Links for 11/17

Cost-effective ways to address climate change

Humankind is not completely at the mercy of nature. To the contrary, when it comes to dealing with the impact of climate change, we've compiled a pretty impressive track record. While this doesn't mean we can afford to ignore climate change, it provides a powerful reason not to panic about it either.

Lessons in Liberty: Fusionism

Throughout the late 1950’s and into the early 60’s these different groups coalesced into what was seen from the outside as the early conservative movement (internal leaders had their own divergent views on the subject). They were united by an opposition to the growth of the state domestically and a hatred of communism internationally. More than anything, they united in opposition to the status-quo New Deal consensus. The traditionalist conservatives and anti-communists benefited from the intellectual firepower of economists like Mises and Hayek, and free-market libertarians benefited from the manpower and wider general appeal of the conservatives. However, these viewpoints faced significant philosophical divisions.

Eliminate the middle man: Pay collegiate-level athletes

Paying these athletes would eliminate blurred lines with regards to agents and boosters, where the parameters of what contact players can have or cannot have with those professionals are often confusing.

Kareem Amer is free!

What does conservative mean? OR Hayek Dumbed Down

What does conservative mean?

Conservative is tricky. I know what it used to mean. Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan explained their rationale relatively well, and George Will perpetuates it. Excluding Will, however, leaves a vacuum for conservative though (when it’s not stealing libertarian economic thought, of course). It’s a terminal, artificial hybrid of libertarian economic policies, an appeal to tradition and a reliance on Christian thought put into practice by law. What this amounts to is a distrust of government authority unless it’s promoting conservative desire (or controlled by democratic officials), a vague deference to capitalism unless it upsets religious beliefs (abortion, drug use, gambling, etc.), an even vaguer promotion for “family values” and an unshakable belief in unlimited military spending and intervention. John Kasich, the Republican governor-elect of Ohio, simply has the following on his website under “What I Stand For:”

-lower taxes – Create a tax climate that allows Ohio to compete with other states to attract new businesses, foster job creation, and keep our precious, existing jobs here

-make government more efficient and effective – Skinny-down state bureaucracy to ensure taxpayers are getting their money’s worth, and reform state government into a 21st century partner with Ohio's job creators – not one that punishes business with outdated or unnecessary regulation;

-transform our education system – Help our kids achieve, compete and succeed to meet the workforce demands of tomorrow’s economy

-end the influence of special interests – Build common-sense solutions to our problems and kick out those who, for too long, have kept us from fixing all that is wrong in our state

What does that mean? Empty platitudes to perpetuate Republican control. Their “Pledge to America,” in its preamble, states:

We pledge to honor the Constitution as constructed by its framers and honor the original intent of those precepts that have been consistently ignored – particularly the Tenth Amendment, which grants that all 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.

We pledge to advance policies that promote greater liberty, wider opportunity, a robust defense, and national economic prosperity.We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values.

We pledge to make government more transparent in its actions, careful in its stewardship, and honest in its dealings.We pledge to uphold the purpose and promise of a better America, knowing that to whom much is given, much is expected and that the blessings of our liberty buoy the hopes of mankind.

We make this pledge bearing true faith and allegiance to the people we represent, and we invite fellow citizens and patriots to join us in forming a new governing agenda for America.

Honoring the Constitution is laughable; the only discussion of constitutional authority arises when a Democrat is in power. Policies promoting “greater liberty, wider opportunity…and national economic prosperity” did not come to fruition under 8 years of Bush and 6 years of Republican control in Congress, and it is doubtful the trend will alter. Rather than honoring families, traditional marriage, life, and private and faith-based organizations, they instead prevent any individuals outside their definition of family and marriage to live as they see fit. It is also hard to believe when the majority of their 2008 presidential hopefuls in the primary had divorced multiple times. Government transparency, honesty and concerned stewardship is laughable when reminded of Bush invoking executive privilege multiple times while infringing on civil liberties and raising taxation (and yes, deficit spending, like any spending, IS taxing).

