Not Playing It Safe in Uganda

From the Atlas Economic Research Foundation:

Ugandan Journalist and founder of an independent newspaper in Kampala , was arrested on Saturday, April 26, 2008 at his office. A bold advocate of free speech and a champion in promoting the dangers of foreign aid, Mwenda was arrested for being critical of President Yoweri Museveni's government. Mwenda has since been released on bail, he had this to say "I do not want to play it safe especially if doing so will stop me from fighting for freedom and liberty in uganda - my life would be meaningless if I lived for 100 years watching evil being committed and doing nothing about it. A time comes when people have to take a stand, a strong stand against tyranny. I cannot hide these people's suffering in order to remain alive. I would have abandoned my responsibility to Uganda and to humanity.

More here:

http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/opinions/Police_stop_this_press_brutality.shtml

/KDR

Escaping the State?

Commenting on my blog 283 Nonarchy Pods -- Comin' Right Up, Tarvok makes a good – though obvious – point:

"With the exception of only the most marginal of land (read: uninhabitable), or a few anomalous regions such as Somalia, where can one go to escape the State?"

I'd ask the question: Why is that? Whether Iceland in 1000 AD was inhabitable or not is a question of taste, but nonarchists persist in citing the Iceland experience as somehow "proof" that nonarchy can work. Perhaps the opposite is the case: That isolated Iceland couldn't maintain its nonarchy illustrates that nonarchy is – for now, at least – an unsustainable model.

Weapons of war back then were primitive, yet Iceland was overwhelmed. Habitable places today would have to face far more sophisticated weapons. Is there any doubt that if the Long (now) 285 were to somehow prevail that the geographic area formerly known as the United States would quickly be overrun?

Perhaps we should all go back to the dorm room and play another round of Dungeons & Dragons...right after watching reruns of Star Trek.

-RC

"Both our laws and our highest ideals"

Bush says we should respect both in regards to our immigration policy.

It should be so with ALL our policies.

/KDR

Obama -- Beacon of Hope?

Could a transpartisan Barack Obama sell the world on America, capitalism, and liberalism (versus socialism)?

French political scientist Dominique Moisi seems to think the Democrat will give pro-American Europeans some arguments to “sell” the United States among anti-Americans. “Why is Obama so different,” he asks in a recent syndicated essay, “from the other presidential candidates? After all, in foreign policy matters, the next president’s room to maneuver will be very small. He (or she) will have to stay in Iraq, engage in the Israel-Palestine conflict on the side of Israel, confront a tougher Russia, deal with an ever more ambitious China, and face the challenge of global warming. If Obama can make a difference, it is not because of his policy choices, but because of what he is. The very moment he appears on the world’s television screens, victorious and smiling, America’s image and soft power would experience something like a Copernican revolution.”

This is from Alvaro Vargas Llosa's piece at the Independent Institute. (Hat tip: Michael Strong)

Lions for Lambs

I’ve not read any reviews of Robert Redford’s Lions for Lambs, and this isn’t a review, just some thoughts for your consideration. With Redford, the profoundly talented Meryl Streep, and the ever-intense Tom Cruise as the leads, it’s hard not to plunk down $9 for an hour-and-a-half’s worth of entertainment. While Lions for Lambs is mildly entertaining and generally interesting, this one provided me with insight into old-school liberal mentality.

What struck me about this offering was the story arc of the African- and Hispanic-American characters. Infused with “idealism” by poli-sci Professor Redford’s character, these non-well-to-do students get the idea in their heads that they should drop out of college and enlist in the military to fight in southwest Asia. Professor Redford does not approve. He attempts to convince these young men that their “fight” should be here at home.

They understand that, yet they feel compelled to sign up, anyway. We flashback to a class project they share with us, and here’s where this film careens into a sad parody of the progressive mindset. They suggest that the U.S. is effective at what they call “engagement” with the rest of the world. Presumably, they are referring to foreign aid. There is no mention of how U.S. foreign aid very often falls into the hands of tin-pot dictators or comes in the form of munitions, which in turn are used to keep down foreign peoples across the globe.

Instead, where the U.S. falls down is in its “engagement” within America. There’s no mention that government spending exceeds 40% of GDP. This is not considered. A laundry list of targets for domestic government aid is recited unblinkingly.

