Workers of the world unite and smash the state!

Sheldon Richman points out how workers, as well as employers, are harmed by federal labor laws. Among other things, federal laws limit the right of workers to withhold their labor (strike) and actually limits an individual worker's ability to chose the type of representation that best suits his individual needs and preferences.

Richman speculates that the Wager Act, which forces employers to cede control of their workforce to union bosses, was a Bismarkan attempt to deflate radial labor movements, such as syndicalism, by offering unions willing to play ball with the government a role in managing the corporate state. The Wagner Act also give big businesses another set of laws that disadvantage their smaller competitors who can not as easily afford the costs associated with compulsory unionism.

The Wagner Act was one of the most egregious assaults on private property and contract in American history, and the way the system of forced unionism harms workers offers us more proof that the state is the true enemy of the working class.

Pentagon Lies Exposed Today

In case you missed it, the family of Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch were on Capitol Hill today to tell their stories and expose the Pentagon's propaganda machine and how the stories of Tillman and Lynch were warped and used to rally popular support for war in Iraq.

I rarely sit and watch Congressional testimony because of the long-winded nature of our congresscritters, but the testimony is worth watching (you can fast forward through the platitudes).

Virginia Tech Every Day

As awful as what happened at Virginia Tech may be, we as Americans must understand that even worse things are happening in Iraq every single day. And, while Saddam Hussein was certainly an evil man, what is happening in Iraq is a direct result of America's misguided foreign policies.

Hopefully, the country wakes up in time to stop more Virginia Tech's from happening in Iran.

Reps. Rangel and Flake agree???

I can't think of many issues on which left-wing Charlie Rangel and conservative/libertarian Jeff Flake agree, but that the United States should engage with Cuba, especially in the post-Fidel era, is one.

Not only are the embargo and travel ban bad for the economy, but they hurt our freedom and make it more, not less likely that the communists will retain their grip on power in Cuba. I've pretty much given up on Bush, but might a President Richardson engage?

-- Paul J. Gessing

Is Extremism a Virtue?

Some like to quote Barry Goldwater’s (infamous?) 1964 acceptance speech, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” The key clause there was “no vice”; the question is: Is extremism virtuous?

Thanks to Darren for commenting on my blog, “It’s All Opportunism.” I feel misunderstood, however. Darren makes the responsible case for gun rights, and even concealed carry. My initial blog was less about the technicalities of those positions and more about specific reactions to the Blacksburg Massacre. It’s entirely possible that most Second Amendment advocates are responsible people, one’s who do not take extremist positions. But, some extremists have been using this tragedy to air their most aggressive views. These people chide moderate freedomistas for being “wimpy” and “namby pamby,” and, worst of all, from their perspective, “opportunists.”

The main point of my blog was to suggest to gun extremists that they were themselves engaging in opportunism to use this horrible event to make their case for guns everywhere. There is nothing inherently wrong with opportunism, in my view. In fact, being attuned to the news cycle seems an excellent way to educate and mold public opinion. I was, however, suggesting some amount of sensitivity for the families of those slain.

My personal view is reasonably pro-Second Amendment. The way I read the Constitution, citizens have the right to bear arms, nationwide, but only on a citizen’s property. And I do believe that Congress can define what “arms” are, and what they are not. I don’t believe that citizens have the right to bear bazookas, for example.

The States have the power to limit where arms are carried, in my view. Banning weapons on the public streets and universities seems a reasonable thing, as the States effectively own the roads. States also can and should restrict who may carry, based on criminal backgrounds or mental defect.

I’m skeptical that States should allow concealed carry, but that is largely a function of population density. It might be reasonable in Wyoming and unreasonable in Rhode Island. Regardless, I’d leave that to the States. That Virginia did not allow guns at Virginia Tech seems reasonable to me, even if perhaps armed students might have stopped the amount of carnage there this week.

-Robert Capozzi

Peace Movement Must Take on AIPAC

AIPAC (the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee) is the driving force behind America's uber-aggressive foreign policy. Unless the pro-peace movement takes them and their rhetoric -- not to mention their outright disloyalty on -- then we will not get anywhere in our efforts to stop future wars against Iran, Syria, and the rest of the Middle East.

It’s All Opportunism

I never cease to be amused when some castigate or criticize others for being “opportunistic.” There seems to be a kind of sanctimony in that judgment . . . something like “I am principled; they are opportunistic.”

Perhaps that’s so. Yet, if one is to avoid current events entirely and simply opine on what one believes are the priority issues facing our society and culture, one would not engage in the “opportunism” of commenting on things like the Virginia Tech shootings.