True, the Republican Party doesn’t encompass conservatism completely. But few (if any) prominent conservatives disavow the Republican Party or encourage voting for a 3rd party or abstaining. The only correlation between conservative rhetoric and Republican governing is a dedication to robust military spending; I refrain from saying “defense spending” intentionally. The Tea Party can be a good indication of things to come (ignoring the mostly unfounded slams of it being nothing but a racist counter reaction); any movement demanding smaller government is refreshing. However, if they balk at scaling back military spending and medicare/social security, it is vacuous and intellectually dishonest. Cutting domestic programs is useful in campaigns, but the majority of spending is the conservative trinity: military spending, social security, and medicare/medicaid. Until I see those decline, I am skeptical of the Tea Party and especially the Republicans.

Maybe I’m seeing conservatives and Republicans in too narrow a light; that’s exactly my point. Post-war conservatism was vibrant, argumentative and, most important, principled. I can disagree with Buckley, Meyer, Nisbet, Kirk, Flynn, Chambers, Burnham, Bozell, Strauss and others, but it’s difficult to question their integrity or intellectual grounding (well, maybe Kirk). Where is the post-9/11 Buckley? The conservative movement has been coasting on the achievements of the right that coalesced as a conscious movement in reaction to the failure of liberalism and the rise of the New Left. Cheerleaders for the right exist: Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, Hannity, O’Reilly and others who will be forgotten in 15 years. Jonah Goldberg cannot advance the right; neither can Mark Levin or Dinesh D’Souza.

Conservatism has been reduced to a desire for an over-romanticized past that never existed with a theocratic Christian element. Eager to bring God into American law, they cannot consistently reject economic socialism because they encourage social socialism (as if individual rights can be severed into the social and economic). If the government can intervene in individual lives in the name of protecting and encouraging morality and virtue for the benefit of all, how can they reject government to economically benefit individuals? If government should help the individual spiritual state, surely they should help the individual economic state; improvement economically can at least be objectively measured, whereas improvement spiritually is necessarily subjective. I’ll ignore the fact that virtue can only be achieved by free choice; you are not making a moral decision when the government takes your money and gives it to a food bank. Whether you want to help or not, you have no choice; either you pay the tax or you are jailed and the money is confiscated. Were Adam and Eve moral without the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden? How could they be? It’s impossible to be moral or virtuous when the only option is to be good. God has my back on that one.

If the United States were not founded on classical liberal principles, fusionism would not (and probably could not) exist. This leads me to my conclusion: modern conservatism is dead and any conservative worthy of the name must desert the Republicans and the Right, joining with the libertarians. The Right has expanded government power to such an extent that it endangers the individuals who grew it. The power to expand Christian doctrine into American law is also the power to restrict the activities of Christians. The power to increase taxes and spending for the military is the power to tax and spend for anything deemed essential or necessary. The power to do good with the government is the power to do evil. Any conservative worthy of the name would recognize that as government increases, freedom and virtue decrease, no matter the justification.

http://www.kasichforohio.com/site/c.hpIJKWOCJqG/b.5280649/k.A1C8/What_I_Stand_For.htm

http://pledge.gop.gov/

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/index.html

Against Liberty: The Quest for Cosmic Justice

johnfkerkhoff@gmail.com


Among the chief concerns of the American people is justice. Virtually everyone proclaims his allegiance to that noble cause. Unfortunately - as Thomas Sowell documents in his book, "The Quest for Cosmic Justice" - the term justice has come to connote several different ideas - thus leading to a confusion as to what is meant by justice.

Sowell begins by explaining the type of justice he endorses - traditional justice. This brand of justice adheres to the principle of equality under the law. That is, everyone must follow the same rules, without any particular people or groups receiving unfair or arbitrary benefits; everyone is treated equally.

Such an idea is simple enough. But, as Sowell points out, traditional justice is not acceptable to visionaries who reject the "equality of opportunity" argument. For supporters of social or "cosmic" justice, only equality of results will suffice. Public Policy should aim to achieve equality in income, education levels, employment numbers, etc. for everyone, regardless of external factors, such as work ethic, cultural history, demographics and experience. Advocates of social justice argue that any indication of one group's performing better than another group can be attributed to "society as a whole" or the "discriminatory system" in which we live.