Cruise neocon Republican senator is reasonably well characterized. With a world filled with terrorists who wish to “kill us,” Cruise’s counter jihad seems to make a sort of internal sense, but is also not questioned, other than the fact that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have hardly been “cakewalks.”

Lions for Lambs should more properly be characterized as propaganda. It does give us insight into the progressive mindset, one which has yet to question the efficacy of government in securing our liberties. I’d suggest passing or waiting for the DVD for this one.

-Robert Capozzi

Lost Lesson of Thanksgiving

ABC journalist John Stossel makes a very important point about Thanksgiving. He suggests that sharing isn't all that it's cracked up to be, citing the failure of Pilgrim communalism and even Soviet Communism.

He concludes:

Secure property rights are the key. When producers know that their future products are safe from confiscation, they will take risks and invest. But when they fear they will be deprived of the fruits of their labor, they will do as little as possible.

I think Stossel's correct, as far as he goes. Private property and no confiscation have proven time and again to be the most effective means to produce plenty. Incentives, of course, matter.

Sharing, however, can indeed be a wonderful thing, if done voluntarily. Adam Smith called the phenomenon "fellow feeling," the sense of sharing and acting compassionately to others is, for most, an experience that goes beyond dollars and cents.

I suggest that charging people to sit down to a Thanksgiving feast at home with family and friends would be a rather empty experience. That's what IHOP's are for!

Happy Thanksgiving!

-Robert Capozzi

Woodstock > Vietnam as Yin > Yang

Paul Gessing (and Sheldon Richman) makes some great points here.

On the other hand, I wonder whether there would have even been a Woodstock were there not a Vietnam. Horrible as Vietnam was, it did lead to a certain consciousness raising that might not have otherwise happened. The cultural repression of the 50s might have just continued through the 60s. Sometimes virtue is adopted as a reaction to vice, it seems.

Separately, Richman says: "It would be easy to criticize McCain for politically exploiting his five-and-half years of suffering as a captive of the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam war."

Perhaps it is "exploitative." But, as I see it, John McCain did not cause Vietnam. As a young man, he was a willing participant, and he had a horrible time in prison camp. That he survived seems to me perfectly reasonable for him to cite as an example of his character. I wish pols did more of this sort of storytelling. That McCain does so with humor adds to the experience.

I'm highly ambivalent about McCain generally. But he has been a strong voice against the US employing torture tactics in the "war on terror," for which he gets points in my book.

-Robert Capozzi

Last Night's Republican Debate

I stopped watching the debates months ago. Not due to a lack of interest, but because I have already made up my mind. There is only one candidate I can enthusiastically support, Ron Paul, and I'll just have to wait until the primary process works itself out to decide which "lesser of two evils" candidate I might vote for if Ron Paul fails to win the Republican nomination. The great thing about Youtube is that I don't have to waste an hour or two watching Giuliani pontificate or Tancredo bash Mexicans, I can watch the only candidate I really care about.

From the looks of these clips, Ron Paul was stirring things up last night. The idiots on Fox News of course can't stand Ron Paul's principled stances, but as Jim Bovard points out, "Ron Paul is the Buster Douglas candidate".... and I believe that down to the lawlessness of the competition (like Mike Tyson).

The Rub on Vick

Up front, please know that I share a home with two dogs: Buddy The Wonder Dog and Queen Audrey, black labs both. I am careful to NOT say that I “own” them. Rather, I consider myself their butler. They are both consistently loving and compassionate, qualities that I aspire to but have yet to fully achieve.

So, as this news of Michael Vick’s admission to being a circus master to organized dogfighting and butchery has been in the headlines, my perspective has been evolving. This behavior was barbaric, most believe. Yet, some suggest that Vick and his colleagues were merely exercising their property rights over the dogs. Perhaps it was cruel, but some believe dogfighting should be legal. If we outlaw dogfighting, this leads to a slippery slope of outlawing slaughtering cows, pigs and chickens for food.

And perhaps that’s so, on one level. But, for me, outlawing cruelty to animals is quite a bit different than outlawing the eating of meat. Parents, for instance, in a sense “own” their children, but civil society does not allow parents to physically abuse kids like Vick’s associates did to the dogs. Property rights do not, in my view, trump the idea that cruelty should be dissuaded by law.

