Hiatus is self-explanatory. I’ve taken a break from my political blogging activities of indefinite length but don’t necessarily want to get rid of the blog as I may want to return to it. What isn’t self-explanatory is why and for the few of you who keep track of what I have to say, I think it’s only fair for me to offer an explanation. So, here goes.

Blogging has been dual-purpose project for me from the outset. Of course, I did want to ‘put myself out there’ and share my view of the political scene from a libertarian perspective, and it’s been fun to do so. But I was also looking to learn about what’s happening on the web. Along the way I’ve built several other sites and have several business interests that I’ve explored online, all of which were helped by creating and building traffic for this blog. I’m no longer focused on building my own online business so that aspect of my interest has waned and frankly, I learned what I wanted to about blogging, social media, ecommerce and the web in general. Of course, it’s all outdated in 15 minutes, but that is also something I learned. The web is evolving continuously, and in fact, the pace of its evolution seems to be speeding up. As dizzying as it all may seem, it is truly a phenomenon that is awe inspiring to witness and be part of in some infinitely small way.

But none of the above has much to do with why I’ve stopped my political blogging entirely. The reasons are much more personal. First, I’m literally disgusted with the state of our politics and spending time on the topic is just a severe downer. Even worse yet, the state of libertarian politics and the party itself is pathetic, bifurcated and corrupted. I cannot in good conscience, for example, claim to be part of a political movement that gives the odious, morally questionable crank, Ron Paul a pass for his past. His present is not terribly attractive to me either, as his hodge-podge of policies/beliefs and ideas run from Utopian to ignorant to fanciful, which I know is fun to do but has very little to do with the classical liberal values I hold dear or what this great country was founded upon.

The libertarian movement is also home to a growing crop of pseudo-intellectual adult-children who alternately refer to themselves as “anarcho-capitalists”, “stateless society” supporters and/or “voluntarists”. What most of them don’t understand is that they are subscribing to magical thinking and a political philosophy which is morally bankrupt – but that doesn’t stop them from infantile moralizing and asserting their view as somehow worthy of anything other than speculation. I should make clear that I think there are serious thinkers who adhere to anarchy, such as the brilliant Tom Palmer and others, but they are much more humble in their assertions. Yet even then, much of what emanates from those true intellectuals is a critique of the state rather than any kind of complete, morally sound political philosophy (anarchy is a solely a personal philosophy). As well, they don’t associate with crypto-racists like Lew Rockwell and others who cloak their hate and conspiracy mongering in the rhetoric of liberty.

I’m a classical liberal. Not a libertarian, not a conservative, not a constitutionalist (whatever that even means). The values of classical liberalism are what the founders of this country adhered to in forming our nation, drawing on the greatest thinkers our world has ever known starting with the Greeks and Romans, tracing their way forward along the lines of liberty and the good life. I’m content to be in that company and confident that this political philosophy is morally correct for one who supports individual sovereignty and a free society.

The final blow for me was realizing that most political junkies on the web only want to hear what “their side” believes. Ideology seems to be a proxy for reason for these folks and very few engage in real, honest and logical arguments. It’s more like rooting for your sports team than discussing political ideas in a search for truth. Sadly, I came to the conclusion that I was influencing no one and was often engaging in what I saw in so many others; reveling in the fantasy of being relevant, seeing my words appear on web pages and pretending it made any “difference” in the world. It doesn’t and I don’t substitute wishful thinking for facts, so I’m compelled to react to what I’ve learned. Farewell. Thanks and I wish you all a free, prosperous year.

Technorati Tags: anarcho-capitalism, anarchy, classical liberal values

Sigh, listening to the likes of Peter Schwiezer and the right wing echo chamber discuss ‘crony capitalism’, one would think that this kind of thing never happened in government before, or that other’s haven’t been complaining about it for years. I say welcome to the party, but you should realize most on the right are still largely ignorant of the true nature of the problem.

Why do I say this? Just listen to what Peter and his fellow travelers suggest as a ‘solution’ – “Throw them all out”. Really, that’s going to solve anything? Hmmm, I’m not nearly as sure that will make any difference at all. In fact, when one considers the broad sweep of how various government interventions actually work in the real world, and how individuals and institutions organize themselves to best suit their interests around these interventions, why is it reasonable to conclude that one set of office inhabitants are “the problem”? If fact, a much smarter observation might be that there is something inherent in the system, in the very nature of what government is up to in the U.S. that causes such uniformly self-serving behavior to become endemic.