It is true, Sowell argues, that discrimination exists and that it is an abhorrent practice. We would be remiss, however, to attribute such discrepancies of results to something as complex and untestable as "institutional racism." How, Sowell asks, can the anointed know that racism or sexism caused such unequal results? With what instrument, formula, algorithm or empirical evidence can we attribute unequal results to social injustice? Surely, it is an untestable theory.


An additional problem with social justice lies in the consequences of the policies it promotes. Economic trade offs should always be considered when making policy decisions. The trouble, Sowell says, is that politicians generally consider only the political consequences of particular policies. It is not politically advantageous for a senator to say that welfare hurts the poor, regardless of how true that is economically. Having politicians make decisions aimed at enhancing their political capital as opposed to economic realities is not only inefficient, but detrimental to society as a whole.

For example, price controls are a staple among the social justice crowd. There is little doubt that those who advocate price controls want to ameliorate the situation of the poor. However, in reality, price controls lead only to a less supply, higher transaction costs, black markets and a worse situation for everyone. With price controls, fewer goods are available for people to consume. Those with the least amount of money tend to be those who are the last to receive a good when supply is so strictly limited. Therefore, the ostensible beneficiaries of such policies are among those who are hurt the most.

Additionally, Sowell says that it is epistemologically impossible for politicians to know how much a certain good should cost. There is no mechanism through which one can make a determination as to what a "fair" price is. However, it must be true that free exchange between Jones and Smith yields a "fair" price. If one did not consider the price fair, he would not have made the purchase at all.

Beyond the utilitarian implications of social justice is a more important (at least, in my view) issue. Nearly every policy pushed by cosmic justice results in a loss of freedom for everyone. Sowell uses an example surrounding 19th century housing to illustrate his point. Immigrants lived in homes that Sowell grants had horrid conditions. They were often overcrowded, unsanitary and unsafe. In calls for cosmic justice, policy makers sought to require landlords to provide better housing. More sanitary, safer, roomier - and more expensive. Sure, politicians had good intentions in mind, but that point is irrelevant. What is more pertinent is the fact that many of the tenants could have already afforded to move to better housing. That is, those who lived in such horrendous conditions chose to live there, for numerous reasons. Many wished to save money so they could pay for family members to come to America. Others wanted to use extra cash to save for an even better home than the one given to them by the government. Regardless, they no longer had a choice. Laws were passed requiring certain building standards where people lived. These new buildings were more expensive, thus leaving residents with less additional income. In short, tenants no longer had the freedom to live in a poorly maintained home in order to save extra cash. As a consolation, at least the cosmic justice crowd felt good about advancing its agenda.


The negative consequences of social justice are not restricted to economics and liberty. Sowell argues that the pervasive belief in equality of results has penetrated the judiciary. In an attempt to right social wrongs, activist judges not only unfairly and arbitrarily enforce law, but destroy the rule of law itself. As opposed to the traditional idea that judges simply interpret law fairly and equally to everyone, the judiciary now acts with such caprice that one cannot foresee the implications of his actions. The very essence of the rule of law (as opposed to government edicts), Sowell says, is the citizen's ability to foresee judicial decisions. By this, Sowell means that Americans should be able to anticipate, based on past patterns, how a rule is interpreted and act accordingly. Judicial activists acting in the name of cosmic justice, however, make this nearly impossible. Anti-trust laws - which certainly aim at equality of results in business - are not objectively clear. That is, the owner of business A cannot know whether he is acting in accordance with anti-trust laws until a judge has decided. Such a policy is antithetical to the rule of law. There is no way to foresee what an activist judge will declare as "monopolization"; the decision is purely subjective.

There is little doubt that social justice advocates have good intentions. There is less doubt, however, that the very policies they support cause more harm than good, diminish liberty and destroy the rule of law. Until we realize that social justice is a mirage, and more freedom is always better, we will continue down a path paved with good intentions. Unfortunately, good intentions tend to never end where one intended.

Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776:

All men are created equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing the obtaining of happiness and safety.

What a shame they didn't extend that to slaves and minorities. It seems we get wrapped up too much in fancy rhetoric. Currently, we apply it to everyone [supposedly], while ignoring that, when written, it applied to a small proportion of the population. We need to recognize the hypocrisy in which talk of rights, freedom and liberty was immersed in during the Revolutionary Era.

WHITMAN CRUISES TO PRIMARY VICTORY

HOLLYWOOD, California -

Speaking to a crowded audience at the Universal City Hilton Hotel in LA's entertainment district, the Republican candidate took the stage at her first appearance as the GOP nominee for governor, where she promised to abolish the capital gains tax, abolish the small business tax, and levy charter school programs across the Golden State.

The Inherent Counterproductivity of Libertarians

David Boaz's recent article and Jacob Hornberger's response published by Reason exhibit the prime aggravations and antagonisms in the libertarian movement today: vulgar libertarianism and infighting.

Vulgar libertarianism is a tendency in libertarians to debate and argue about politics, philosophy, economics and morality in a way that causes non-libertarians to write off libertarianism as a whole and is detrimental to furthering liberty and prosperity. I do not claim to be above this; I have only recognized these characteristics from mistakes I have made and a result of rebuke from libertarians and non-libertarians.

When we harp and belabor government encroachment in the economy, demand a massive reduction of social programs and a safety net and focus on gun rights and drug legalization with fanatical devotion, we harm ourselves in advancing our opinions and credibility. This is not to say that the claims are illegitimate; it is only to say there is a time and place for everything.

Entering a room and declaring Obama a socialist, the government is violating individual rights and the dollar is on the verge of collapse does not appeal to anyone who disagrees: it encourages them to write libertarians off as obnoxious, presumptuous and idealistic with no ideas.

Gun rights are important. Economic liberty is important. Legalization of drugs is important. When we enter discussions about these issues though, we must have tact.

"We often focus on the size of government, as measured in percentage of GDP taxed and spent by the government, which is an important and measurable concept. But our real concern is power. What kind of power does the government wield over the people? Powerful state institutions tend to be large, but that doesn't mean that a larger state is necessarily exercising more power....We should focus on what is actually important—the exercise of arbitrary power over others. And in that regard slavery and conscription, among other things that marred parts of our American past, loom very large."

Boaz is completely correct. And if we want to limit power, if we want to reach and persuade a broader audience of the superiority of a libertarian society, talking of the American Revolution, rugged individualism and the impending expansion of Leviathan will not further our goals. It may grab some old-style conservatives (who are more than welcome, of course), but it doesn't convince many of my peers and does not appeal to individuals who see government as a more benevolent force for positive social change.

The government is not evil. Bureaucrats are not sadistic. The government is pathetically incompetent. Bureaucrats and government employees are (vastly) honest, compassionate individuals who desire to help or improve their community. When libertarians talk of the immorality of an individual's mother, brother or son because they work for the Post Office or federal agency, people are (rightly) offended and carry a bias toward all libertarians.

If libertarians want to improve American society for liberty, equality and prosperity, we need to work on the public perception. We need to show that we are not crazy, we do not expect a transition to a libertarian utopia in a week and we have pragmatic ideas and policies that will improve society.

I want to make it certain to everyone reading this that I am not attempting to discredit or marginalize anyone. I think Cato, the Future of Freedom Foundation and Reason are great proponents of liberty and prosperity. I disagree with all of them on some issues and opinions, but I see no reason to ignore and attack any individual or group with whom I agree 95% of the time. Belittling them would be counterproductive and presumptuous, especially given my disparaging lack of knowledge and intellectual ability. I want to diminish arbitrary power and expand liberty, not offend the very people who inspire me.

Obama Care is Passed

Congress has passed BHO's health care legislation. Though it isn't the immoral and inefficient single-payer system, it is bad - really bad. Of course, the left is happy, and the right is arguing all the wrong things. We all know if a Republican were in the White House, John Boehner would have been all about it.