Is there a bright-line test for what constitutes “cruelty”? Not that I’m aware of. However, Vick & Co. were over it, I submit.

-Robert Capozzi

Aaron Russo, RIP

Hollywood producer and freedom movement activist Aaron Russo passed away yesterday. From my personal site:

An old friend, Hollywood icon and warrior for freedom just passed away. Hollywood producer and former presidential candidate Aaron Russo had been battling cancer for years and it finally caught up with him. I just spoke with immediate family members and confirmed his passing. [snip]

I’ll relay more information as the immediate family has time to deal with the situation.

If I had to guess the epitaph Aaron would prefer, it would be this: All your freedoms, all the time!

Award-winning filmmaker and libertarian political activist Aaron Russo succumbed to cancer Friday at age 64.

Russo was best known for his films, most famous among them Trading Places and The Rose, which won three Golden Globe awards in 1980.

What’s less well known is that he was also instrumental in bringing musical acts to the United States in the 1970s, including one of my all-time favorites, Led Zeppelin.

In his later years, though, Russo turned to politics. In 1996 he produced and starred in a film, Mad as Hell, where he criticized many government policies such as the national ID card, the war on drugs, and government regulation of alternative medicine. In 1998 he ran in the Republican primary for governor of Nevada but was defeated. In 2002, before he could decide whether to run again, he was diagnosed with bladder cancer.

In 2004 he ran for President under the Libertarian Party banner, but failed to get the nomination.

Most recently he produced a documentary film, America: Freedom to Fascism, showing a quest to discover which law requires Americans to pay federal income taxes and finding something quite different.

The Simpsons as Free Liberal Mythology?

I’ll try not to give TOO much away for those who’ve yet to see The Simpson’s: The Movie. But while a farce, aspects of the film fit nicely into a Free Liberal point of view.

First, Homer – the ultimate self-centered narcissistic consumer – realizes that he has contributed in a big way to an environmental calamity. It’s such calamity that the government is planning to take an action that will jeopardize the very existence of Springfield. Homer has fled the scene, yet his conscience impels him to do the right thing, even though it appears that the “right thing” will be dangerous for him.

Indeed, Homer realizes that by helping others, he will help himself in most important ways. This notion may be unsettling to atomistic freedomistas, who tend to point to Gordon Gekko (“Greed, for lack of a better term, is good”) from the film Wall Street as their creed. At a higher level of inquiry, however, Homer is confronted with a similar choice to that of Neo/Mr. Anderson in The Matrix, played by Keanu Reeves. Homer’s journey is all the more fateful, of course, because unlike Neo, Homer directly contributed to Springfield’s plight.

Second, government is shown in The Simpson’s: The Movie to be poor doctors of a dysfunctional situation. Doctors are taught to “first do no harm,” yet government actors attempt to overreact to a threat in a most Draconian manner. Maggie Simpson has the better idea of attempting to persuade fellow Springfielders to take action before a calamity ensues. (Maggie’s chart does look a bit like Al Gore’s in An Inconvenient Truth and is perhaps a bit alarmist, but she advocates in the appropriate direction.) The Feds, however, have a better idea, one that is hard to conclude is anything but a “cure” that is far worse than the disease.

Being restricted from giving away too much, I recommend this film to all. Not only is the mythology instructive, but the Simpson’s producers have an uncanny and seemingly bottomless ability to make us laugh.

-Robert Capozzi

Notes on Sicko

Just back from Atlantic City, spending a few days in the sun, surf, and casinos. While there, I got a chance to see Michael Moore’s Sicko. Say what you will, the man is a gifted propagandist. He’s now able to pull off things that others can’t.

Still, were I doing a “counter Sicko” documentary, I’d know where to start. Atlantic City. The town is filled with recent immigrants from eastern Europe and Russia. So, I’d go around and ask them, “Why have you immigrated to the US vs., say, France?”

I’m pretty confident that several of the immigrants would say, “No jobs in France. US have jobs. Good jobs. Much opportunity.” Or some such.

I could follow up: “But in France you’d get ‘free’ healthcare.”

And I’m pretty confident I’d get answers like: “Rather have job, take my chances.”