I’m not at all sanguine about ‘legal corruption’ – but really, how are you folks cashing social security checks any better morally? Or collecting farm subsidies or just a subsidized student loan? You are all using political power to gain property – and using the law/state to create and protect your perquisites. There is something corrupting in its very nature about government picking winners and losers in society, taking property from one “group” of people and giving it to another “group”. Keep in mind that in actuality, there are no groups in society, nor is there even such a thing as “society” itself, only individuals who lose and gain very unevenly at the effect of these interventions.

There is an entire academic field dedicated to understanding such phenomena, it’s called “Political Economy”. This field considers the consequences of government actions via institutions, regulations and law upon individual actions. It understands, for example, that if you subsidize energy production of one type, that political forces will be drawn into action to promote or defeat it. That individuals will seek to benefit from these interventions, that those who run institutions will seek to reinforce their powers and expand their purview simply due to the individuals involved pursuing their self interest in legal and rational ways.

What it doesn’t do is demonize the individual participants in the system. In fact, once one gets realistic about how politics, regulation and self-interest intersects, it becomes readily apparent that the government cannot intervene in free markets without such behavior that the right is suddenly bemoaning from occurring. It’s axiomatic and unavoidable.

I am very pleased the right is getting worked up about this. Properly understood, this issue could actually be a strong platform to advocate for a real rollback of government, if the philosophical case is advanced properly. But instead, the right is personalizing it, focusing on one elected official or another – which is okay, as far as it goes. But the bigger issue would require right wingers to question their view of “good government” interventions such as social security or drug laws – and if you want to see abuse of power and ridiculous, un-American actions, just look at the drug war – 50% of U.S. criminal justice spending is on drug enforcment now. It is filled with government employees perpetuating their own and their institutions interests, and locking people up who never hurt a soul. Just looking at DEA property seizures should be enough to get Tea Partiers out in the streets, but that would take an actually consistent moral stand, one that I’ve yet to see emanating from them or the other denizens of right wing politics.

Unfortunately, the right isn’t willing to look hard at the basic problems in our society yet and is content to become ever more morally self-righteous. Have at it, I’m sure it feels good, but don’t for a moment think this campaign will result in better government or politics. To believe so is simply wishful thinking.

Adbusters, an anarcho-communist activist group, is the organizing force behind ‘Occupy’. Adbusters and their fellow travelers subscribe to a political philosophy called anarcho-communism. This letter is an attempt to take you folks and your ideas seriously, and to respond to you.

I know your ideas come from Kropotkin, Baikunin and Proudhon, and that you believe they saw through this corrupt system of control we idiots call freedom and capitalism. But you see, just like all other communist/collectivist ideologies, that worldview is only interesting as criticism. It doesn’t possess a stitch of real world applicability, and I think we see this reflected in the ‘Occupy’ movement in the sense that you hear complaints informed by this view ‘it’s our park’, ‘it’s our street’ etc., as a fundamental precept of this philosophy is that property per se should be eliminated. (I’m also writing for people who know nothing about you). Anarcho-communists should also be aware that this entire line of thinking was debunked a long time ago – here’s an article from 1970 that will straighten out anyone confused enough to be anarcho-communist  http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard122.html .

You see, there is no way to replicate the information transmission system of free markets. Economists and political philosophers had this debate for the most of the 20th century, and even Robert Heilbronner finally gave up the ghost in 1989. There is no effective way to replicate the wealth producing effects of private markets. The mechanics of price, profits and property in conjunction with free people trading in that system, with recourse to state enforcement of contracts unleashed a wave of wealth creation that is simply unprecedented in the history of human civilization.  Any data driven analysis shows this is true to a shocking scale, it’s not subtle, it’s revolutionary. The adoption of what is referred to as ‘classical liberal’ political system utterly changed the world in a way that nobody predicted. It was a step function – unprecedented and responsible for the explosion of wealth in the world.

Your critique of capitalism and property neglects to properly weight the huge, unequivocal benefits to mankind in lifespan, health, wealth and other real measures of human quality of life that this flawed version of capitalism and liberty has delivered.  Societies that haven’t adopted this classically liberal system have been left to suffer unnecessarily, almost always under the jackboot of some thuggish dictator who claimed to stand for ‘the people’. And please don’t go on about the exploitative nature of wage labor – the data doesn’t support that either. and you should know that the labor theory of value was also disproved (a long time ago, all economists agree). That pesky, wealthy middle class just keeps slowing down the revolution, I know. How can you folks believe such disproved ideas in 2011?  You have to ignore huge amounts of data and create “facts” from whole cloth to miss what’s really going on in the world, but it’s you who call us delusional? What a galling combination of arrogance and naivete.

