wait until they are uniform nationwide. Make no mistake, giving the presidential election to the winner of the popular vote has nothing to do with furthering democracy or preventing what happened to Al Gore in 2000 (something that has happened <a href="http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=969#2ndplacewinner"><b>only</b> 3 other times</a> in the 200+ year history of the U.S. federal government). It's ultimate effect will be to push state power and sovereignty further and further into obscurity until all political power is fully centralized at the federal level.<br />
<br />
* * *<br />
<br />
I didn't have the space to delve more deeply into the <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Amises.org+central+planning">evils of central planning</a> or other problems with the proposal to elect the president by popular vote. Some of those are <a href="http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/effort-to-undermine-electoral-college-continues-128060828.html">addressed in an editorial</a> by the Las Vegas Review-Journal. In that editorial, I found a reference to a doctrine often (<a href="http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html">incorrectly</a>, it would seem) attributed to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytler">Alexander Fraser Tytler</a>. It reads:<br />
<blockquote>A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.</blockquote>It sounded very apropos and also reminded me of this quote, attributed to George Washington:<br />
<blockquote>The last official act of any government is to loot the treasury.</blockquote>* * *<br />
<br />
Wikipedia also <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#Modern_Electoral_College_mechanics">summarizes</a> some of the theory behind indirect election of the president.</div>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06820590356364863913noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1617209358263472725.post-143945345629497702011-08-02T12:55:00.000-07:002011-08-02T14:15:16.697-07:00That triple-A credit ratingDespite a debt deal, the US federal government still faces a downgrade of its <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2011/0802/Despite-debt-deal-US-could-still-face-a-downgrade-in-its-credit-rating">credit</a> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/01/debt-deal-agreed-concern-congress">rating</a>. In my opinion, rating the creditworthiness of a government is all political theater. However, during the course of discussion, I've noticed a <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/02/us-ratings-insight-idUSTRE7714TI20110802">curious argument</a> being made with regard to the possible downgrade:<br />
<blockquote>Behind all too many of market moves in government debt of late has been a report from one of the major credit ratings agencies. S&P is the biggest and arguably the most influential, fast followed by Moody's Investor Service and then their smaller rival, Fitch Ratings. In national capitals, they are alternately vilified by politicians or held out as just arbiters for denouncing government profligacy. </blockquote><blockquote>Yet there is an overwhelming irony in their new-found prominence. These are the same firms that many blame as prime instigators of the 2007-2008 credit crisis for freely giving out top ratings to ultimately worthless structured mortgage products, allowing the credit bubble to form. Now they sit in judgment of the countries that had to ruin their public balance sheets to prevent financial collapse by saving the banks shattered by those bad instruments once blessed by the agencies. </blockquote><blockquote>"The ratings agencies failed the world economy in spades in the past," said Lord Peter Levene, chairman of the Lloyd's of London insurance market and a former senior adviser to the British finance ministry. </blockquote><blockquote>"Their track record has not exactly been stellar."</blockquote>The argument seems to be that because the ratings agencies all "missed" the financial collapse in rating junk financial instruments as AAA, then their credibility in this matter is nil. I don't follow this line of reasoning for a couple of reasons:<br />
<ol><li>The main issue that people seem to have with the credit rating agencies is that they waited too long to warn the investing public about the looming financial catastrophe that struck in 2007-2008 and issue downgrades. Shouldn't those people now be applauding these same agencies for trying to correct their failures by getting out <i>ahead</i> of possible new problems?<br />
</li>
<li>If credit rating agencies tend to overrate financial instruments, an assumption that seems to underlie the argument, then shouldn't people take it very seriously when an agency actually <i>does</i> issue a downgrade?</li>
</ol><div>You can't have it both ways. You can't simultaneously decry the agencies for missing the financial collapse in 2007-2008 and then point at that incompetence as a criticism for downgrading a financial instrument that <i>everyone agrees</i> is in trouble.</div>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06820590356364863913noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1617209358263472725.post-36344704616744334362011-07-01T14:11:00.000-07:002011-07-01T14:11:39.512-07:00I can haz liberty now?Late last week the New York state senate <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/nyregion/the-road-to-gay-marriage-in-new-york.html">passed a bill</a> allowing same-sex marriages in the state. A few years ago, I would have seen this as a great leap forward. When California had its big argument about Proposition 8 -- which sought to constitutionally declare that only a marriage between a man and a woman would be recognized by the state -- I argued with anyone and everyone that its passage was wrong because, at its core, it denied to one group of people rights that were granted to another group. I still believe that to be true, today, but what happened in New York last week caused me to see things a little bit differently.<br />
<br />
Coincidentally, a <a href="http://blog.mises.org/17493/equality-under-the-laws/">blog post</a> at mises.org, today, links to an <a href="http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/the-other-principle-of-classical-liberalism/">article</a> that argues that libertarians should support New York's action:<br />
<blockquote>[W]hile agreeing that the long-term goal is separation of marriage and State [...] given the slim chance of separation happening any time soon, classical-liberal principles require the State to treat all citizens as equal before the law.</blockquote>The author of the original post <a href="http://strike-the-root.com/reform-sucks-or-where-do-we-go-from-here">sees it differently</a>:<br />
<blockquote>[O]ne needs to separate rights from privileges and [...] increasing the relative size of a privileged group does not constitute a step in any valuable direction (at least from a libertarian point of view). [...] Equality under the numerous government laws is not only impossible (since pretty much all of them constitute <i>privilege</i>), but may be directly counter-acting the cause of liberty.</blockquote>There was a time when I subscribed to the former view. Somewhere along the line, I came to embrace the latter. Let me explain.<br />
<br />
<b>Rights vs. Privileges</b><br />
<br />
Up until I embraced this latter view, the difference between a right and a privilege never entered my mind. In reality, my conception was that a right was something that one had or acquired under the law. My definition of "right" was closer to that of "privilege". Since the two are going to be treated as separate from here on, it is worth defining them:<br />
<blockquote><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/right"><b>right</b></a>: a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral<br />
<a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/privilege"><b>privilege</b></a>: a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most</blockquote>A right exists independent of any governing body. One has a just claim, for example, to his/her own body. After all, it doesn't make sense for anyone else to own it. Therefore, as the owner, one has a right to do with his/her body as he/she wishes. A privilege, on the other hand is something that is granted to one person or group. Voting is an example of this. While women and non-whites got the privilege long ago, it is still <a href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1553510,00.html">denied to felons</a> in a number of states. This brings up an important distinction between rights and privileges. Privileges are granted and, therefore, can be (legitimately) taken away; rights are preexisting and cannot be (again, legitimately) taken.<br />
