Babies, Bathwater and "Protectors"

Paul Gessing's short blog The importance of foreign policy and his reference to Robert Higgs's piece on the libertarian imperative for peace are helpful ideas.

Let's not, however, throw the baby out with the bathwater. Higgs makes the statement:

...even if we do need the government's protection from foreign attack, can the government deliver the goods? Did it prevent the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? Did it prevent the terrorist attacks of 9/11? Of course, state officials constantly tell us that they are protecting us, but talk is cheap, and in their case, often untrue, especially when it pertains to matters outside our common experience and therefore beyond our power to verify easily.

Higgs is, of course, correct that government protection from invading hordes is basically impossible to verify. So we must resort, it seems to me, to common sense. If in the 1980s, the US ended all military spending, would the Soviet Union have attacked the US? If today we somehow did so, would -- perhaps -- China, or even Mexico, attack the US, depriving us of our life, liberty and property?

Me? I'd not be willing to take that risk. A very strong case can be made against most US military intervention and yet support a limited but powerful national defense. It won't be perfect. It may create a special interest group (the "military industrial complex") that seeks to broaden its turf and revenues. It's -- to me, however -- a risk that's worth taking, considering the alternative.

Call me a "tough dove."

-Robert Capozzi

The importance of foreign policy

Is it really possible to be a "libertarian" warmonger? Robert Higgs makes a persuasive case that while there is room for disagreement among true lovers of freedom over a variety of issues, war and foreign policy are so integral to the government power that anyone who seriously questions governments role in our lives must take a dim view of war and governments as "protectors."

-- Paul Gessing

Making the Case for Compassion

Norm Singleton's blog A failure to communicate reminds us the many ways in which government intervention is virtually always injurious to the interests of those less well off. As his Ron Paul quote indicates, freedom is good for creating opportunities and good for charity.

The challenge when trying to counter the case for minimum wage is that few will listen when freedomistas look to broaden the subject out to cover issues such as housing prices, land-use rules, central-bank policies, poor education systems, etc. In my experience, at least, the Average Joe or Jane will respond, "Maybe, but what's that got to do with the minimum wage? How can anyone live on $5/hour?"

Knowing this, it might make sense to stick to the most relevant, near-term arguments. The minimum wage increases unemployment. Low-wage workers are very often the young and the supplemental, second-earner in a household. Do we really want to price them out of the market, closing off opportunities to those lower-skilled workers? Few are satisfied with $5/hour, but they often use those jobs as stepping stones to higher-paying occupations. Sure, the minimum wage SOUNDS compassionate, but in fact it is not, particularly for those most in need and those who live in low-cost places. In high-cost places, virtually no one will work for the minimum wage, but they might in, say, Fargo, ND.

Sometimes, broadening the argument out could backfire. It asks the receiver to absorb and process a host of tangential issues.

-Robert Capozzi

A failure to communicate

Freeman editor and hardcore libertarian Sheldon Richman sounds a lot like a Free Liberal in his piece on the continued public support for the minimum wage despite all the ink that has been spilled by free-market economists demonstrating the folly of government-set wages. Sheldon blames the failure of our message to get through on libertarians failure to emphasize how the free society benefits low-income workers:

"It is essential that principled opponents of the minimum wage not appear insensitive to the plight of low-income workers. Some people of course are responsible for their economic plight, but many others are put at a disadvantage by the mercantilist, mixed economy we live in. (Let's not forget, it's not laissez faire out there.) In opposing the minimum wage we should champion the disadvantaged by emphasizing that:

Any regulation, tax, and trade restriction that stifles the formation of new businesses, and thus competition, reduces the bargaining power and self-employment options of workers -- low-income workers most of all. Less bargaining power equals lower wages.

Every intervention that raises the price of housing, clothing, food, and medicine harms low-income people most of all.

Every land-use rule and all government landholding keeps the price of real estate and rents artificially high, harming low-income people most of all.

The actions of the central bank devalue people's money, harming low-income (and fixed-income) people most of all.

A rotten education system harms the children of low-income people most of all.

Simply put, every interference with free people in the free market is first and foremost an attack on the poorest, most vulnerable in society. But notice that each intervention has its beneficiaries; together they constitute the privileged class. The chief enemy of the vulnerable is the corporate state, the system of mercantilist privilege for the politically connected that constrains the creation and diffusion of wealth. In this light the welfare state (the minimum wage and such) is revealed as a way to keep the vulnerable from catching on and rocking the boat. The Manchester liberals Richard Cobden and John Bright put these considerations at the heart of their nineteenth-century peace-and-free-trade movement.