I know, I know, you are just bubbling with anger and readiness to explain how “property is theft” and the exploitative nature of “wage labor” as part of you conspiracy narrative, but your arguments don’t pass muster. The part that is missing in the west is the large cabal controlling the financial  conspiracy you think exists, when in fact the root problem is an over- encroaching state informed by such collectivist philosophies as Social Justice Theory, Marxism and socialism in the first place. The problem is an unlimited, busy body state that destroys virtually everything it touches.

Take your view of the banking/monetary system – it only gets the powers it holds over our destiny by government. We don’t have a free market banking/securities/insurance market, so any critique of  it should start with the fact that it’s not a free market. Also, you shouldn’t be surprised that government controlled banks et al seek to affect the actions of those regulatory bodies that govern them. We have a fundamental right to petition our government and whether you like it or not, corporations are collections of people – collectivist in fact, just voluntary – and yes, hierarchical and wage based. I know you object to these things but your opinion doesn’t reduce the rights of people in corporations to express their interests collectively . Why should folks who work in such settings lose their rights to free speech and to petition their government on behalf of their interests? Are trade unions the only collectivist groups that are allowed a voice in your worldview?

There is no evil cabal of wealthy people conspiring to manipulate the global financial system to keep exploiting the people. Rather, there is a very imperfect financial marketplace that is intervened in by governments in absurd ways all around the world, mostly without regard to the unintended consequences of their actions. Fyi, this is why bankers/securities industry collect so much wealth. They are able to tilt the field to their favor via government protection, but they don’t  don’t do so by breaking the law. Rather, they simply try to influence the politicians and regulators to make decisions in their interests via legal means. Please  understand this. When you assign our difficulties to a conspiracy of evil rich people or criminal acts this causes you to miss the real problem in the first place – state intervention to try and “protect” us.

Jeffrey Friedman and Wladimir Kraus’s Engineering the Financial Crisis explains the nature of this problem, particularly with respect to the perverse incentives of the institutional structure of global financial regulation, very clearly. They provide a much more evidence based and coherent explanation of our economic crisis than any conspiracy theory you folks have ever dreamed up. A video summarizing this view can be seen here http://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/engineering-financial-crisis-systemic-risk-failure-regulation

Worse yet, your incomplete, Utopian prescriptions for a collectivist, anarchic society based on fanciful views of human nature’s propensity for mutual aid ignore the fact that I don’t need protection from mankind’s good impulses, I need protection from mankind’s bad impulses (like your’s). The entire classical liberal vision can be explained as a desire to protect the “people” from exploitation by ‘bad’ people taking power in government. Even more to the point, your anarchic beliefs simply don’t prescribe a workable institutional structure or really any kind of implementation vision. In my opinion, they are very likely to result in chaos and then totalitarian government if one examines history for the results of similar Utopian efforts

In closing, I do want to say that I  understand your anger. The current combination of crony capitalism and out of control local, state and federal governments that are destroying our liberty and prosperity is unworkable and crumbling before our eyes. It’s also true that the current crop of political choices are mostly unappealing to anyone seriously wanting to improve our society. However, proscriptions for more government intervention and more handouts (wiping out student loan debt, for example) are the kind of policies that created this mess in the first place. Rolling back government to its role of protecting individual rights and delivering some public good and protecting us from dangerous externalities is the solution that will deliver higher levels of prosperity – not anarchy or a larger state.

Technorati Tags: adbusters, anarcho communism, anarchy, free banking, kropotkin, liberty, occupy wall street, proudon

The spectacle happening on Wall Street and in other cities across the U.S. is no mystery. We turned government into a teat for special interests to suckle from a long time ago. It’s inevitable that some people will get angry and believe that they should get a chance to live off the rest of us too, the weak and confused especially. We are at the point where putting our heads in the sand and hoping that things will eventually work out is over and either we radically change the role of govt in our societies or we go the way of the Roman empire.

Government, Progressives, Marxists and other Socialists have infected large parts of society with an illiberal philosophy, one that craves power and is in the business of “social justice”. It sounds like such a nice term, but think about it. It takes the notion of justice which is about law, crime and punishment, which we have traditionally limited to crimes against persons and property, or tort law for contracts, and applies it to social outcomes that they arbitrarily deem as “fair” (those of you informed about political philosophy will know that I’m referring to Rawls, not Wallis).