Moore used all sorts of manipulative anecdotes to make his case. Fair enough, I suppose. But the final scene, with Moore jokingly “petitioning” Congress to do his laundry, really said it all for me. In a sense, that’s what statists want: A complete nanny state, where the government ‘takes care’ of everything for the people. Me? No thanks. I can do my own laundry, thank you very much.

One series of anecdotes that Sicko does expose that is a major concern is his exposing of insurance companies. Denial of benefits, and even the twisted incentives of rewarding insurance-company staff to have high denial-of-benefits rates is chilling to me. An individual can easily to denied their contractual rights by the deep-pocketed insurance companies.

This imbalance is, for me, the Achilles Heel of free-market capitalism. Capitalism is based on property rights and contracts, yet the legal system is a stacked deck in favor of the well-heeled and large corporations.

This imbalance needs fixing…pronto. Otherwise, the Moore’s of the world can and will make the case for the State to step in and redress this obvious injustice.

-Robert Capozzi

Greenberg on Immigration

I disagree with Paul Greenberg on the immigration bill -- I think it should have died -- but I do share his distaste for the point system contained in the bill. Do we really want government bureaucrats deciding who is worthy and who is not worthy for entry into this country? I prefer an Ellis Island strategy in which we basically let everyone in as long as they don't pose a direct threat to the country as a criminal or carrier of some horrible disease.

Ultimately our country and economy are strengthened by immigration, but economic data can be twisted and are not enough to sway people anyway. Ultimately, it is the moral argument that must win the day. The past failures of the US government to overcome anti-immigration sentiment to let Jews escaping the Holacaust into the country is one specific example of the failure of our government to adequately judge the need to accept people from other lands.

Someone in cable "news" has a clue

I have always hated cable news. While the original expectation was that the additional airtime available on cable would be dedicated to ferreting out the stories the big three networks were too busy to cover, this has not come to pass. Instead, we have wall-to-wall coverage of such stories as Anna Nicole Smith and Paris Hilton.

While that cespool doesn't seem likely to change anytime soon, I felt a little heartened by this exchange between Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough on MSNBC in which Ms. Brzezinski refuses to lead with a story about Paris Hilton. As usual, Scarborough looks like an ass.

Us (Us Us Us Us), and Them (Them Them Them)....

And after all we're only ordinary men...

In re: Kevin Rollins's question on his blog Polarized Too Extreme, there are several answers, depending on the level of inquiry.

Yes, activism as it's generally practiced, tends toward an illiberal, partisan worldview.

But, no, it's not inherently so, IMO. Gandhi in India largely used a transpartisan, non-violent approach in advocating the obvious virtue that India should be independent. Martin Luther King's non-violent approach to consciousness raising around the obvious injustice of segregation was not "us and them" in tone and content, but rather we shall overcome, some day.

And, of course, Pink Floyd poetically had the model about right. "Us and them" is "not what we would choose to do."

-Robert Capozzi

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.

Ending Poverty: What Works?

It has long been the conventional wisdom that one's level of care for the poor can best be measured by how much government spending you support on their behalf. Argument being, government programs are the best way to help poor people get on their feet.

A new study by the Rio Grande Foundation gives support to the limited government viewpoint finding that during the 1990s, states that spent and taxed less actually experienced far greater reductions in poverty than did those states that spent and taxed more.

These findings are not entirely surprising given the findings of various studies of economic freedom around the world that have repeatedly found freer nations to have greater economic success than non-free nations, but limiting the study to only the 50 states shows that even within a similar culture and government umbrella, limited government beats big government -- even for the poor.

Amazing Grace Review

On Friday, I recommended readers of this blog check out the movie Amazing Grace which is playing in theatres now. I enjoyed the movie, but as someone who has been involved in the political process for much of my adult life, I found the movie to be something more akin to a history/civics lesson than a movie for entertainment as many of the film's reviewers have pointed out.

I still recommend the movie and believe that anyone who struggles daily against the establishment will gain from watching it, but I think that it is an even better choice for the average movie-goer who is less interested in politics than in the story itself. These are the people who may realize that the world around them is not a "given" and that they can change it for the better.

Amazing Grace

If your weekend plans are not already booked, may I suggest you check out a new movie coming out this weekend in most areas of the country called "Amazing Grace." The story is of William Wilberforce's efforts as a member of Parliament in 18th-century England to end slavery and the slave trade in the British empire.