At least we have the Judge. Here he says the Supreme Court will strike down at least some of Obamacare.

We can only hope.

CPAC Controversy

Alexander McCobin, the co-founder and president of Students for Liberty, stirred up some controversy at CPAC yesterday.  On a panel, "2 Minute Activist: Saving Freedom Across America,” McCobin began with:

In the name of freedom, I would like to thank the American Conservative Union for welcoming GOProud [a coalition of gay republicans] as a co-sponsor of this event, not for any political reason but for the message it sends….Students today recognize that freedom does not come in pieces. Freedom is a single thing that applies to the social as well as the economic realms and should be defended at all times.

Ryan Sorba, a member of the California chapter of the Young Americans for Freedom, then spoke and said:

“I’d like to condemn CPAC for bringing GOPride [sic] to this event. Civil rights are grounded in natural rights. Natural rights are grounded in human nature. Human nature is a rational substance in relationship to the intelligible end of the reproductive act of reproduction. Do you understand that?”

Sorba illustrates a problem of the modern conservative movement: freedom for "us," and no one we disagree with.  It is in Sorba's rights to be anti-gay, but without social tolerance, any talk of freedom is empty.  Freedom and liberty belong to everyone, not only the "right" group.  Videos of the incident can be found here.

Earlier in the day at CPAC, 2008 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate Bob Barr was booed for condemning torture.  I have many objections to what Barr usually has to say, but it was refreshing to hear a conservative rejecting the use of torture to make us "safer."  Keep it up, Barr.

It will be interesting to see what else happens at CPAC this weekend.

America 2084

I’ve been torn up by the recent Supreme Court decision to overturn Teddy Roosevelt’s as well as other campaign reforms. I am always an advocate of free speech first and as an advocate of free speech I applaud the court for recognizing that “Hillary the movie” is no different that any other piece of media. It is no different that Fahrenheit 911, or Zeitgeist, or 60 minutes for that matter and has every right to be covered under free speech and every right to obtain funding from any source as well as any amount; however as a opponent of corporatism this ruling has me quite vexed. I feel stretched thin, and I just don’t know how to react. This is probably by far the most important Supreme Court ruling in our lifetime.

As a student of media I feel that censorship of any documentary cannot be tolerated. This movie is someone’s intellectual property; the federal government has no right to abridge production or distribution of said film. The idea that the Federal Election Commission can stop a political documentary from being distributed is new to me. If I were to make a political documentary, which I have done in the past, I would fully expect to promote, distribute and finance the film anyway I see fit. Why does the Federal Election Commission have authority over the entertainment industry anyway? Shouldn’t they be more concerned with direct contributions to candidates? Why can big oil and coal buy candidates off directly, but yet they can’t spend freely on political adds? I mean, I should be celebrating this decision. This is a big win for free speech, but instead I’m hanging out with Glenn Beck; curled up in the fetal position saying to myself “I need my foil hat, I need my foil hat, I need my foil hat.” It makes me wonder what else has been censored; what other documentaries, books have we yet to see?

While the idea of having lots of foreign capital in our electoral process scares the hell out of me, this blatant censorship of press goes against the core principle of the first amendment. My two greatest fears with this ruling is that: 1) with corporate interest having higher stakes in government will mean bigger government, bigger authoritarian style government; much more scary and oppressive than you will get with lefty style socialism. 2) with trade unions and non-citizens having nothing to stop them we could have a western version of the E.U. in a matter of decades.

I’ve always said for years that it’s unions and corporations that undermine and overturn the basic principals if our Constitution. With unlimited involvement from these entities the only way to bring this corruption to a halt is to rethink the fundamental roll of government. We need to recognize that the motivation for the corporations to be involved in our government is the size of the government itself. In other words if the government is small there is nothing for the corporations to control. I’m starting to get the feeling that health reform is the least of our worries now. With special interest unlimited the government will just grow and grow. It won’t matter who is the White House or Congress whether it’s a Democrat or Republican. I feel like any day now I’m going to wake up in 1984 with a television that never turns off and a barcode tattooed on the back of my neck. Perhaps this is an exaggeration, perhaps I’m over thinking this a little, but honestly are my fears completely unfounded?