There is ample academic criticism of this ideology for it to have been set aside by now or at a minimum, regarded with proper skepticism, but see, they just don’t care. They’ve combined this flawed belief system (one that gives them certain moral superiority, a priori) with the power based politics of the leftists and the new leftists who concluded that their philosophies were useless if they didn’t gain power decades ago. That’s why they so value Mao’s insight about “power coming from the barrel of a gun”. The amalgam that results is this confused and rudderless mob babbling like morons. The good news is that they are largely harmless as these folks wouldn’t for a second actually sacrifice themselves for any cause, no less this one. They just want to have a tantrum and they don’t even realize that the rest of us are treating them like three year old children who don’t know any better.

Once you start to get how deep the rot is, you should get really scared. This isn’t going to be solved in one election cycle. The very character of the American people has been degraded by generations of people perpetuating the myth that government is the source of social well being via state coercion (at the barrel of a gun, ultimately) instead of voluntary orders which organize themselves inside of a framework of law that protects our negative rights to liberty and property. These folks have utterly disconnected from reality, enabled to do so by a complicit govt and other parts of society that tell them they are ‘entitled’ to certain things that other people produce without having to pay for them. They would laugh at the assertion that it’s actually their worldview that is unfair – so deluded are they.

My take? We are way too far gone to ever right this ship. What comes next, who knows? Chaos is the only certain answer I can come up with.

Technorati Tags: occupy wall street, rawls, social justice

Watch this video. Jon Stewart skewers Fox and CNN for their willful exclusion of Ron Paul from their coverage. It’s too good to not pass on!

To hear the comments of the pundits and politicians over the past couple of days, one would think that the Tea Party and other’s who support fiscal responsibility are some kind of lunatics. Whether it’s New York Times columnists calling them Jihadists or congressmen calling them “un-democratic”, the rhetoric has become heated up in a way that bears little resemblance to reality. That’s a good thing, it means they are really starting to worry.

The Leftist edifice to itself is at stake in this debate. It is Leftists who go to work in government (outside of law enforcement and the military). It is Leftist NGO’s and non-profits who feed at the teat of government grants and subsidies. It is Leftists who run government employee unions. It is Leftists who have feathered their nests in academia. It is Leftists who create regulations and laws that facilitate ridiculous law suits like Pigford 2. They have been very craftily been creating laws and policies that grow government and suit their interests out of the sight of most of the public for years now and the cutting of government means that their livelihoods are at stake.

I was talking to someone recently, an actual socialist, who works for state government in information technology about the libertarian open immigration stance. He said that if we had unlimited immigration, the value of his job might drop in half due to immigrants who would come here and do the work he currently does more cheaply. I didn’t say anything to him about this as I don’t want to get into a fight, but inside I was cheering, hell yeah! I want government to operate as inexpensively as possible. The question he seems to not ask himself is why he thinks his job deserves protection by the government in the first place instead of doing everything to minimize the amount of money we take from tax payers? His sense of entitlement is so well developed that it doesn’t occur to him that he’s a cost we’d love to eliminate given half a chance.

The Left is on defense now. What doesn’t seem to be getting noticed by most people is that Obama and the Lefties lost this battle – there were no tax increases. They are on defense now, and accordingly, now is the time to get serious about real change. This means advocating for specific policy changes, not just “no tax increases” and “spending cuts” as we head into the 2012 budget fight. We need to begin to develop support for policy changes that we think can gain popular support. I say we start with the following areas:

1.USDA Farm Subsidies – The USDA employs over 100,000 people and spends over 100 billion USD per year. Can you imagine? For what? Why does agriculture need so much oversight and intervention from the federal government? Advocates of liberty should stand firm on this. Republicans would gain a lot of respect from libertarians and Tea Partiers by making this bold move.

2. Defense – Let’s get out of Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq right now. 58% of the American People support this and we could get real support from lefties for this too. Furthermore, we should re-evaluate every overseas post we have, including Europe and South Korea and reduce force and commitments significantly. However, we should also make clear that we want to maintain our overwhelming superiority against our current and potential adversaries, particularly with respect to technology advantages such as the F-22 (much of our ability to protect ourselves and project power depends on air superiority and funding the F 22 would solidify this lead for decades). We should cut our extraneous activities, but not our core capabilities.  We could probably save 200 billion USD per year without reducing our readiness or capabilities one bit.