I first heard the story of Wilberforce and his compatriot Thomas Clarkson from Larry Reed, President of our sister think tank in Michigan. Reed visited New Mexico in November of last year and those who attended the events also heard the story of Clarkson and Wilberforce.

Essentially, Clarkson started the world's first think tank with the "libertarian" goal of ending the slave trade. He and Wilberforce acted as a team and over nearly 50 years accomplished their goals. The lessons are that ideas matter and you should never give up.

I can't do the story justice here so see the movie. I'll have my review posted over the weekend.

Let Me In--Recovery from Autism is Possible!

Free Liberals interested in alternative treatments and/or just looking for some uplifting reading may want to check out Laura Santos' Let Me In--Recovery from Autism is Possible! The book details how Mrs. Santos used "alternative" treatments to help her son recover from autism.

Ron Paul Running for Prez!

Finally, a candidate with principles has entered the 2008 race for the presidency. With the nightmare scenario of statists McCain and Hillary looming on the horizon as leading contenders for the top office, we need someone of Dr. Paul's limited-government principles more than ever.

Left-Libertarians and workers of the world unite!

Free liberals and others wishing to build a left-libertarian movement will be interested in Roderick Long's criticisms of libertarians for dismissing the concerns of the working class instead of working to build a movement that is pro-liberty, pro-union, anti-state, and pro-worker. I am not sure I agree with everything but, like most things Roderick writes, it is well written and reasoned and provides ample food for thought. Roderick ends with a challenge to both leftists and libertarians that free liberals may want to take up:

"First: eliminate state intervention, which predictably works to benefit the politically-connected, not the poor. As I like to say, libertarianism is the proletarian revolution. Without all the taxes, fees, licenses, and regulations that disproportionately burden the poor, it would be much easier for them to start their own businesses rather than working for others. As for those who do still work for others, in the dynamically expanding economy that a rollback of state violence would bring, employers would have to compete much more vigorously for workers, thus making it much harder for employers to treat workers like crap. Economic growth would also make much higher wages possible, while competition would make those higher wages necessary. There would be other benefits as well; for example, Ehrenreich complains about the transportation costs borne by the working poor as a result of suburbanisation and economic segregation, but she never wonders whether zoning laws, highway subsidies, and other such government policies have anything to do with those problems.

Second: build worker solidarity. On the one hand, this means formal organisation, including unionisation – but I’m not talking about the prevailing model of “business unions,” conspiring to exclude lower-wage workers and jockeying for partnership with the corporate/government elite, but real unions, the old-fashioned kind, committed to the working class and not just union members, and interested in worker autonomy, not government patronage. (See Paul Buhle’s Taking Care of Business for a history of how pseudo-unions crowded out real ones, with government help.) On the other hand, it means helping to build a broader culture of workers standing up for one another and refusing to submit to humiliating treatment.

These two solutions are of course complementary; an expanded economy, greater competition among employers, and fewer legal restrictions on workers makes building solidarity easier, while at the same time increased solidarity can and should be part of a political movement fighting the state.

That’s the left-libertarian movement I’d like to see. And people keep telling me it doesn’t exist. Good lord! I know it doesn’t exist; why else would I be urging that it be brought into existence?

Of course I’m also told that it can’t exist. Libertarians tell me it won’t work because leftists don’t care enough about liberty; leftists tell me it won’t work because libertarians don’t care enough about the poor and oppressed. In short, each side insists that it’s the other side that won’t play along.

Now the answer to this is that some will (and have) and some won’t – but that we should do what we can to increase the number who will. So here’s a general challenge.

If you’re a libertarian who thinks leftists don’t care about liberty, why not become a leftist who cares about liberty? That way there’ll be one more. Or if you’re a leftist who thinks libertarians don’t care about the poor and oppressed, why don’t you become a libertarian who cares about the poor and oppressed? Once again, that way there’ll be one more. And in both cases there’ll also be one fewer libertarian of the kind that alienates leftists by dismissing their concerns, and likewise one fewer leftist of the kind that alienates libertarians by dismissing their concerns."