Yet, those who wrap themselves in the flag of “principle” can’t seem to resist suggesting that Virginia Tech, and all campuses, and everywhere, including commercial jets!, would be far safer if anyone could be packing heat. This of course assumes that everyone’s a marksman, and that these trained marksmen will stop more criminals and psychopaths than random violent acts would be, in a sense, encouraged. In other words, with more guns in public, will it be more likely that someone who would otherwise simply lose his or her temper be tempted to pull, and even use, a weapon?

It seems unknowable whether the incidence of violence would increase or decrease were firearms more commonly in public. But, regardless of the merits of the argument, I suggest such advocacy is “opportunistic.” In this case, tin-eared opportunism, in my opinion. Aside from converted gun folk, calling for more guns when the blood has yet to dry in Blacksburg comes across to many as callous. It certainly does to me.

Thinking back to my college days, I’m not real sure I’d want to go to class with another 18 year old who is carrying a weapon. Students who’ve just left the nest and are discovering who they are have a tendency to act impulsively. I recall students storming out of philosophy classes, angry at what the professor had said or what grade he or she gave a student. I could imagine pistol-brandishing incidents replacing my memories of an angry kid storming out, and, for me, that’s not a pretty picture.

So, in this case, the appropriate response to Blacksburg is to not be opportunistic. Voice one’s condolences, and resist the temptation to potentially profit politically over this tragedy.

-Robert Capozzi

Mises Media

Norm Singleton has posted on the Mises Institute's vast selection of print media. I have recently begun listening to "The Ethics of Liberty" by Murray Rothbard in the form of 20-minute sections that you can download free through your favorite RSS reader (I use iTunes).

I was interested to find out that Rothbard comes off as very much a geolibertarian in his section on Land Monopoly. Not all the chapters are equally convincing to this free liberal, but the print version of "The Ethics of Liberty" sat on my bookshelf for nearly two years unread, before I began the podcasts of the book. The podcasts "shuffled" the content so that I downloaded the chapters based on which looked most interesting. I have since begun shuffling through the print chapters. Consuming the ideas in this manner is both less daunting (because it requires less commitment), and more fun (as it allows you to focus on what is most interesting to you).

The Mises folks should be commended for the multiplicity of forms of media that they offer.

- KDR

Read two books

by a presidential candidate this year and make them Ron Paul's new A Foreign Policy of Freedom and Ron Paul's classic The Case for Gold, the minority report of the US Gold Commission.

Left and Right

The Mises Institute's great new student series uses "on-demand" printing technology to make available numerous libertarian, classical liberal, and "old right" classics.

Free Liberals will be particularly interested in the complete set of Left and Right, one of the first libertarian newsletters which was published from 1965-1968. Edited by Murray Rothbard, Leonard Liggio, and H. George Resch, this publication represents an attempt to forge an alliance between libertarians who rejected the official conservative movement's embrace of, in Bill Buckley's famous words, a "totalitarian bureaucracy" for the duration of the cold war, with the pro-freedom, pro-decentralization elements of what was then the New Left. Free Liberals looking for ways to approach the left without compromising their pro-liberty principles will find guidance and ammunition in these pages.

Also see Rodrick Long's Rothbard's Left and Right:Forty Years latter. The early issues of the Libertarian Forum where Rothbard explains his eventual disillusion with the left also provide a warning of some of the dangers faced by Free Liberals who attempt to revive the libertarian-left alliance.

Never turn your back on the family

Thanks to NY mag and the New Republic for this latest example of the similarities between the Clintons and the Sopranos:

"There are some people the Clintons consider Clinton people who have gotten behind Barack," a longtime friend of Bill and Hillary's explains to me. "And there will be total retribution if the opportunity presents itself."

Total retribution? You're joking, right?

"I'm not joking. They're not going to audit somebody's tax return or anything. But once you've been in the Clinton camp, once they think you're part of the team, once you've helped them and they've helped you and you then go somewhere else--I just think it's very hard to crawl back into their good graces. I'm not saying it won't happen. But they won't forget. They may take you back eventually, but they won't forget."'

Bill and Hillary are living proff that Rothbard was right when he described the state as a gang of thieves.

David Brooks is Wrong

Regular readers of this site will not be surprised that I find Mr. Brooks to be wrong, but a recent article of his is making waves and I feel the need to respond to his arguments. In a recent column, Brooks argued in part tha "the GOP should not return to its Reagan-Goldwater roots as the party of limited government" and that "security" is the solution not only to political victory, but to the real wants and desires of the populace.