3.  Eliminate every social program that has failed to meet its initial goals or that is a ‘nice to have’. Head Start is a perfect example of this. It was sold as a means to offset disadvantages that poor kids have in the start of their lives, but every study since it’s inception has shown that any advantage realized is temporary and by 5th grade, there is no difference in the performance of children in or out of Head Start. It’s become a free daycare program – in other words federal welfare with no observable benefit. There are hundreds of such programs that the Feds run such as the 21st Century Conservation Youth Corp which are simply luxury items and full employment acts for sociology degree holders. The Republicans should gather a list of all such programs and push for their defunding.

4. Shut down Fannie/Freddie/FHA/VA/RHS mortgage operations. Sell their portfolios for whatever we can get for them and fire all the employees. Haven’t we learned anything from the recent debacle?

There are many other things we could focus on, but I think by focusing on a small number of items and building the case for these cuts carefully, we can really start putting the Lefties on defense. Let them justify spending money on such things when we are on the verge of financial collapse. And if the Republicans were bold enough to take on defense proactively, we could get ahead of Obama’s cuts, which you know are coming. By getting specific, we can also say we want to preserve what the government should be doing. By avoiding huge issues like entitlements and health care until we have real power, we can avoid fights that we can’t win and allow us to keep on offense.

The Cut, Cap and Balance program proposed in the WSJ today is interesting, but it has a big problem.. There isn’t enough support from the American people, or the Republican party for that matter, for such a draconian move. Do you see the poll numbers on cutting individual programs? I mean, why do you think the hucksters who get elected got there? It was by promising goodies, not responsibility.
It’s the weakness of a democracy with an out of control state that has lead us to such a precarious position.  Small minorities will manipulate the system to gain significant advantages for themselves at a cost that is virtually unnoticeable when diffused across the tax paying population. The problem is that we now have hundreds of such groups feeding at the teat of government largesse greedily. In fact they are righteously guzzling down the earnings of their fellow citizens, and mostly despise us to boot, while dismissing us as stupid.  These groups are brought together in solidarity by the left/democrats/progressives/socialists/NeoConGelical/ConCon or whatever they are calling themselves at the moment and motivate their bases to resist all compromise. That’s how we got here. We are now at the inevitable showdown.

I’m a libertarian, but I have to ask those on the right a simple question. Do you really think this is the way to govern? I mean, this is the definition of brinksmanship. I know this is a very unpopular view for a libertarian, but I think that our political process matters and that the rule of law means something. All of the spending that the Republicans are now objecting to is stuff that was voted through the Congress. It’s spending that already has statutory mandate. It isn’t discretionary – we’ve already had a political process to come up with the taxing and spending on the table. That was the irresponsible act, that is why we are in the mess we are in.

On the other side of that coin are our liabilities. Paying our debt is a statutory obligation as well. We risk our high credit standing in the world at our own peril. While I don’t think that anyone who understands this debate seriously doubts that the outcome will be a debt increase vote without much spending cuts, I think there are lots of Americans who think that not raising the debt ceiling would be a good idea. I worry about such people being pandered to.

What we need is real and principled policy debates in the congress. We should engage the entire nation in a dialog about the nature of our government, it’s extent and ultimate authority over our lives. It’s time to have it out. We should recognize that we are at an impasse because we aren’t resolving our differences. One thing we can learn from some of our European friends like Germany is that responsible government can emerge from politically divided government. This process can only happen by the normal budget making process. It is designed to support such important public debates. Using one vote on the debt ceiling to try and accomplish what it couldn’t at the voting box isn’t laudatory, it’s a shortcut, and a craven one at that.
Silly brinksmanship won’t get us anywhere, you crazy right-winger know-nothings get that, yes? The right’s negotiating position is awful.  Just like last time on the CR, Obama will look at Boehner and say “No.” And that will be that. Boehner will not be responsible for us not voting the debt ceiling up. Anyone with a brain knows this. In other words, the GOP has no leverage. And remember, the GOP only has the House. What makes anyone think it represents a majority of Americans? How can it not see that compromise is necessary?

Here’s an even crazier question. GOP, if you think the problem is so severe, why wouldn’t you accept some revenue increases? I mean, if it’s the planet ending crisis you seem to say it is, why wouldn’t you be willing to accept that which is unacceptable to you normally, for the greater good? That is the very nature of compromise. It makes you resolve and prioritize your values. If not going under financially is more important than cutting spending, well there you have it. But I hear no such reasoning from the GOP. I don’t even see any real desire to cut back big areas of spending like the warfare and police state that we have developed. And even when you get to welfare, like medicare, social security and medicaid, there is little appetite in the GOP base to cut these programs meaningfully enough to make a real difference soon enough. I’m not even sure most of them would cut farm price supports.