<br />
In addition, it is worth distinguishing between <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights">positive and negative rights</a>. At its simplest, "a negative right forbids others from acting against the right holder, while a positive right obligates others to act with respect to the right holder." Libertarianism says that no person has the right to use or threaten another with force. This is, in fact, a negative right. Every person has the right to be free from the aggressive violence of another. In fact, civil rights such as freedom of speech and association and the right to bear arms all arise from this notion. None of these acts, in and of themselves, are aggressive in nature.<br />
<br />
Under the idea of negative rights, two people have the "right" to voluntarily associate with each other in whatever manner they wish. Absent a government (and/or a church), a "marriage" is simply a compact or contract between two people and has no meaning beyond the participants in the contract. That is, I may welcome you into my house, but your marriage does not obligate me to also welcome your spouse. On the other hand, when someone says that he/she has a "right to marry" under the (government) law, he/she is asserting a "positive right". What that person is really saying is that he/she wishes -- is entitled by right -- to be afforded the privileges conferred upon other married people.<br />
<br />
The problem with all of this, of course, is that these privileges eventually obligate others to act in a certain way, under penalty of government force, with respect to the marriage contract and its participants even though these "others" have nothing to do with the contract. The solution is equally obvious: leave government out of marriage completely. <br />
<br />
But what of the first author's view that the goal should be equality under the law? Shouldn't gays who love each other and, if not for existing law, would marry be granted the privileges that accompany that marriage? Let's look quickly at the "spousal privilege" as it relates to testifying in court for an answer. The spousal privilege refers to the idea that a person cannot be compelled (via government force) to testify against his/her spouse at trial. But what of people who don't wish to marry? What of close friends? This "privilege" does not extend to them. Therefore, in this context, while gay marriage brings gays on equal footing with straights -- and doctors of various types, I might add -- it leaves a very sizable portion of the population out in the proverbial cold, still subject to being compelled to testify. Other benefits not granted to unmarried people include tax breaks, visitation rights, special immigration status, inheritance, etc. There is still no equality under the law, yet nobody that I am aware of is questioning this inequity.<br />
<br />
<b>Liberty as a privilege</b><br />
<br />
Now that I've, I hope, made the right vs. privilege distinction clear, I think it is safe to say that, by and large, the rest of the population does not readily acknowledge this distinction. Instead, most of the population views the right to associate (via marriage, gay or otherwise) as indistinguishable from the privileges that come with the state recognition of that association. As such, arguably, this entire situation could be viewed as a group of people begging an even smaller group of people -- politicians -- to please, please, please grant them their liberty when it was the very institution for whom those politicians work that took it away in the first place.<br />
<br />
Maybe marriage is a bad example, though. By that I mean, we can't rightly infer the intentions of all people who demand "marriage equality". Having muddied the waters by giving state sanction and privilege to marriage, the government has inextricably linked liberty/rights to privilege such that the population no longer recognizes the difference. And now, we arrive at the real reason I am not head over heels about the recent happenings in New York. The government has transformed liberty and natural rights into privileges.<br />
<br />
Marriage, admittedly, is possibly not the best example. So, let's turn our attention to the right to keep and bear arms. In California, among other places, the right to carry a gun in public has been all but completely denied. Open carry of a loaded gun has long been illegal. Open carry of an unloaded gun has been legal by virtue of the legislature not realizing that it had not forbidden it, but it is quickly working to <a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_144&sess=CUR&house=B&author=portantino">rectify that</a>. Concealed carry is only an option if one lives in a rural area or is buddy, buddy with the sheriff of his/her county. Carrying a gun in an urban area of California is, no doubt, a privilege reserved to government officials and those that <a href="http://www.examiner.com/la-in-los-angeles/concealed-carry-of-handguns-imminent">donate to them</a>.<br />
<br />
Let's go a step further. Earlier, I mentioned that each person is the proper owner of his/her own body (if for no other reason than because no other owner makes any sense) and can do whatever he or she wishes with it so long as the action does not violate another's ownership of his or her body. If this is true -- and it would be impossible in my mind to argue differently -- then one has the right to put whatever one wants into his or her own body. This includes not only so called illicit drugs but prescriptions as well. Why should one have to obtain permission from a doctor who has in turn been granted permission from the state to get a prescription?<br />
<br />
Maybe drugs aren't your thing. Perhaps you like milk? I hope it's not raw milk. The FDA <a href="http://www.naturalnews.com/028757_raw_milk_FDA.html">doesn't like raw milk</a> and has even gone so far as to say that individuals do not have the right to eat what they wish. The FDA is quickly moving in the <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20025454-10391704.html">same direction against</a> mothers who share breast milk.<br />
<br />
All of these liberties have been transformed into government-granted privileges. As if that wasn't bad enough, the system is self perpetuating. As a monopoly provider of law and enforcement, the government has been put in the position of having the power to deny a right by law and enforce that denial through its police power, thus rendering it a privilege. Citizens are left with two options, neither of which is appealing: 1) ignore the law and risk ending up in jail, or 2) beg the government to recognize/grant their liberty.<br />
<br />
The latter option seems to be the government's approved method of attempting to maintain/regain one's liberty, and there is a very simple reason for that. To utilize this method is to implicitly acknowledge that liberty is a government-granted privilege.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06820590356364863913noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1617209358263472725.post-28811809722914380982011-06-30T10:19:00.000-07:002011-06-30T10:19:31.443-07:00Texas folds 'emLast month, during the big dust-up about the <a href="http://www.legis.state.tx.us/billlookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=81R&Bill=HB1937">anti-TSA bill in Texas</a> that would have made TSA groping illegal, I wrote up a <a href="http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2011/05/texas-capitulates.html">quick piece</a> about the bill. In that post, I said this:<br />
<blockquote>I didn't think the bill would ever become law, but I didn't think it would be because the Texas legislature would roll over at the first <a href="http://www.lonestarreport.org/Home/tabid/38/EntryId/1176/DOJ-warns-Texas-Senate-against-anti-groping-bill-UPDATE-HB-1937-pulled.aspx">hint of resistance</a> from the federal government.</blockquote>Yesterday, it died for reasons that I <i>did</i> expect. Stop Austin Scanners, again, <a href="http://stopaustinscanners.org/2011/06/republican-leadership-derails-restrain-the-tsa-legislation-in-house/">has the story</a>:<br />
<blockquote>This morning, HB 41/SB 29 died by parliamentary procedure, by failing to get sufficient votes to suspend the Texas Constitution to allow 2nd and 3rd readings on the same day.<br />
<br />
[...] The Texas Constitution prohibits 2nd and 3rd readings on the same day unless 4/5th of the 150 member body consents to suspend the Constitution to pass the bill.<br />