Examples of phenomena that he considers top agenda items are Islamic Extremism, failed states, global competition, global warming, nuclear proliferation, a skills-based economy, and economic and social segmentation.

Of course Brooks, being a card-carrying big-government conservative believes that it is the federal government that must come up with solutions to each of these problems in the first place through misguided policies at home and abroad.

Though it is a deeply-flawed article on many levels, Brooks' biggest head-scratcher is his assertion that the Republican Party and especially those in Congress still view government as the major threat to our liberties. The current crop of Republicans both in the White House and in Congress have embraced big government philosophically and in their actions to a greater extent than even the Democratic Party has.

Hopefully both major parties will ignore Brooks' ramblings, but it seems all-too-likely that they have both already embraced the "security = freedom" line.

Orwell update: Imus addition

The Federal Communications Commission may investigate Howard Stern-wannabee Don Imus' comments about the Rutgers' girls basketball team. This might confirm a colleague's prediction that the Imus affair will be used to justify new federal laws regulating "hate speech" on the nation's airwaves. The left will be able to use the religious rights' Janet Jackson-inspired assault on free speech as a guide, they simply can substitute "hate" for "indecent."

Giuliani and the Price of Bread

In an attempt to find out if Rudy Giuliani was in touch with “The People,” a clever reporter asked him if he knew the price of bread and milk. See here. The former mayor’s guess was off, estimating a dollar and change compared to the actual price which was about $3 (at least at the Manhattan grocery used for comparison), bringing up the spectre of George I’s unfamiliarity with everyday America.

A blogger at the Northwest Progessive Insitute took the opportunity to conjecture: “I bet there are millions of American moms and dads who can tell you exactly what they paid for milk and bread.”

Well, maybe they can. However, the NWPI doesn’t provide any data to support this. My first reaction to the story was to ponder if I could correctly name the price of bread and milk myself. After a minute or two of recollecting my own purchases, I was only able to conclude that I am definitely saving money on milk for coffee at home versus the heavily marked-up latte at Starbucks. But the exact number I couldn’t recall. Then, I realized, it does not matter whether Giuliani can name the correct price or not.

Giuliani isn’t a contestant on “The Price is Right.” He isn’t a working on tabulating the Consumer Price Index. He’s running for president. It would be absurd for him to spend his precious time knowing everything that the Average Joe knows. In fact, it would be impossible.

People said Clinton was like the “guy next door.” This was supposed to make you feel comfortable about him – that you could go and have a beer with him and talk about sports, or something like that. But, I don’t want the guy next door to be president. Do we really want someone who is average to control the greatest arsenal of power in the world? Does that make sense?

People have different sets of knowledge. I challenge the NWPI to find ANY two people who have the exact same set of knowledge on all issues and matters. Even if we consider our closest friends, we often have greatly varying knowledge sets. But, it doesn’t mean we can’t empathize with them and care for them.

This entire notion that there are some things which everyone should know is incorrect. It is good that we are able to each have our spheres of information. It allows us to specialize in focusing on what makes our lives work. In fact, it is this specialization of knowledge which enables all of us to contribute value to each other and to grow the wealth of the nation.

Thought experiment time: What if a Sushi chef had to know everything a computer programmer knows in order to log on to the Internet? Can he not value the computer programmer? What if your physician had to be an expert in the fields each of his patients were involved? Would that increase the cost of your medical care? Of course it would. Does it make him a better doctor? It seems unlikely.

Perhaps each candidate should be given a list of prices of every service and product imaginable. Then they would be scored according to how close they were to the average price of a each of those goods and services. Now, we are talking about millions (billions? trillions?) of entries. Could a voter tell which candidate "understood" her needs then? Nope. Because, the only data we have is the average prices in a certain time frame for a limited "market-basket" of goods. There isn't any way for any of the candidates to really comprehend the lives of Americans.

To turn the tables and ask the Average Joe, "Do you know the members of the House Appropriations Committee? Can you accurately describe how the Social Security Trust Fund is administered? Is the Department of the Interior doing a good job managing the National Forests?" Would Average Joe be better off knowing all that? Can he effectively understand the personalities and characters of the presidential candidates?

The questions that we face as voters are more properly stated: Is Giuliani competent in the matters facing the American polity today. Does he have policies which will favor wealth and prosperity, or will his ideas lead us down the road to serfdom? Whether he can opine on the flavor of Wonderbread, or testify to the experience of not getting his full discount on the family-sized Kool-Aid pack is completely irrelevant to whether or not he is a good candidate.