We sold ourselves down the river 100 years ago with the likes of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. I mean, how do you think Obama got elected? A lot of people want him to take from the rich and give to them (even if they aren’t poor). Begger thy neighbor is a way of life in our country, and this vote isn’t about to change it. Smarter people have said it better than I could ever do:

“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money” – Margaret Thatcher.

It is best coupled by the prescient observation of Friederich Hayek: “Once politics become a tug-of-war for shares in the income pie, decent government is impossible.”

We have far bigger problems than this vote, folks.The only way forward for such a state is collapse. I’d prepare yourselves, I see reason nowhere.

Obama has just announced that he intends to renew his ‘outreach’ to the Muslim world. Perhaps this gooey sentiment will be as effective as Obama’s many failed efforts as a community organizer in Chicago, but I digress. My question is does Obama think his vaporous words can change the hearts and minds of Arabs and Muslims who hate America so thoroughly? If he thinks so, he misunderstands the region and the nature and implications of the “Arab spring”. First off, the uprisings in some of the Arab countries were the creations of very small minorities of people who have been trying to create a civil, non-violent uprising for some time, so he needs to understand that genereally this is no “organic” movement of Arab peoples to embrace liberal democracy (Tunisia, the spark, is an exception but even there, social activists played a role in fomenting the revolution). In fact, many of the leaders of these factions have been trained by the west in organizing these kind of movements, and are now actively being guided by NGOs in how to carry out their protests. They have leveraged Tunisia and widespread dissatisfaction with current conditions by the lower classes in their countries. However, in each country that we examine we find that the ‘leaders’ are in a small minority. What they tap into is a populist rage against their dictators, many of whom we supported for decades. But this rage is not aimed at building an actual functioning free society, rather it is a rage against the status quo.

The majority of the citizenry in each of these societies favor either an Islamic society or a faux “modern” state in which Islam plays a huge role. I think that over time this inherent conflict between secular, liberal values and Islam is irreconcilable. Just look at Turkey or Pakistan – both states that supposedly set out to build “modern” or “moderate” Islamic societies. Their liberal institutions are falling by the wayside as Islamism increases it’s hold. Given these failures, how can anyone expect Egypt or Syria to erupt into anything other than more Islamic states, with all that implies in terms of our interests.

It seems to me that Obama is missing the point. Islamism is ascending in these societies, not retreating. Islam will tend towards radicalism and violence, just as Christian monarchies did for centuries. It took numerous reformations of Christianity and the concomitant rise of liberalism in the West to create a consensus among the elites in Western countries to cast aside their tyrants in favor of building liberal societies. Intrinsic with this movement was an utter, and explicit rejection of any role for religion in the governance of these countries. Then, and only then, were we able to throw off the yoke of religious authority in the political sphere. Is there any evidence of such a reformation movement gaining hold in Islam? Is there any evidence that the elites in the countries in question support liberal, secular ideas? It’s laughable to even ask the question.

The problem goes even deeper for the west. Our own conflicted views about freedom, whether it’s from Marxists/Socialists, Progressives, Social Justice theorists, Keynesians and/or now behavioral economists like Stiglitz who claim to have proven that classical market economics is a myth, all to feed a constant critique of Western values to those in repressed societies to denigrate the very idea of freedom. Bin Laden himself adopted these ideas in his own anti-American rhetoric. Sophisticates and elites the world over pander to the rage of the oppressed, convincing many of them that the U.S. is an imperial war criminal, bent on destroying them and controlling their countries for our gain. Ask yourself, why would they want what we have? Obama is a perfect representative of these cadres, how does he expect to speak authoritatively and authentically about liberty when he doesn’t even believe in it himself? Answer, he can’t and won’t, but it’s not just him. This ideological fault line has been built over a long period of time, and enjoys wide support amongst the elites of the West. How can they encourage these folks to adopt liberal, free societies if they don’t believe in it themselves? I mean, can you really believe that Chomsky could stand up and speak to those in repressed societies that he claims to fight for about building a liberal, free society without having his own critique of it handed right back at him? These folks and their ideological forebears have spent more than a century denigrating the American experiment with liberty, despite them saying they love freedom. Put another way, what does Obama believe these folks should do? I mean, the same week that his NLRB gins up highly politicized charges against Boeing, in the interest of his union cronies, he’s now going to talk to Muslims about the benefits of a limited government and individual sovereignty? Sure, he’ll mouth tropes and be slick, but he’ll never be an advocate for freedom in the way that say Reagan was. He threw in with ‘Solidarity’ in Poland based on his beliefs, not out of some desire to manipulate the masses.