<br />
This would not have happened if Governor Rick Perry had not waited to call the bill before the 11th hour, and House Speaker Joe Straus (both Republicans) not violated House rules by not bringing HB 41 for its first vote last Friday, June 24th after a quorum had been established and no other business but HB 41 was scheduled. Speaker Straus later called HB 41 nothing more than a “publicity stunt” and the refused to acknowledge the Senate messenger yesterday.<br />
<br />
Had Straus allowed the messenger deliver SB 29 at the time it was presented, the bill’s 2nd reading could have been completed yesterday, leaving open today for a constitutionally proper 3rd reading. Instead, in a politically vulgar move, the Speaker manipulated the proceedings to force Representative Simpson to subvert the constitution he most fervently seeks to uphold by calling for its suspension to achieve final passage of SB 29.</blockquote>Liberty died, not by force, but quietly choked out by political chicanery. Of the people, by the people, and for the people, indeed.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06820590356364863913noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1617209358263472725.post-15769698198325186002011-06-22T09:46:00.000-07:002011-06-22T09:47:37.354-07:00Texas tries againSays <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/90130.html">Kathryn Muratore</a>:<br />
<blockquote><a href="http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/06/21/3169831/bill-to-limit-airport-searches.html">This is very good news</a>, indeed. Texas State Rep David Simpson introduced two bills to the legislative session this year[.] In a wild turn of events, the legislative session was extended by Gov Rick Perry for a month to finish work on other legislation, and it was left to his sole discretion to decide what to add to the agenda. With a little over a week left in the extended session — and after an <a href="http://texasgopvote.com/2011-legislative-session/gov-rick-perry-calls-special-session-texas-legislature-lt-gov-dewhurst-asks-hb-1-002918">about-face by Lt Gov David Dewhurst</a>, a nationwide campaign, and recent publicity of <a href="http://youtu.be/AKE98sJpGig">state legislators being violated by the TSA</a> — the [anti-groping] bill is back on the agenda.</blockquote>From Star-Telegram article:<br />
<blockquote>Some state officials and lawmakers have offered anecdotes to illustrate what they say is inappropriate or invasive behavior by TSA inspectors.<br />
<br />
State Rep. Barbara Nash, R-Arlington, said she has thought several times that TSA inspectors went too far in security patdowns. Recently, she said, a female inspector felt "all the way up" the outside of her dress, in back and front.<br />
<br />
"It made me angry. ... it was not something I would want to happen to someone else," Nash said.<br />
<br />
At the other end of the political spectrum, state Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, one of the most liberal members of the House, was also critical of TSA procedures.<br />
<br />
"I definitely think the way TSA is implementing their responsibilities is invasive of people's privacy," he said.</blockquote>It would seem the bill's appeal crosses political lines, though, it would seem politics will still play a role as the article goes on to say:<br />
<blockquote>Burnam supported the legislation in the regular session but said he was uncertain whether he will remain a supporter, saying he was "put off" by Perry's decision to include it in the special session.<br />
<br />
"This whole special session is almost disgusting," Burnam said. "It's all about his candidacy for the presidency. It's not about what's good for Texas."</blockquote>Not what's good for Texas? "Put off" by Perry's decision? Hey Burnam, how about you consider "taking one for the team", here. Instead of trying to screw Perry by voting against this legislation (which you actually support), how about you try to avoid screwing the people that you supposedly serve by protecting their liberty?<br />
<br />
The legislation has until next Wednesday (June 29) to pass. Follow the fight <a href="http://stopaustinscanners.org/blog/">here</a>.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06820590356364863913noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1617209358263472725.post-42262947398141553402011-05-25T10:29:00.000-07:002011-05-25T12:54:25.799-07:00Texas capitulatesLots of people, at various times recently, have pointed me at <a href="http://www.legis.state.tx.us/billlookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=81R&Bill=HB1937">Texas HB 1937</a>. This bill would have made the TSA's groping procedures illegal, at least in Texas. I didn't think the bill would ever become law, but I didn't think it would be because the Texas legislature would roll over at the first <a href="http://www.lonestarreport.org/Home/tabid/38/EntryId/1176/DOJ-warns-Texas-Senate-against-anti-groping-bill-UPDATE-HB-1937-pulled.aspx">hint of resistance</a> from the federal government.<br />
<blockquote>"If HR [sic] 1937 were enacted, the federal government would likely seek an emergency stay of the statute," the letter read, on U.S. Department of Justice, Western District of Texas, stationery. "Unless or until such a stay were granted, TSA would likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it could not ensure the safety of passengers and crew.</blockquote><a href="http://stopaustinscanners.org/come-and-take-it/">stopaustinscanners.org</a> sees the situation this way:<br />
<blockquote>Let’s be absolutely clear here: the Federal Government just threatened to make Texas a no-fly zone if they can’t sexually assault us.</blockquote>Nevertheless, the legislature folded:<br />
<blockquote>Senate sponsor Dan Patrick (R-Houston) pulled down HB 1937. But he didn't pull it until after some firey rhetoric about the principles of the bill, as well as allegations that TSA representatives were "lobbying" the Texas Senate today. "I will pull HB 1937 down, but I will stand for Liberty in the state of Texas," Patrick said.</blockquote>Classic political move: "I was for liberty before I was against it, but I'm still for it." Somebody should explain to Senator Patrick that you can't kill this bill and simultaneously claim to stand for liberty. The two are mutually exclusive. Jackass.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06820590356364863913noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1617209358263472725.post-62131470971043418642011-05-24T12:48:00.000-07:002011-05-25T07:40:44.186-07:00The legitimacy of votingWith Ron Paul running for president again, much is being made about the legitimacy of voting. In fact, my wife asked me the other day if I would vote for Ron Paul either in the primary or in the general election, should he succeed in getting the Republican nomination. I honestly wasn't sure how to answer. I oppose voting on the grounds that 1.) participation in the system may be (mis)construed as consent to or legitimization of the system, and 2.) voting is the attempt to impose one's own will on another.<br />
<br />
Tom Woods <a href="http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/why-even-an-anarchist-should-vote-for-ron-paul/">addressed the first objection</a> in a blog post the other day:<br />
<blockquote>If you were stuck in a prison camp, and the guards let you vote on whether you were to have gruel or prime rib for dinner, would you be “consenting to the system” to vote for prime rib, or would you simply be doing the best you could under the circumstances to improve your material condition?</blockquote>His question implies that the two options -- consenting to the system or doing the best you could to improve your material condition -- are mutually exclusive. They are not. Can you vote for the prime rib (or the gruel, for that matter) and still oppose the system? Absolutely. Will your captors acknowledge this distinction? Doubtful.<br />
<br />
The problem with these types of thought experiments is that they are directed at the wrong audience. The title of Mr. Woods' blog post is "Why Even an Anarchist Should Vote for Ron Paul". The content is clearly directed at anarchists of various stripes who have made a conscious decision not to vote for whatever reason. They, typically, understand the nuances of voting but not consenting. That is not to say that statists don't also understand that nuance. However, whether they understand it or not, they will not acknowledge it.<br />
<br />
