Liberty and the GOP

Following the marathon filibuster last week, Senator Rand Paul took time today to evaluate the state of the Republican Party. While speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference Paul spoke out against the outdated structure and ideas of his party as well as his fellow peers. Although not formally responding to Senator John McCain’s comments last week where he referred to Paul and several others in Congress as “wacko birds,” in reference to their stance on the Obama administration and CIA Director John Brennan’s drone policy and the filibuster that accompanied it, his comments were clearly aimed that way. Paul took a stance separating himself and creating a more visible line of partisanship within the ranks of the right.

The GOP of old has grown stale and moss-covered. I don't think we need to name any names, do we? Our party is encumbered by an inconsistent approach to freedom. The new GOP will need to embrace liberty in both the economic and the personal sphere. If we're going to have a Republican party that can win, liberty needs to be the backbone of the GOP. We must have a message that is broad, our vision must be broad, and that vision must be based on freedom.

There are millions of Americans, young and old, native and immigrant, black, white and brown, who simply seek to live free, to practice a religion, free to choose where their kids go to school, free to choose their own health care, free to keep the fruits of their labor, free to live without government constantly being on their back. I will stand for them. I will stand for you. I will stand for our prosperity and our freedom, and I ask everyone who values liberty to stand with me. Thank you. God bless America. (Paul)

Making several references to liberty in his speech, Paul makes it clear that the Republican Party has diverted from this concept with their inconsistent approach towards responsible government. Senator Paul’s philosophy is clear, republicans don’t need to be reinvented with new concepts and ideas they need to fundamentally change; a change that reverts back to what can only be defined as classical liberalism, at least in the sense of “economic and personal” liberty.

            How does one foster responsible government among the ranks of the immoral politician? More importantly, how does one revert a party and even a congress in such despair to accept a fundamental concept like liberty that has been abandoned for so long the mere definition is foreign to them? Challenging the opposition and even more importantly your own party to conforming to these standards like Senator Paul is attempting is a start. But blame falls elsewhere. First, unawareness of Americans in context to constitutional rights can account for a portion but the need for expedient action coupled with unawareness has guided us to our current state. As soon as problems are revealed there exists a need for prompt action. As we discussed there are two theoretical approaches to liberty, one where liberty has an instrumental value and the other where liberty has emotional value. The immediate call to action requires the instrumental or expedient process which in turn promotes unnecessary legislation that gradually has lead to our current condition of a depleted economy. As an obvious need for action exists, the importance of not resorting to expedient action is significant. Senator Paul’s call for a Republican Party that stands for prosperity and freedom is a step towards accountability and responsible government but if Americans continually choose haste our problems will continue.  

Comments on Hayek and equality

Hayek promotes governmental law based on equality. Discussed in Law, Legislation, and Liberty Hayek defines liberty as the rule that constrains everyone in the same way. No single person should attain a specific advantage over another in society.

In Democracy in America Alexis de Tocqueville states that citizens of democratic societies prefer equality, even at the expense of their freedom. Although most don’t realize they are facing a tradeoff that balances liberty and equality, Tocqueville realized this more than two hundred years ago. Liberty and equality are inversely proportional to one another he believes. Tocqueville says that when a society is founded on liberty, equality can only be imposed on society at the expense of freedom. Because equality is rooted in law, attempts to undermine it are difficult and its material benefits are more immediate and tangible. However, the benefits of freedom are less noticeable and take longer to effect society. Americans further favor equality because of a revolution to secure its presence. Because Americans believe that all forms of prosperity should be within an equal reach for all, they favor equality. When a society requires more central authority to promote equality, they in turn lose their freedom, which is the situation we currently find ourselves in. Because society requires equality to be protected by the government at the expense of freedom, the two concepts are at odds with each other.

Big Brother is watching

Obama’s administration bowed to bipartisan pressure yesterday from critics of his drone strike policy, issuing a terse statement saying the president doesn't have power to carry out such a killing on “an American not engaged in combat on American soil.”    Former adviser to President Bush stated, “something that resonates especially strongly on the libertarian right that would say, ‘I don’t want Big Brother to be watching me,’ but also on the left, with people saying, ‘Do I want the FBI to be reading my e-mail?”  Senator Ron Wyden went on to say, “You’re going to start to see the emergence of a checks- and-balances caucus, and that there will be a lot of Democrats in it."
 “As drone use becomes more and more common, it is crucial that the government’s use of these spying machines be transparent and accountable to the American people,” Naomi Gilens of the American Civil Liberties Union wrote in a web posting last week. “We should not have to guess whether our government is using these eyes in the sky to spy on us.”
  So if they did use drones and attack on U.S. soil, do they have the right or does the President have the right to kill a supposed terrorist on U.S. soil?  According to Rothbard, no.  For “reasons of State.” Service to the State is supposed to excuse all actions that would be considered immoral or criminal if committed by “private” citizens.  Libertarians make no exceptions.  Only the government, in society,
is empowered to aggress against the property rights of its subjects, whether to extract revenue, to impose its moral code, or to kill those with whom it disagrees.  So even the use of drones to spy on us would be immoral and an invasion of privacy by the US government and a violation of liberty.  If the government does use drones, not for killing but to spy on the populous, then there would still be an issue of violating privacy rights.  Since Rothbard passed away before the new technology was made available for modern warfare, he should agree that the use of such technology for the better of government would violate liberty.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-08/obama-faces-bipartisan-pressure-on-drone-big-brother-fear.html