Once again, Obama is showing his superficiality. If the thinks freedom and limited government are a good thing, he should start at home. He might then have some credibility when he ‘speaks to the world’.

Technorati Tags: arab spring, liberty, obama

This is the moment when the right-wingers, the hard core Republicans who are mostly evangelical Christians, are ‘jumping the shark’. For those of you who don’t know, “jumping the shark” refers to the episode of an incredibly long running sitcom, Happy Days, in which a main character, “Fonzi” (also known as ‘the Fonz’) jumped over a shark while water-skiing, a scene that looked – and was – rather ridiculous. That scene signaled to the audience and producers that the time had long passed for “the Fonz” to hang up his leather jacket, and it has become an iconic moment in TV lore. Well, I was listening to Hannity and Breitbart and other commentators in the past few days, and they are all saying that Obama’s decision to hold back the pictures of Bin Laden was a terrible idea, and badmouthing Obama for every other aspect of the t killing of Osama, other than the decision to kill him itself. I find it absurd beyond belief, and think the folks taking this line are turning themselves into caricatures of themselves along the way.

I’m a libertarian, so I have more problems with Obama’s policies than any Republican, but I don’t have any problem with this – at all. In fact, I respect it tremendously. I have no desire to see the garish images of him dead, probably horribly deformed. Do you folks know what a head shot can do to a person? Half his head and face may be missing, as commandos use very specific ammunition to maximize the destructive power of each shot. I also know that any picture can be falsified – very easily in fact, so I don’t put so much value on a picture in the first place. I think some folks just want to see it to somehow vicariously experience his killing, imagining they’re smelling the cordite of freshly expended rounds. For me, while I do understand the impulse, it seems quite low indeed. I think not showing them demonstrates a restraint and a certain prudence, I might even say dignity. The image I would rather leave the world with is that Al Qaeda beheads innocent civilians on tape and drags our soldiers through the streets, while we bury our enemies according to their religion, and keep the gory bits to ourselves, hoping just to move on to doing something constructive. But no, these right-wingers can’t just act like adults and move on.

Instead I’m treated to absolutely picayune deconstructions of the event, putting under a microscope every statement from the administration and other spokespeople. Yes, there have been some inconsistencies, but that is always the case in events like this. Initial reports are often inaccurate, so lets not wet our pants about it, okay? I mean, I’m blown away by the fact that we were so good militarily and from an intelligence standpoint that we could pull this off. I’m impressed by Obama’s mettle in deciding to violate Pakistan territorially in order to carry this out. I’m glad that it seems little effort was made to capture him instead of killing him – there is no upside for us in that at all. I also remember Obama saying he would do just this when questioned during one of the debates, answering a direct question about chasing down terrorists in Pakistan. Yes, you silly right-wing, Tea Partying know nothings, Obama the candidate stated without equivocation that he would send troops into Pakistan without Pakistani permission to pursue terrorists. Right wingers at the time criticized him, claiming it showed his naivete, but in hindsight, one cannot honestly claim that this wasn’t a considered position and evidence of Obama’s steel when dealing with international issues. End of story. We got him, Obama nailed it just like he said he would, and we are glad he did so. Period. End of sentence. Let’s declare victory and move on, okay?

I’m listening to Limbaugh right now (yukk), trying to understand what the gripe really is. Now he’s mentioning some new comments from Saxby Chambliss (Senator, R-GA), and then quickly moves on to the messages from Al Qaeda confirming Bin Laden’s death, characterizing them as supportive of Obama. I mean, how does anyone take Rush seriously? He’s been reduced to potshots. For me, it’s like he can’t deal with the fact that Obama isn’t Clinton, that he isn’t a lying, backstabbing, con artist. Rush came of age in the Clinton years and his continuous criticism of Clinton was mostly spot on factually, and pitch perfect in terms of seriousness. That Bubba was a lying scumbag is a view held by many on the left and right, and in fact, was never so juicily elucidated as by Christopher Hitchens in his book on Bill Clinton, entitled, No One Left to Lie To. Back then, I got it when Rush just blistered Clinton every day. Clinton was a weathervane and liar. But Obama isn’t. He’s a principled, serious guy. I disagree with him – but I’m not filled with loathing for him, not in the way I was towards Clinton. I remember when Bubba came on the scene, I heard a couple of his speeches and was impressed by him, but did what I always do with politicians and got some transcripts of his speeches. As I analyzed Clinton’s campaign speeches, I could see him actually giving and then taking back issues continuously, often within the same paragraph. As I listened more closely, I realized that Clinton’s need to seduce and his ‘facility with the truth’ were tragic flaws which made him completely unsuitable for the presidency. But that isn’t Obama – I read what he says, and yes, he does some weasel wording, and yes he does try to have it both ways on some issues – but he is no Bill Clinton. And yet I think that guys like Rush don’t see the difference. Clinton deserved our disgust – Obama doesn’t. Yes, he throws some elbows politically, but the Republicans gives as good as it gets. Rush – and company – you have become a joke. Wake up!