When one is born into this world, he or she cannot be said to have consented to any government. In fact, even adhering to the laws of any particular government cannot be said to constitute consent. A person breaking the law often enough would quickly find himself in a situation akin to the prison camp described by Mr. Woods. Therefore, the only position we can reasonably ascribe to such a person is a desire to avoid the government force threatened when the law is broken. The same applies to paying taxes. Paying taxes also cannot be said to serve as consent because, again, government force is threatened if taxes are not paid. While adhering to the laws and paying taxes are sometimes used as a measure of consent, even the most ardent government supporter cannot claim that these are completely free choices made by an individual.<br />
<br />
How then can we measure whether a person consents to his government? It can only be by an affirmative participation with government in which a person can freely choose whether or not to participate. This participation must also not be predicated on some prior interaction with the government. An example of this latter condition is the acceptance of a government benefit by a taxpayer. The taxes were appropriated (for the sake of argument) without the consent of the person, and the courts refuse to hear any case in which taxes are purported to be theft. Therefore, the only recourse for the taxpayer to try to recoup his lost property is by accepting some kind of government benefit, be it through the use of public roads or schools or accepting payments from programs like Social Security. (This ultimately leads to the problem described by <a href="http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0606b.asp">libertarian class analysis</a>, namely that there exists net tax payers and net tax beneficiaries, but that is another topic entirely.)<br />
<br />
What we are left with to determine consent is voting. (Technically, voluntary military service could also serve in this role, but this is applicable to a very low percentage of the population and therefore not suitable for this discussion.) Again, it is possible to vote and not consent; it is even possible to make the argument that voting for lower taxes (or against higher ones) is a form of action predicated on a prior government action: theft via taxation. However, voting is the "most free" interaction with government allowed, and as described previously, those in government and those who support it will construe voting as consent. Sure, one can disagree with the outcome, but one still consented to it. In this way, voting for a candidate who most favors libertarian ideals -- who outright wants to abolish government -- could be the most damning act of all (in a statist's eyes) because one will vote most earnestly and without reservation to give his candidate the power of government, even if the goal is ultimately to turn that power against itself.<br />
<br />
To illustrate my second objection to voting, let me alter Mr. Woods' example slightly:<br />
<blockquote>Let's assume again that you are stuck in a prison camp, this time with two others. The prison guards again offer a choice of gruel or prime rib. One of the others becomes violently ill when eating red meat, and one is tired of eating gruel to the point of violence.</blockquote>Do you vote for the prime rib, forcing the one who will become ill to go without? Do you vote for the gruel risking the possibility that the other one will become violent and hurt either you or the allergic one? Do you work out some kind of system in which you vote for prime rib sometimes and gruel other times leaving the allergic one without food on occasion?<br />
<br />
It's very easy to look at a situation like that proposed by Tom Woods and assume that there is nothing wrong with voting because the situations presented are such that no one would oppose them. Roderick Long, in an <a href="http://aaeblog.com/2006/11/23/in-defense-of-voting-sort-of-part-2/">article</a> I highly recommend, makes the same leap by analogizing that it would be right for Lana Lang to take control of Lex Luthor's Juggernaut Beast and prevent the destruction of Smallville -- you <i>really</i> have to read the article. (Long eventually shoots his own argument in the foot by saying that there is nothing wrong with a libertarian wielding government power so long as he doesn't use it for "evil". Why isn't the same true of Lex Luthor? Lex has not aggressed against anyone merely by flying around in his Juggernaut Beast, at least not any more so than the mere existence of government constitutes aggression.) Real life is never so cut and dried. The choices required in voting are more often like the example of the prison camp that <i>I</i> described.<br />
<br />
In summary, voting is not, in and of itself, an immoral or aggressive act. Furthermore, it is possible to vote for (or against) something and still object to the system within which the vote takes place. However, no matter how one rationalizes his act of voting or not voting, he must be aware of how that action will be perceived (particularly by those with whom he disagrees) and if/how that action will affect others.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06820590356364863913noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1617209358263472725.post-22409783712571967452011-05-18T12:24:00.000-07:002011-06-17T13:22:20.074-07:00The State or the people: who is sovereign?A few months ago, I wrote an article about what I saw as the demise of the <a href="http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2011/03/demise-of-rule-of-law.html">rule of law</a>. In it, I used the Obama administration's aggressive war against Libya to illustrate that the United States are no longer ruled by law(s). Instead, I argued that their federal government essentially does what it pleases because not only does it make the laws, it is also (solely) charged with enforcing them, and also with interpreting whether those laws are legal. (The legality of laws is a subject for <a href="http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/its-legal-because-we-say-so.html">another post</a>.) I pointed to the U.S. Constitution as the source of authority for the federal government and also as the limit of that authority. However, as I've intimated in the past, and said outright in the "rule of law" post, the federal government has become the arbiter of its own power.<br />
<br />
That post prompted a series of emails between a reader and myself about the nature of the federal and state governments, the U.S. Constitution, and sovereignty. The reader told me that the U.S. Constitution, in and of itself, was never meant to restrain the federal government. When one really stops to think about it, there's no way that it could. As I pointed out above, the government makes, enforces, and determines the legality of the law(s); there's nothing to stop it from doing whatever it wants. In addition, the U.S. Constitution <a href="http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii">doesn't even grant</a> any branch of the federal government the authority to carry out that last task. The Supreme Court arrogated that power unto itself in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison">Marbury v. Madison</a>, but I digress.<br />
<br />
Instead, the reader contended that it was up to the states and the people of them to restrain the federal government. He continued, though, that the War Between the States essentially crushed that ability. The following Supreme Court case of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White">Texas v. White</a> declared the act of secession illegal. By declaring secession illegal, the federal government was basically declaring the states were not sovereign (any longer). These occurrences, in his view, were the real source of the demise of the rule of law, at least as I portrayed it in my writing. If the states are not sovereign, if the federal government is the supreme authority, then the 9th and 10th amendments to the U.S. Constitution were and are worthless.<br />
<br />
Now, the notion that the states were independent, sovereign nations is not foreign to me. It has always been my understanding that the U.S. Constitution was not an act of the states giving up their sovereignty to create a central government but rather one of delegating some of their authority to the federal government in order to smooth and strengthen economic and/or foreign relations. The reason they delegated the authority is not important; what is important is that the authority was delegated, not relinquished. What was foreign to me was what this reader said next: <i>[T]he people of each state are the state's true ruling sovereigns [...] and all government was simply their delegated representatives, not appointed supreme sovereign rulers. Therefore, the People of a state could exercise their national sovereign authority, to overrule those delegates at any time—just like the King of England could overrule his ambassadors.</i><br />