MUSIC FOR THOSE WHO LOVE LIBERTY part3

This is Deltron 3030, they are an Anarchist hiphop group that hides there criticism of the government through a sci-fi storyline.

Here are some of the lyrics to Virus:

I wanna devise a virus
To bring dire straits to your environment
Crush your corporations with a mild touch
Trash your whole computer system and revert you to papyrus
I want to make a super virus
Strong enough to cause blackouts in every single metropolis
Cuz they dont wanna unify us
So fuck it total anarchy
Can't nobody stop us

Livin’ Leviathan Loca!

This quarter I’ve declared political science as my corollary, which is practically a minor(except it is required), so I’m taking political theory 270. This class has some interesting reads (which I will be commenting on throughout the quarter), some I’ve already read, most I haven’t. The readings include a spectrum of political theorists such as John Stuart Mill, Rousseau, Emma Goldman, John Locke, and of course Carl Marx. We seem to be moving chronologically through these works. Our first read is Thomas Hobbes “Leviathan” which is new to me. To me this concept is really strange. I’ve read many political books and I’ve argued both for and against many political ideas, but I don’t think I’ve ever read up on such a theory that defends absolute power. Even Chinese legalism had a hierarchy. Hobbes seems to be certain that the only way to maintain a state is to concentrate power to one individual. Wow! Where do I get in line to complain? Unlike many of my colleagues I am not in favor of the abolition of our state or any state for that matter, but I may make an exception for the state described in the Leviathan. In my opinion the reason our Constitution is the oldest in the world that is still in use is because it denies absolute power, but as I thought about it I realized that I was projecting my own personal America into this juxtaposition. When you look at the principals behind the Leviathan in comparison to our own government there are much more parallels than contrasts. Like the rights of the sovereign: to halt protest, to decide what doctrine shall be taught, to dictate property rights, and defend the country without question of actions taken or fear of punishment by the subjects. The few liberties that are given to subjects in the Leviathan also mirror the American justice system. So we’re living it baby! This sounds just like the Bush-Obama administration. Livin’ Leviathan Loca!

Links for 1/6/10

Can a Libertarian Also Be a Conservative?

Whether a libertarian can or should be a conservative will depend on what a conservative is. I consider ten sorts of conservative here—the traditionalist, the organicist, the fallibilist, the localist, the hierarchicalist, the culturalist, the fundamentalist, the constable, the marketeer, and the warrior.

What It Feels Like to Be a Libertarian

Political analysts frequently consider what it means to be a libertarian. In fact, in 1997, Charles Murray published a short book entitled "What It Means to Be a Libertarian" that does an excellent job of presenting the core principles of libertarian political philosophy. But almost no one ever discusses what it feels like to be a libertarian. How does it actually feel to be someone who holds the principles described in Murray’s book?

Yemen Opposes any US troops in Terror Fight

SAN'A, Yemen – Yemen's foreign minister said Wednesday that his country opposes any direct intervention by U.S. or other foreign troops in the fight against al-Qaida.

Foreign Minister Abu Bakr al-Qirbi told The Associated Press in an interview that "there is a lot of sensitivity about foreign troops coming to Yemeni territory."

The Meaning of Ists

One of the Bush administration’s most pernicious legacies is the never-ending War on Terrorism, a perpetual state of emergency that supposedly authorizes the president to break the law, abridge civil liberties, and ignore due process, all under a cloak of secrecy. Last week former Vice President Dick Cheney accused the Obama administration of forsaking Bush’s War on Terrorism. If only it were true.

Nations Don't Trade with Each Other: Individuals Do

It might be a subtle point, but it's important to realize that countries don't trade with each other as countries - rather it's individual consumers and individual companies that are doing the buying and selling.

Reason on Health Care Reform