~KDR

Politically Incorrect and proud of it

Looking for a good introduction to Austrian Economics that applies fundamental economic principles to some of today's hottest topics and is written for the intelligent layman? Look no further than Bob Murphy's Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism. The latest in Regnery's "Politically Incorrect" series, this could very well be to this generation of Austrians and libertarians what Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" was to previous generations.

The Once and Future Republic of Vermont

Before reading this article, I thought Texas was the most likely state to secede from the Union, but apparently some Vermonters are getting a bit antsy about the path this nation is heading down.

While Vermont does not leap to mind as one of the most economically-free or "libertarian" states (New Hampshire or Nevada probably win that distinction), the authors make some good points. Plus, after taking a look at their website, I'd say that the Second Vermont Republic folks are rather "Free Liberal" in their thinking.

While they may not succeed or even in their heart of hearts wish to succeed, we need more people who are concerned about the direction this country is headed to stand up....kudos to the Second Vermont Republic!

Orwell update

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for calling attention to the plight of Professor Walter Murphy, a former Marine, critic of Roe versus Wade, and a supporter of the Alito nomination. In a chilling example of how the war on terror is also a war on dissent, Professor Murphy found himself on the no-fly list and was told it likely was because he give speeches critical of Bush.

Here is the story in Professor Murphy's own words:

"When I tried to use the curb-side check in at the Sunport, I was denied a boarding pass because I was on the Terrorist Watch list. I was instructed to go inside and talk to a clerk. At this point, I should note that I am not only the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence (emeritus) but also a retired Marine colonel. I fought in the Korean War as a young lieutenant, was wounded, and decorated for heroism. I remained a professional soldier for more than five years and then accepted a commission as a reserve office, serving for an additional 19 years."

"I presented my credentials from the Marine Corps to a very polite clerk for American Airlines. One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that." I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. "That'll do it," the man said. "

"After carefully examining my credentials, the clerk asked if he could take them to TSA officials. I agreed. He returned about ten minutes later and said I could have a boarding pass, but added: "I must warn you, they=re going to ransack your luggage." On my return flight, I had no problem with obtaining a boarding pass, but my luggage was "lost." Airlines do lose a lot of luggage and this "loss" could have been a mere coincidence. In light of previous events, however, I'm a tad skeptical."

"I confess to having been furious that any American citizen would be singled out for governmental harassment because he or she criticized any elected official, Democrat or Republican. That harassment is, in and of itself, a flagrant violation not only of the First Amendment but also of our entire scheme of constitutional government. This effort to punish a critic states my lecture's argument far more eloquently and forcefully than I ever could. Further, that an administration headed by two men who had "had other priorities" than to risk their own lives when their turn to fight for their country came up, should brand as a threat to the United States a person who did not run away but stood up and fought for his country and was wounded in battle, goes beyond the outrageous. Although less lethal, it is of the same evil ilk as punishing Ambassador Joseph Wilson for criticizing Bush's false claims by "outing" his wife, Valerie Plaime, thereby putting at risk her life as well as the lives of many people with whom she had had contact as an agent of the CIA. ..."

"I have a personal stake here, but so do all Americans who take their political system seriously. Thus I hope you and your colleagues will take some positive action to bring the Administration's conduct to the attention of a far larger, and more influential, audience than I could hope to reach. "

Libertarian horror

Make sure you catch The Host, a great South Korean monster film. Not only is this a really fun monster movie, it is also anti-state and anti-imperialist. The "host" of the title is a monster created when a thoughtless representative of the US military orders his Korean assistant to dump a bunch of chemicals into a river. Most of the film concerns the efforts of a family to rescue their daughter from the monster. The families' efforts are continuously frustrated by government officials who refuse to listen to anyone not connected with the state. Without exception, every government agent in the film expects all civilians to mindless obey the government's orders, questioning the state's edits in any way is treated as evidence of either criminal intent or mental illness. Periodic news bulletins reveal the Korean government is more concerned with pleasing their immperial masters in the US government than protecting the people--if Chalmers Johnson made a monster movie, he would make The Host.

Catch it on the big screen if you can, rent it on DVD if you must, but see this film. It may be the most fun libertarians will have at the movies this year!

Is Cheney Living in an Alternate Universe?

Someone needs to check the residency restrictions for Vice Presidents. I think Cheney is no longer living on planet earth...perhaps he is now an inhabitant of Bizarro World. Even President Bush has denied the link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda prior to 9/11, but Cheney is sticking to his guns.

With all of the lying and obfuscation done by the VP, the only question left is whether he would have fit in better in Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany?

New Mexico Property Owners Finally Protecte

Having vetoed eminent domain protections for New Mexico property owners last year, it was anyone's guess what would happen regarding the need to protect property owners from Kelo-style abuse this year.