<br />
Until hearing this, my understanding of American government was that the states and/or the U.S. (as a whole) were sovereign nations, that the "government" was, collectively, its ruling sovereign, and that phrases like "of the people, by the people, and for the people" were simply figures of speech meant to convey the idea that there is no divine right to rule (i.e. no king or queen), that the people control the government (via the ballot box). This was the first time I had been introduced to the idea that the people, themselves, were the true ruling sovereigns. Tom Woods <a href="http://www.tomwoods.com/nullification-answering-the-objections/">explains it</a> quite succinctly:<br />
<blockquote>In the American system no government is sovereign, not the federal government and not the states. The peoples of the states are the sovereigns. It is they who apportion powers between themselves, their state governments, and the federal government. In doing so they are not impairing their sovereignty in any way. To the contrary, they are exercising it.</blockquote><br />
Where does this idea originate? Is it true? If so, how did I miss it? Since the aforementioned reader pointed to the War Between the States as ending state sovereignty, I started there. I already mentioned the case of Texas v. White in which the Supreme Court ruled that secession is illegal under the U.S. Constitution. I also came across a <a href="http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/1inaug.htm">quote from Lincoln's</a> first inaugural address:<br />
<blockquote>The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution, was "to form a more perfect Union."</blockquote>This quote asserts idea that the Union predates the U.S. Constitution but also gives rise to idea that the states were created by a central government, not the other way around. The former is obviously true -- the "union" existed in various iterations prior to the Constitution -- but the latter has no basis in fact. In reality, the Articles of Association merely created a loose association by which the colonies (at the time) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Association">banded together to boycott British goods</a> in retaliation for the Intolerable Acts. No central government was created by these articles. In fact, enforcement of the articles was left entirely up to the colonies themselves. Then, just prior to the Declaration of Independence, the Second Continental Congress <a href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28jc004109%29%29">recommended</a> that the individual colonies "adopt such government as shall, in the opinion of the representatives of the people, best conduce to the happiness and safety of their constituents".<br />
<br />
It's probably worthwhile, at this point, to stop and look at a few of the constitutions drawn up by the colonies. <a href="http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html">New Hampshire</a>: "The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state". <a href="http://www.malegislature.gov/laws/constitution">Massachusetts</a>: "The people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign, and independent state". <a href="http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Legislation/constitution/article1.html">North Carolina</a>: "All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only [...] The people of this State have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right of regulating the internal government". <a href="http://legis.state.va.us/laws/search/constitution.htm">Virginia</a>: "A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the good people of Virginia in the exercise of their sovereign powers".<br />
<br />
All of the states' constitutions of the time contain similar language. Even Hawaii, the last state admitted to the union, has very <a href="http://hawaii.gov/lrb/con/conart1.html">similar language</a> in its constitution: "All political power of this State is inherent in the people and the responsibility for the exercise thereof rests with the people". The point of this exercise is to demonstrate that 1.) the states predate any central/federal government, 2.) the states were independent, sovereign nations, unto themselves, and 3.) the people of the states were their sovereign rulers. These facts are recognized in other documents of the time. The <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/">Declaration of Independence</a>: "We [...] solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States". The <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Article2">Articles of Confederation</a>: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence". The <a href="http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=6&page=transcript">Treaty of Paris</a> in 1783: "His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, [list omitted], to be free sovereign and independent states". The <a href="http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html">10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution</a> which confirms that powers were delegated, not relinquished: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."<br />
<br />
In short, the states are sovereign nations, and according to their constitutions, the people are their sovereign rulers. I've pointed to a number of old documents confirming this, but here is something more recent. The Department of State <a href="http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/tif/index.htm">lists</a> (see <a href="http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/143863.pdf">page 289</a>) the Treaty of Paris' Article 1 (the article mentioned above) as still being in force as of January 1, 2010. Even the federal government, however obscurely, still recognizes that the states are sovereign. It is up to the people to (re)assert this sovereignty.<br />
<br />
***<br />
<br />
In light of the recent <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/13/60minutes/main20062666.shtml">60 Minutes report</a> on CBS about Sovereign Citizens, it is worth noting that I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the movement depicted in the report. While I obviously support the idea that the people of the United States are its/their rightful "rulers", I don't support support the violence perpetrated in the name of furthering this idea.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06820590356364863913noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1617209358263472725.post-2317591382852428832011-05-17T11:26:00.000-07:002011-05-17T11:26:23.107-07:00You are not your ownOn November 18, 2007, Richard Barnes got into a fight with his wife, Mary. She called 911, and police were dispatched to the scene to respond to a "domestic violence in progress" call. When the police arrived, they spotted Mr. Barnes in the parking lot outside his apartment and began to question him. Mr. Barnes told the officer(s) that he was leaving and that they were not needed. An argument between Mr. Barnes and the officers ensued during which Mrs. Barnes arrived from inside the apartment and threw a duffle bag at Mr. Barnes, telling him to take the rest of his stuff. Mrs. Barnes then returned to the apartment, followed by Mr. Barnes who was followed by the two officers on the scene. Mr. Barnes blocked the officers from entering his apartment, and Mrs. Barnes had not explicitly invited the officers into the residence. When one of the officers attempted to enter the apartment, Mr. Barnes resisted, shoving him against a wall. Mr. Barnes was then subdued by the officers with a choke hold and a taser and arrested for assault (on the officer) and resisting an officer among other charges.<br />
<br />
At trial, Mr. Barnes wanted to present an instruction to the jury that he had the right to resist the officers' entry into his home because the entry was unlawful. The judge refused to issue the instruction offered by Mr. Barnes nor any other similar instruction. Mr. Barnes was convicted by the jury, but he appealed the decision. The Court of Appeals agreed that the failure to allow the jury instruction was "not harmless error" and ordered a new trial. Last week, the Indiana Supreme Court <a href="http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf">ruled against</a> Mr. Barnes:<br />