People of good will never stop voting for the minimum wage until they realize, first, that economic laws are implacable; second, that pretending the laws don't exist hurts those they wish to help; and third, that the best way to help is to sweep away all government privilege. Genuine liberals must rededicate themselves to making their movement a people's movement."

On the same lines, I recently came across this great Ron Paul quote from a 1998 Firing Line interview:

"I happen to be a libertarian because of the compassionate nature of the results. I happen to believe that the most prosperous society comes from a libertarian society where people are free to produce at the maximum amount. And you will have the least amount of poverty and the greatest amount of charity...If we are compassionate, I think anybody who cares about the poor has to really start thinking about the libertarian message, because that is where the greatest amount of prosperity is going to come."

More on Israel's Aggression in Lebanon

Paul Craig Roberts is one of the few journalists or individuals for that matter understands the situation unfolding in the Middle East and is willing to discuss it openly. Rarely are both political parties and all of the mainstream media so united on a particular issue. When that happens, we all have good reason to be concerned. Bush's encouragement of Israel's aggression is sowing the seeds of the next 9/11.

That Oh So Squishy "NAP"

Kudos go out to Julian Sanchez of REASON. His blog Libertarianism: Phenotype or Genotype? ought to be required reading for those who fancy themselves theorists of liberty and, specifically, the so-called Non-Aggression Principle (NAP).

Sanchez points out that a socialist could be an adherent to non-aggression, it's just that they have a different view of property rights than, say, Murray Rothbard did.

Therefore, those who cling to NAP cling to not much of anything. NAP simply isn't the unified field theory of political philosophy.

I see no flaws in Sanchez's assertion. Do you?

-Robert Capozzi

Reparations and the Estate Tax

I'm curious: Do those who support abolition of the estate tax (they call it the "death" tax) also support reparations -- in some form -- for African Americans who are descended from slaves? If intergenerational transfers should not be taxed, should not the dramatic tax of slavery be righted?

Call me "provocateur."

-Robert Capozzi

What is going on in Lebanon/Israel?

Paul Craig Roberts explains here the shameful attacks now taking place in Lebanon and why America and its neo-conservative cabal is ultimately responsible.

Killing the Death Tax: A Liberal's View

An Albuquerque resident and victim of the death tax wrote a very insightful column in the Albuquerque Journal on Monday. My favorite line is, "I'm sure my family could have come up with better uses for it (my grandmother's money) than Donald Rumsfeld does." Here's to doing what you want with your own money, no matter where you fall in the political spectrum.

Prominent Neo-Con: Suspend Constitution!

Charles Krauthammer will never be mistaken for a lover of freedom, but in this column he argues that just as the Supreme Court turned a blind eye from Lincoln's jailing of his political opponents during the Civil War and Roosevelt's internment of the Japanese , the current Supreme Court should simply ignore President Bush's ongoing violations of the Constitution.

Of course, in an indefinite "war on terror," he is essentially arguing that Bush should have the ability to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, regardless of the Constitution, as long as it is done to fight terrorism. Come to think of it, that is really the neo-conservative philosophy in a nutshell: perpetual war for perpetual peace.

-- Paul Gessing

Pre-K in the Womb?

A recent Albuquerque Journal story discusses a study by the national Foundation for Child Development in which full-day pre-kindergarten is recommended for all 3 and 4 year olds. New Mexico's new and controversial half-day pre-K program was deemed "inadequate" by the Foundation.

I'm not sure if this foundation is funded by the teacher unions or not, but I can't think of a more effective way to create jobs for public school teachers than allowing the state to get its hands on your kids even earlier. Of course, other studies have found that starting kids even earlier in school to be costly and ineffective boondoggles.

Clearly, the so-called experts are moving quickly towards mandatory in-the-womb schooling at some point. This will clearly create a conundrum for the National Education Association which is adamantly pro-choice.

Moderation Without Meaning?

Fred Foldvary and Bob Capozzi have written about the new Unity 08 party. They both make the observation that it is unclear what exactly the Unity 08 ticket would do, other than to select a mixed Republican and Democrat ticket. This says nothing about the underlying philosophy or what they would accomplish if they somehow got elected (which itself seems rather unlikely.)