On the Passing of Milton Friedman

In case you haven't already heard the news, Miltion Friedman, one of the greatest freedom-fighters the world has ever known, died yesterday at the ripe old age of 94. Friedman is best known as a Nobel Peace Prize-winning economist, but he was truly a liberty-loving individual on all levels. He and his wife worked on issues as diverse as school choice to drug policy reform. He also strongly opposed the Iraq War . Dr. Friedman will be sorely missed by all.

300 million people

As of Tuesday, it is estimated that the United States will have 300 million inhabitants. There has been a lot of hand-wringing about immigration and whether the United States can handle so many people, but it is hard to see what is different about the current spat of overpopulation and immigration worries.

The Malthusians have been wrong before and will continue to be wrong because they simply fail to understand that human ingenuity can overcome the problem of scarce resources in a free society.

Now, if we actually heed the advice of some of these doomsayers, who knows how that might negatively-impact our ability to support all kinds of life.

Institute for Justice -- A Pro-Freedom Gem

Jim Turbett and I were afforded a lovely evening in the new offices of the Institute for Justice, which recently moved from the District out to a larger and more impressive office in Arlington, VA. IJ is celebrating 15 years of "litigating for liberty" and they deserve a toast to their fine success.

The new office almost seems like a museum, or a showroom for their many accomplishments, as they have pictures of clients, cover-stories of national news magazines covering their cases, and "I am IJ" ads posted attractively in between offices and cubicles. It affects a comfortable, friendly air, even while the visitor knows that these spaces must house the work of some very serious and effective people

And the staff is serious and effective, but they are definitely not miserable Washingtonian gray suits. They obviously are in love with their work and they could not have been more hospitable to us. Like the office, they don't find professionalism and humanity to be at odds. Chip Mellor is correct to describe his team as a "Merry Band of Litigators."

IJ fights battles which most Americans should appreciate. I agree with Jim's comment that if a political organization was searching for a mission, it could not do better than to adopt IJ's priorities and positions. IJ's sucess is well deserved and I look forward to the great things we shall see from them in the future.

~Kevin D. Rollins

Global Family and Day of Peace Day or where is Tom Lehrer when you really need him!

Today, Congress voted to establish a Global Family Day and a Day of Peace and Sharing. This is humanity's greatest advancement since National Brotherhood Week, which was immortalized in this great song:

Oh, the white folks hate the black folks,
And the black folks hate the white folks. To hate all but the right folks
Is an old established rule.

But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
Lena Horne and Sheriff Clarke are dancing cheek to cheek.
It's fun to eulogize
The people you despise,
As long as you don't let 'em in your school.

Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks,
And the rich folks hate the poor folks.
All of my folks hate all of your folks,
It's American as apple pie.

But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
New Yorkers love the Puerto Ricans 'cause it's very chic.
Step up and shake the hand
Of someone you can't stand.
You can tolerate him if you try.

Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics,
And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
And the Hindus hate the Moslems,
And everybody hates the Jews.

But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
It's National Everyone-smile-at-one-another-hood Week.
Be nice to people who
Are inferior to you.
It's only for a week, so have no fear.
Be grateful that it doesn't last all year!

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."

The Tree Climbing Actress

Thanks to Paul for pointing out the spectacle of Daryl Hannah climbing a tree to protest the destruction of a garden in Los Angeles. I'm sure the urban garden is lovely and maybe it SHOULD be preserved... But, there's a very simple way Daryl Hannah could remedy the situation without causing a conflict. She could buy it. If the garden visitors value the land more as a garden, more than the current owner values it as a warehouse, then they could demonstrate the strength of their preference by voting with dollars.

A similar situation happened in Northern Virginia some years ago, when a farm park in McLean was slated for development. Much outcry took place at government meetings, but the local residents didn't ante up. Evidently, the people who were lobbying to save the park were unhappy and there were undoubtedly others who would have benefited from the beauty and uniqueness of a park in the heart of suburbia. I think this is a tragedy.

But, it is mostly a tragedy caused by failing to see solutions beyond government mandate and collective decision.

We need people who are willing to not just scream and yell, but who will consistently work to preserve (and create) quality of life. Any group of concerned citizens could work together to achieve more pleasant and friendly neighborhoods. If citizens can't pay to save a open spaces individually, working with neighbors is way to build community and add even more value to the places we call home.

-- Kevin D. Rollins