<blockquote>Now this Court is faced for the first time with the question of<br />
whether Indiana should recognize the common-law <b>right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police</b> officers. We conclude that <b>public policy disfavors any such right</b>. ... We believe [...] that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is <b>against public policy</b> and is <b>incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence</b>. Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action. ... Here, the trial court‘s failure to give the proffered jury instruction was not error. Because <b>we decline to recognize the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry</b>, we need not decide the legality of the officers‘ entry into Barnes‘s apartment. <i>[Emphasis added]</i></blockquote><br />
Many sites across the web have their various takes on whether on not the officers' entry was justified. I don't intend to take up that debate. The court didn't, so there doesn't seem much sense in my doing so. Instead, I want to focus on the fact that the court has decreed that people have no right to resist the police. Let's be very clear about this point. The Indiana Supreme Court unequivocally stated that the right to resist an unlawful police entry <b>does not exist</b>. It's a very short step to change "entry" to "action".<br />
<br />
Essentially, what the court said in its ruling is that when the police enter your home with or without a warrant, with or without announcing themselves as police, with or without even any suspicion of anything, you must simply lie down and take it. Eventually, the courts will sort things out for you. This, of course, assumes that you survive your encounter with the police. You can read all kinds of stories on <a href="http://copblock.org/">CopBlock</a> or by <a href="http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/">William Grigg</a> about people who were unlucky enough to have run-in's with the local authorities. That one should have the right to defend himself and his property against unwanted and illegal aggression should go without saying. The nanny-state and the police-state have officially merged. The government will determine what is best for you. When the government suspects (or even when it doesn't) that you're not acting in your government-determined best interests, it can and will enter your house to find out. And there's nothing you can do about it; the courts will sort it out for you later. Those are the same courts, by the way, that just told you that they can do whatever they want with your home.<br />
<br />
There are further reaching effects/implications of this ruling. If the government can enter your home whenever it wishes, who owns your home? Certainly not you because the government has decreed that <a href="http://volokh.com/2011/05/16/kentucky-v-king-and-police-created-exigent-circumstances/">it can enter whenever it likes</a>, even against your wishes. It would seem then that the government owns your home. How long before your car becomes government property? That already happened when the courts ruled that they can install <a href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html">GPS tracking on it without a warrant</a>.<br />
<br />
To be honest, I really don't know how to sum up/conclude this post. I'm having a hard time even writing it because what's wrong with all of this is so innately obvious that I can't even put my thoughts into words. I can't suggest using the courts as a remedy because the courts are the very place(s) where this "law" is being made/handed down.<br />
<br />
God help us all. Neither our elected officials, nor the courts, nor even the Constitution which is supposed to protect us from this kind of tyranny are of any use any longer.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06820590356364863913noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1617209358263472725.post-32563958755921301812011-05-04T19:17:00.000-07:002011-05-05T08:42:01.883-07:00When does it endRight now, I've got 18 tabs open on my Internet browser (I use Firefox in case you're interested). This is a real rarity for me. I never have more than 3, possibly 4, open for any length of time. One is the window in which I'm typing this entry, one is iGoogle, one is Facebook, one is a news story about Timothy Geithner <a href="http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/05/03/pm-geithner-extends-debt-ceiling-deadline/">"extending" the deadline</a> by which the U.S. Congress "must" raise the debt ceiling, and the other 13 are news stories devoted to Osama bin Laden. I first found out about bin Laden's death when my wife received a text message from her sister who had apparently been watching the news. I received the same text message a few minutes later. (Good work AT&T, delivering text messages to two phones 5 feet away from each other 5 minutes apart.) I have to admit that my first reaction was: so what?<br />
<br />
It was immediately obvious to me that no troops would be coming home. No civil liberties would be restored. We would all continue to be forced to take our shoes off and be molested at the airport. I even commented sarcastically to a friend of mine: "Awesome, so the war on terror is over and we all get our liberties back?" In reality it would seem that just the opposite has turned out to be true. Secretary of State Clinton was quick to <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-05-03-bin-Laden-Clinton-war-terror_n.htm">"reassure" the public</a> that "battle to stop al-Qaeda and its syndicate of terror will not end with the death of Osama bin Laden." Moreover, major government officials and every major news source and pundit has told us that we are in even more danger now because of the possibility of retaliatory attacks. The NBA took the extra step of <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nba/news/story?id=6465985">mandating metal detectors</a> at playoff games. So, killing bin Laden made us <b>less</b> safe? If that's the case, then logic would dictate that he shouldn't have been killed.<br />
<br />
After confirming my sister-in-law's text message, we changed the channel back to our "regularly scheduled programming". Before going to bed, we turned again to the news to see what, if any, additional information might be available. We were treated to clip after clip of video showing people dancing in the streets in places like Times Square and the White House. I was disgusted to see the very same people who denounced people who danced in the streets while burning American flags after the death of one of our soldiers acting in the <b>exact same manner</b>. The news feed on my Facebook account exploded that evening with people cheering on our government and our military for summarily executing another human being.<br />
<br />
In dying, Osama bin Laden <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/05/02/neil-macdonald-osama-bin-laden.html">showed us</a> that we're really not so different from the very people that we deride as war-mongers and who we believe are incapable of a peaceful existence.<br />
<blockquote>He taught this country the consequences of operating an open, free society. Literally, he showed Americans the price of their liberty, how many of their principles they'd be willing to cast aside, and how quickly they would do it.<br />
<br />
In other words, bin Laden showed American exceptionalists how unexceptionally they behave when faced with horrors most older nations have endured.</blockquote>The writer is referring to our weak-kneed acquiescence to government intrusion on liberty here in the U.S., our paranoia at the thought that a terrorist is hiding around every corner, and our rampant xenophobia. His point is equally applicable to our reaction to the news of bin Laden's death, though. The overwhelming reaction, that of proclaiming America's strength and celebrating our actions in the streets, was <b>no different</b> than that of the people you see in other parts of the world dancing upon hearing the news of the killing of American soldiers.<br />
<br />