Despite a rocky road to success, Governor Richardson has signed legislation providing protections for New Mexico property owners.

Considering the importance of the issue and the controversy that ensued after Richardson the last year (not to mention the fact that he is running for President, it is hard to believe the Governor is not making more hay out of his successful effort to pass protections for property owners. He didn't even send out a press release.

No matter what, it is a good day for private property in New Mexico.

Text of the legislation can be found here.

Who says politicians are stupid?

South Carolina legislators are considering repealing the laws subjecting professional wrestling to regulation by the state athletic commission because they have just figured out that professional wrestling is scripted, unlike other sports where the outcome is not known in advance.

The great inflation cover-up

Counterpunch is not only one of the few left-wing websites to expose the truth about the Democrats' phony opposition to the war they are also one of the few sites to talk about how the Federal Reserve benefits the elites while harming middle-and-working class Americans.

For example, Jane Stillwater details how inflation continues to erode our standard of living, even though the Federal Reserve and its' media groupies keep telling us that the Fed has slain the inflation dragon. Stillwater also exposes how the Federal Government distorts its economic figures to hide the true rate of inflation.

Expanding the welfare state for fun and profit

Or at least profit. 60 Minutes details the relationship between the pharmaceutical lobby and the GOP leadership and how that relationship resulted in the largest expansion of the welfare state in history--to the benefit of the (state-approved) drug companies. Fortunately, there is at least one presidential candidate who is not a member of the Pharma Caucus.

The loyal opposition

The heroic duel of Alexander Cockburn and Jeffery St. Clair explain the lies behind the Democrats claims that a vote for the multi-billion dollar bill funding the war was a vote for peace. Just like the Medicare Prescription Drug vote showed what Republicans are serious about limited government, the vote on the Iraq funding bill shows what Democrats are serious about opposing war. In both cases, the results both a valuable object lesson about how seriously most politicians take their campaign promises to shrink either the welfare or the warfare state.

Dispatches from Bizaroworld

National Journal has labeled Ron Paul a liberal. This is not because Dr. Paul's voting record reflects the classical liberalism of the American founders and Mises. No, the Journal considers Dr. Paul a liberal because he votes against Republican proposals to expand the welfare-warfare state!

To the National Journal, conservative=Bush supporter while liberal=Bush opponent. Therefore, the National Journal considers votes against No Child Left Behind, the Medicare Prescription Drug Act, the PATRIOT Act, etc. to be votes in favor of upholding the tradition of FDR,LBJ and Truman!

Orwell update

Many military prosecutors are refusing to pursue cases against "enemy combatants" because they have been subject to torture by those who love freedom. Thanks to Andrew Sullivan and the Wall Street Journal (!) for bringing this all to rare act of moral courage to our attention:

"When the Pentagon needed someone to prosecute a Guantanamo Bay prisoner linked to 9/11, it turned to Lt. Col. V. Stuart Couch. A Marine Corps pilot and veteran prosecutor, Col. Couch brought a personal connection to the job: His old Marine buddy, Michael "Rocks" Horrocks, was co-pilot on United 175, the second plane to strike the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

The prisoner in question, Mohamedou Ould Slahi, had already been suspected of terrorist activity. After the attacks, he was fingered by a senior al Qaeda operative for helping assemble the so-called Hamburg cell, which included the hijacker who piloted United 175 into the South Tower. To Col. Couch, Mr. Slahi seemed a likely candidate for the death penalty.

"Of the cases I had seen, he was the one with the most blood on his hands," Col. Couch says.

But, nine months later, in what he calls the toughest decision of his military career, Col. Couch refused to proceed with the Slahi prosecution. The reason: He concluded that Mr. Slahi's incriminating statements - the core of the government's case - had been taken through torture, rendering them inadmissible under U.S. and international law.

The Slahi case marks a rare instance of a military prosecutor refusing to bring charges because he thought evidence was tainted by torture. For Col. Couch, it also represented a wrenching personal challenge. Laid out starkly before him was a collision between the government's objectives and his moral compass...

In the following weeks, Mr. Slahi said, he was placed in isolation, subjected to extreme temperatures, beaten and sexually humiliated. The detention-board transcript states that at this point, "the recording equipment began to malfunction." It summarizes Mr. Slahi's missing testimony as discussing "how he was tortured while here at GTMO by several individuals."

Thanks also to Sullivan, who is wrong on many things but one of the most eloquent voices against the regime's claim of power to "indefinitely detain" and torture anyone simply because the executive has labeled them an "enemy combatant, for this, and this.