Unity 08 won't accomplish much if all they are doing is summing R and D views and dividing by two. The reason the two major parties don't represent all of America is not because they do not want to, but rather because it would be entirely impossible to represent the interests of all Americans given the involvement of the federal government in so many aspects of our lives.

Government which redistributes money back and forth between different economic actors, lavishes subsidies on favored industries, and picks and chooses which companies and individuals will get tax breaks distorts the economy and makes some serfs and others slavemasters. The government's work in dictating how we live as individuals, from what we eat, to the relationships we are allowed to have, to what we may own or not own, is a constant force fueling the culture war. If it must be one way or the other, it inherently puts citizens at odds with one another. As Foldvary suggests, decentralization would allow different states and local communities to select policies which better fit the needs of their residents.

Unity 08 could achieve lasting impact if it chooses to serve principles which generally support the liberty and economic system which make America a desirable place to live. By removing some of the convoluted works of the R's and D's, rather than just splitting the difference, would truly add to the wellbeing of citizens.

-- Kevin D. Rollins

"Practical" LP

While I agree with the story "Libertarian Party Gets Practical in Portland" story here on TFL, I've a slightly different take. Never before in the past -- say -- 50 years, the US seems quite ready for a major third party. The electorate seems to be crying out for a Free Liberal-ish "populist" libertarian approach. A real smaller government without the elitism of the Republican Party's approach seems most in demand. Consideration for the economically challenged and some form of environmentalism and a strong anti-war yet pro-troops stance also seems to be a void that needs to be filled.

What happened in Portland seems to be less about the Reform Caucus prevailing and more about the recognition that the LP's platform has -- unfortunately -- historically been about maintaining a philosophical dogma that the country is simply not ready for. With the mechanism to vote down all the platforms, many in Portland seem to be suggesting that it's time to start afresh. To allow a "big tent" libertarian approach, with populists, constitutionalists and other non-anarchists to have their say about what is appropriate at THIS time, with these conditions. The nearly wholesale rejection of the current platform seems to have spontaneously allowed for the LP to redefine itself in a way that can appeal to those who want less government, but not necessarily NO government, the latter of which -- perhaps in a subterrarean way -- has undergirded the LP's previous platform.

Libertarian theory is grand, but, yes, now is the time to push and guide the country in a "less-government" direction. That is NOT to say that the more philosophically-inclined are "wrong," but merely that the their views are highly premature.

One hopes that the LP can become a REAL force for small-government change, a leader on the Freedom Train.

Can it be any other way?

-Robert Capozzi

Voter Participation is Not Paramount

Paul Gessing responded to an accusation by Robert Morrin of The Washington Post that Jon Stewart is "poisoning democracy." Morrin argues that Stewart's program makes young voters cynical which leads them to be less likely to vote.

If this is true, why is it important? Is voter turnout an important value? For a particular candidate to win, it may be critical for certain segment of the population to vote. However the mere quantity of people who show up at the polls says nothing about the policies and politicians for whom they will vote. In some cases, higher turnout could mean one candidate would win, in others, his opponent. Who and why are the important indicators of political outcomes, not mere numbers.

Is being cynical a bad attribute to breed in young people? If the government continues to fail to address the values of young people, or promotes destructive policies, wouldn't it speak poorly of young people to slavishly adore an entity which works contrary to their interests? We would call such people "fools."

The only value served by dedication to high voter turnout is one which holds up the state as an end in itself. The state can never be an end in itself, it is justified only insofar as it advances someone's interests. Democracy advocates should be concerned that the policies are representative of the people's interests, not in the numbers of people who are involved in the process.

-- Kevin D. Rollins

The Last Straw for Bush

I don't know how many times I heard the argument during the 2004 Presidential Election that the best reason to vote for Bush was because his nominees for the Supreme Court would be better than the alternative. While that may ultimately prove true, one of their first major decisions on individual rights, in Hudson v. Michigan. which allows police to enter a person's house without knocking, is not a good start.

I don't expect to agree 100% of the time with Supreme Court justices, but Bush picked Alito and Roberts in part because of their deference to elected officials, regardless of what the Constitution says. In the meantime, the march towards more powerful, more authoritarian, and more intrusive government continues under President Bush.

Paul Gessing