I woke up the next morning to hear people on the radio explaining that it's different when American's celebrate. You see, Osama bin Laden killed innocent civilians on September 11th, 2001. Therefore he is evil, and not only was his killing justified but morally right. On the contrary, our soldiers are overseas doing good work, and when they are killed, that is wrong. Never mind that the "rebels" in Afghanistan see us as an invading and occupying force; never mind that America regularly kills civilians as part of its eternal war on terror; never mind that America locks up and tortures "militants", denying them any sort of access to a justice system to sort out their guilt or innocence; never mind that America has "peacefully" killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions, via sanctions of various kinds. Everyone wants to point to 9/11 as if bin Laden started this fight and America's hands are clean, but it's been going on for much, much longer. All of those American actions I just cited have been and continue to be used as justifications for Al Qaeda's actions. And regardless of how it started, it is only escalating.<br />
<br />
But, there are likely those that remain unconvinced that America has any responsibility for the fight in which it now finds itself, but, nevertheless, it must see it through. That is, they believe that "we didn't start the fight, but we're going to finish it." So then, when does it end? If one truly believes that we are going to finish it, then the answer would be "when we've killed or captured all of the terrorists". As I pointed out, though, capturing terrorists and refusing to bring them to justice -- for those that have forgotten, justice means a trial in a court of law, not vigilante killings or indefinite detention -- or killing them, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8491113/Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-White-House-backtracks-on-how-bin-Laden-died.html">especially</a> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/03/osama-bin-laden-us-changes-story">when</a> <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1383516/Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-The-young-bride-tried-save-Bin-Laden.html">unarmed</a>, tends to drive more people into the fight. This so-called solution actually perpetuates the problem. Yet, it seems to be the solution America is intent on carrying out.<br />
<br />
Attorney General Eric Holder sat in front of the U.S. Senate and had <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42900659/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/">this to say</a> about the whole affair: <br />
<blockquote>The operation in which Osama bin Laden was killed was lawful. He was the head of al-Qaida, an organization that had conducted the attacks of September 11th. He admitted his involvement and he indicated that he would not be taken alive. The operation against bin Laden was justified as an act of national self defense.</blockquote>Ah, national defense. Of course. I wish Mr. Holder would have gone on to explain exactly what our military was defending when it shot and killed an unarmed man. Apparently, bin Laden resisted, but I find it hard to believe that a team of highly trained and very well armed men were unable to subdue a frail, old man in regular need of dialysis, without killing him. Jeffrey Toobin <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/03/toobin.bin.laden.trial/">explains that the U.S. had to kill bin Laden</a> because messy details like whether bin Laden would be given a civilian or military trial, who would defend him, and where his trial would be held are just too difficult for us to sort out. That's right; when the government has a "difficult" problem on it's hands, killing people is the only way out. I'm not sure why that same principle didn't apply to Saddam Hussein or Khalid Sheik Mohammed.<br />
<br />
But let me return to the idea of national defense brought up by Mr. Holder. Exactly what are we defending with our actions overseas? The knee-jerk answer is always "freedom". It's hard for me to believe that anyone can still respond this way with a straight face; I'm chuckling to myself a bit just writing this. Even if it were true, though, what will be left should we ever finish fighting this war on terror? We've abandoned the idea of innocent until proven guilty. We've abandoned the idea that people are entitled to a trial before being assessed any sort of punishment (including death). We've abandoned the idea that our government is subject to the same laws as the people. If the war on terror, by some miracle, ever does come to an end, we will find that we were busy throwing away our freedom, all the while claiming that our military was overseas fighting for it.<br />
<br />
The truth is that we're not fighting for freedom. We're fighting for empire. We're fighting to bring the rest of the world under our control. Osama bin Laden <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/bin-ladens-war-against-the-us-economy/2011/04/27/AFDOPjfF_blog.html">understood this all too well</a>. "We, alongside the mujaheddin, bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt," he explained. <br />
<blockquote>The campaign taught bin Laden a lot. For one thing, superpowers fall because their economies crumble, not because they’re beaten on the battlefield. For another, superpowers are so allergic to losing that they’ll bankrupt themselves trying to conquer a mass of rocks and sand. This was bin Laden’s plan for the United States, too.</blockquote>And that returns me to my original question: when does it end? I can't say for sure, but my money's on "soon". As for the "how" question, I'm not so sure that we're not about to follow in the Soviet Union's footsteps and those of every other major empire throughout history. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06820590356364863913noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1617209358263472725.post-9231137696833303012011-04-28T09:01:00.000-07:002011-04-28T16:41:16.671-07:00Ames and Levine smear againMark Ames and Yasha Levine are <a href="http://www.alternet.org/media/150767/did_you_fall_for_it_america%27s_outrage_over_tsa_naked_body_scanners_was_right-wing_pr_to_prevent_workers_from_unionizing/">at it again</a>. You may not know who these people are. I didn't before last November, and I hadn't heard of them since until Mr. Ames tried to contact me last night and his and Mr. Levine's article was published this morning. Let me refresh your memory. Last November, when I had my run-in with the TSA, these two "reporters" <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/156647/tsastroturf-washington-lobbyists-and-koch-funded-libertarians-behind-tsa-scandal">wrote an article</a> trying to connect me and other like-minded individuals with a vast right-wing conspiracy funded by the billionaire Koch brothers. I never responded to it because it was so quickly derided as a fact-free smear by all sorts of media outlets, most notably <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/24/tyner">Glenn Greenwald</a>.<br />
<blockquote>It seems to be a consensus even among liberal, <i>Nation</i>-friendly journalists that the attack on Tyner was not merely misguided, but odious, as all such journalists who commented (at least that I know of) condemned it, often in terms at least as harsh as the ones I used. In addition to their own <i>Nation</i> colleague Jeremy Scahill (who denounced it as a "<b>shameful smear</b>"), <a href="http://twitter.com/DanielSchulman/status/7541921333379072" target="_blank"><i>Mother Jones</i>' News Editor Daniel Schulman wrote</a>: "This Nation story is <b>journalistic malpractice of the worst kind</b>"; <a href="http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2010/11/liberal-mccarthyism" target="_blank"><i>The American Prospect</i>'s Scott Lemieux, on his blog, called it</a> "<b>Liberal McCarthyism</b>" and an "<b>embarrassment</b>"; and the usually rhetorically restrained <a href="http://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/7518706355666944" target="_blank">Ezra Klein condemned</a> it as a "<b>hit piece</b>" which I had "rightfully hammered."</blockquote>The Nation article utterly failed to connect me to anyone on the right or any sort of activities of an "activist" nature (other than possibly my blog). Fast forward to yesterday. In keeping with his journalistic standards, Mr. Ames waited until 8:30pm EDT to contact me for a comment on his story. He tried to goad me into calling him back telling me that he was on a deadline for that evening and by referencing a blog post about the TSA that I admitted to deleting saying that it contradicted everything that I said during my interviews following my <a href="http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html">TSA encounter</a> in San Diego. First, who waits until 8:30pm to get a comment for a story that is going to run the following morning? It was clear to me that Mr. Ames already had his story and there was nothing that I could have said that would have made a bit of difference, and that brings me to my second question. What made Mr. Ames think that I would talk to him? It's clear from the content of his article that it's a good thing that I didn't.<br />