Whatever the root cause of the current whining, it’s unseemly, completely unproductive and only plays to Obama’s favor. You all look like idiots to most Americans, in case you don’t know. Get a grip on yourselves, okay? And focus on serious issues rather than these irrelevant details.

I keep reading articles in the “liberty” blogosphere as to whether unions are relevant or not, or whether they “work” or one author even talks about once “liking” them and now not liking them. How absurd. Guess what, the utility of unions are rightfully be determined by the parties who use them – not right wing blatherers. As a libertarian, of course, we respect people’s right to voluntarily associate with each other, as they choose, with no interference from the state whatsoever. Accordingly, we support the right of unions to organize and bargain as they see fit.

However, that isn’t the situation in this country, and separately, the idea of public sector unions is very different from from private sector unions. A libertarian perspective on the current state of labor laws in the country must conclude that they tilt the balance of power far too much to the advantage of unions – although corporations have learned to manipulate the system to their advantage at times as well.

My perspective on the issues (as best as I can parse them based on libertarian philosophy):

1. Mandatory participation in a union, i.e.; “union shops” – Each employee would be free to contract with their employer directly for their employment or via the union contract – there would be no state coercion to choose or accept one or the other by either party, which there currently is.

2. Mandatory arbitration – The National Labor Relations Board, and many such smaller agencies at the state and local level need to be abolished, and all state and federal laws that coerce any party in a private, voluntary contractual arrangement to behave in any particular way should go too. There are many situations in which parties are forced into “good faith bargaining” by law. There are CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS in some states (like New York) forcing parties to negotiate in very particular ways. In other words, the only legal course of action becomes pay and benefits being decided by a third party. Why should any party in a voluntary, contractual relationship be compelled to accept any terms from outside parties wrt compensation negotiation? It’s the exact opposite of negotiation. If in fact, really look at it and you’ll see that the unions have basically deconstructed real negotiation via statute and political action, instead of actually engaging in negotiations. I have a newsflash for the unions in Madison – the governor IS negotiating, but you have the right to say no and walk. But no, they want some all powerful third party to override him. Good luck, we’re still a nation of laws.

3. Public employee unions and collective bargaining – The economic incentives that are present in the private sector for both parties to seek profit are missing in the public sector. The very fact that there is no “profit” to which the board and investors are calling for is a missing governor on out of control spending by government. The “negotiations” are lopsided, in favor of the unions by the laws created. This has stop being forced upon government agencies, and instead all parties should be free to negotiate with both unions and individual employees as they see fit to.

4. Political influence of public sector unions – Unions have become amongst the most powerful political force in politics, and public sector unions have had an outsize influence on creating all the crazy laws and other feather-bedding activities that enrich them. The only way to ‘right-size’ this influence, because remember, all citizens have a right to petition their government, is to subject the entire affair to non-coercive relationships. If states aren’t getting benefit out of dealing with a union, they can chose not to. If employees don’t want to be represented by the union, they don’t have to be. This way, the market forces can flow, and arrive at a price for labor, versus the government artificially manipulating it by all its intereventions.

5. Truth in budgeting – Much of this mess comes from dramatic understatements of future costs of these benefits at the time they were agreed to. In a number of states, bondholder suits are under way, claiming that the credit-worthiness of the state was misrepresented by the substantial, intentional and/or perhaps negligent act of not properly forecasting the costs of these benefits. I actually think that a responsible approach would be for all states to move to defined contribution plans instead of defined benefit plans, and that those contributions be funded by current year spending.

The deformed political dialog we are currently having about unions is simply way off target. Sadly, the talking heads on the right don’t really understand liberty or the problem, so they have little chance of actually coming up with criticism that makes any sense at all, never mind actual solutions to the problem.

Technorati Tags: liberty, unions