<br />
The thrust of the current article is that all of the anti-TSA "hysteria" is an attempt to block the TSA from unionizing. I'll come back to that charge, shortly. The article spends only a few sentences talking about me, but I'd like to address them:<br />
<blockquote>The anti-TSA campaign was at its media-hysteria peak in the weeks after the Republican election sweep, spurred on by last year’s hero, John Tyner, who refused a pat-down, telling TSA agents, “You touch my junk and I'm going to have you arrested.” Tyner disappeared from the scene after <a href="http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/whole-truth.html">he apologized on his blog, and admitted that he didn't tell the whole story</a> and had actively tried to erase it<span style="font-style: italic;"><i> </i></span>(Tyner did not return our call or answer our message requesting comment).*</blockquote>This is all true, such as it is. The context if the story would lead the reader to believe that I had concocted the entire incident either for personal gain, or as the writers suggest, to prevent unionization of the TSA (again, I'll get to the anti-union charge). Note the asterisk at the end of the paragraph. It leads to the end of the article where this final note appears:<br />
<blockquote><i>*“To those of you who feel duped, I apologize”—so writes John Tyner in a contrite blog post headlined “<a href="http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/whole-truth.html">The ‘Whole’ Truth</a>” dated November 30, 2010. A week earlier, he was the biggest media sensation in America, freeing us from state tyranny; by the time he apologized to America, America had already lost interest and moved on.</i></blockquote>Again, true. Mr. Ames shows his journalistic integrity, adding a final, snarky smear to his article but leaves out the immediately following sentences from my blog post, from which he quotes, because they completely contradict his premise. Here they are:<br />
<blockquote>There is no reason to feel that way, though. I stand by my assertion that the encounter was not planned or staged. I stand by my account of the events that occurred at San Diego airport. And I stand by everything that I have said and written since the event. I stood up to what I saw as an affront to everyone's 4th amendment protections and dignity, and that has started a real conversation about how much liberty we're willing to give up in the name of feeling safe. Let's not lose sight of what's really important, here.</blockquote>But we have lost sight. In fact, in my <a href="http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2011/04/ounce-of-prevention.html">previous post</a>, on April 14th, I wrote about this very idea. The point of that post was that fear of terrorism has caused us to overlook TSA misbehaviors including stealing from passengers, failing to prevent terrorist attacks/attempts, and abridging civil liberties. Mr. Ames apparently isn't concerned about the TSA's incompetence or its "Gestapo" tactics. No, he only wants them to be unionized; personal property, safety, and civil liberties be damned.<br />
<br />
So, what about the charge that I'm part of this vast right-wing conspiracy? Much like his last attempt to associate me with the TEA party (of whom <a href="http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2011/02/how-will-tea-party-patriots-act.html">I've</a> <a href="http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2011/02/how-did-tea-party-patriots-act.html">been</a> <a href="http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2011/02/against-patriot-act-but-for-its.html">critical</a>), the Koch brothers (if only I could get them to send me some of their billions), or any other right-wing entity, Mr. Ames presented no evidence to support his charge: <b>absolutely none</b>. Here's where Ames' and Levine's journalistic standards really shine. Here is a blog post of mine from October of last year, previous to any of these events, where I stated that <a href="http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/10/if-you-vote-youre-statist.html">I don't vote</a>. (I did vote from approximately 2004 to 2008. I registered as a "decline to state" voter, California's equivalent of non-partisan.) Here's a blog post from February of this year where I argue that democracy is a tool by which the majority can and does <a href="http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-democracy.html">oppress minorities</a> (note the specific mentions of drug legalization and gay marriage, some issues the "right" is <b>very</b> against). Good work tying me to right-wing ideologues, guys.<br />
<br />
And finally, what about the charge that my encounter was rigged to prevent TSA unionization? Again Ames and Levine are wildly off-base. Here's a blog post of mine from February of this year in which I argue that <a href="http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2011/02/democrats-flee-wisconsin.html">preventing unions is illegal</a> under the First Amendment. I clarified my position in response to a <a href="http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2011/02/democrats-flee-wisconsin.html?showComment=1298567869292#c4472959528364576481">commenter</a> to this post. I had suggested that the <a href="http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2011/02/democrats-flee-wisconsin.html?showComment=1298568626273#c1002472471763797317">proper remedy</a> was for the government to fire workers who wanted to unionize, not restrict their civil liberties. The commenter <a href="http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2011/02/democrats-flee-wisconsin.html?showComment=1298592606299#c1482604991715422132">responded</a> that firing workers would also be a violation of First Amendment protections because it was a different method of "breaking the union". I <a href="http://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2011/02/democrats-flee-wisconsin.html?showComment=1298650386832#c218766071206660869">responded</a>:<br />
<blockquote>Firing workers does not violate the workers' freedom of association. The first amendment protects the right to freely associate. Nothing grants a person the *right* to be hired/employed by another.<br />
<br />
Employers want to pay as little as possible; employees want to be paid as much as possible. Let them sit down and negotiate. If they can't reach an agreement, then they don't contract with each other. End of story.<br />
<br />
Typically, in a (non-union) negotiation, the employer has more power because the prospective worker needs the job more than the employer needs the *particular* employee. Unions are an attempt to deal with this by predicating a significant number of jobs on any particular member's job. So, employees <i>[sic]</i> fired union workers to try to break the unions, and then the government made it illegal to fire workers because they are in a union, a clear violation of the employers' property rights.<br />
<br />
Now the government is suffering the blowback of its own policy. It can't fire the workers because of the Wagner Act, but to try to regulate them is a violation of the first amendment. It's such delicious irony.</blockquote>For those of you who missed it, I believe the Wagner Act to be unconstitutional for the same reasons that I believe union regulation to be so: it violates the freedom of association. My own writing, from <b>months</b> ago, again contradicts Ames' and Levine's "reporting". Good work tying me to anti-union factions of the right-wing, guys.<br />
<br />
Ames' and Levine's assertion that my encounter with the TSA was a stunt is based on my own "admission" which, as it turns out, is an unequivocal denial that it was anything other than a stand against an infringement of civil liberties. Their attempt to tie me to right-wing entities is based on... well... nothing. It is contradicted by my numerous writings critical of any number of things that the right wing does. And finally, the implication that I'm anti-union is again contradicted by my own writing. I hesitate to call Ames and Levine hacks. Arguments should be about issues, not the people promoting them. Ames and Levine have twice now, though, smeared me in clear contradiction of the facts, in an attempt to make their case. It's really a wonder to me that anyone continues to print what they write.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06820590356364863913noreply@blogger.com7