On Utopia and Rothbard

This semester I'm taking a history course that covers the rise of modern Europe, spanning from the 16th to the 19th century. The past two weeks one of our texts included Thomas More's famous work called Utopia. Even though Utopian literature was named after More's book, the genre dates far back to Plato, who wrote of a similar utopian society called the Republic. Utopia means "no place" and More uses this idealistic country to demonstrate the failures of his present day England under the reign of Henry VIII, especially in regards to the government's use of capital punishment.
     Prior to reading Utopia, I was not aware that this "perfect society" has nothing to do with private property. At the beginning of Book Two, More's fantastic traveller from Utopia, Raphael Hythlodaeus, describes the Utopian cities. Raphael professes that if you've seen one Utopian city, you've seen them all because they all look alike and there's nothing special to distinguish one home from another. The Utopians grow up in a society that does not put worth into material possessions and considers material goods childish and petty.
     Households usually hold thirty to forty people and every thirty households "elects an official called a Styward every year." (More, 54) Stywards are also called District Controllers and every ten District Controllers report to a Senior District Controller. Raphael goes on to explain that the doors of each household are double-swing doors, "So anyone can go in and out - for there's no such thing as private property" (More, 53)
     Raphael's Utopian society does sound ideal if one solely looks at the surface. All citizens of Utopia work 6 hours a day and everyone is given an education, a job, a home and daily meals. Everyone seems happy and is given what they need to survive. What could possibly be wrong with this socialist system?
     In his Libertarian manifesto called, "For a New Liberty", Rothbard vehemently argues against communism. "We can state that this ideal rests on an absurdity: proclaiming that every man is entitled to own a part of everyone else, yet is not entitled to own himself." (Rothbard, 34) As a human race we are  meant to grow and flourish. By mixing our labor with the earth, we create goods that become our property. Why?, a Utopian might ask. Well, it's our property because we took the time and effort to make it! The daily meals that the Utopians eat together were not made from their own labor but from the labor of others. All food produced in Utopia is sent to the community halls where the food is divided amongst everyone registered there to eat. This may seem fine to the Utopians but they fail to see that the process goes under the supervision of those touching the Force; District Controllers. These elected officials have control over everything: the Utopians' food, their houses and even what textbooks they read in school.
       The presence of District Controllers and other authorities echos Rothbard's sentiments towards communism and ruling class. "In practice, then, the concept of universal and equal other-ownership is utopian and impossible, and supervision and therefore control and ownership of others necessarily devolves upon a specialized group of people, who thereby become a ruling class." (Rothbard, 35) Utopian society may start out with the best intentions, but one must realize that lack of private property puts its citizens at the mercy of authorities to organize the system and make it work. A society based on right to private property, on the other hand, has no need for government regulation because each individual is in control of the results of his or her own labor.
    

Mr. Paul Goes to Washington

         A rare practice that became famous through the famous movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington came to life right before our eyes when junior Senator Rand Paul took to the floor of the Senate and began an almost 13 hour, old fashion filibuster. A lot of pundits criticized Rand Paul and said that it was merely grandstanding but I saw it more as a single politician breaking ranks with both parties and trying to ensure that central government does not trample over the Constitution that is meant to limit it’s power and keep it from over reaching.

            Senator Paul argued that the federal government does not have the right to kill its own citizens without due process of the law, if they are not physically engaging in or posing an imminent threat to the United States, as covered under the fifth amendment of the Constitution. When this country was founded and the founders created the constitution, they envisioned a country where men were free to pursue their individual goals without fear of a tyrannical centralized government, so the founders inserted the first ten amendments entitled the bill of right in order put restraints on a beast that would not otherwise restrain its self. Thomas Jefferson wrote that when, “the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” This quote holds true today as it did back then, for how free is any person if they fear getting killed by their government because they are suspected of something they may or may not of done.

            There have also been a few pundits who said that the Supreme Court should have the final say and interpret how much power the President has in authorizing drone attacks. Why should five out of nine unelected people be the ones who decide how much freedom we should have? After all, the nine justices on the Supreme Court are but mere humans who are fallible in making decisions like in the rulings of “Plessy v. Ferguson” that racial segregation was constitutional, or Korematsu v. United States, which found that Franklin D. Roosevelt had the authority to detain citizens of Japanese descent in internment camps. My point is that the restraints that the founders put on the government should not be open to interpretation and should be followed to the word. So kudos to Mr. Paul for ringing the bell of liberty, just as Paul Revere once did, and showing the executive branch that they cannot bully their way down our throats. 

The "Do Nothing Congress" may be the solution

      Last year, our 112th Congress was known as the new "Do Nothing Congress" because of the small amount of bills that they passed. An interesting article in the Huffington Post goes more in depth with this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/28/congress-unproductive_n_2371387.html
      We are now in our 113th Congress and they just may behave the same way. Some people would think that this is a negative thing (in December 2012 the approval rating was 18%), but I argue that, especially according to Rothbard, this is a good thing.
      The 112th Congress passed roughly 200 plus bills to become law and this granted them their name; two hundred plus! According to Rothbard, the only crime is invasion, and he believes that the state is the most constant invader. This means that the state has invaded over two hundred times. This number seems excessive to me, and what's more is that this coined them as "Do Nothing". But if I was to assume that 200 laws over two years is not abnormal and is in fact a small amount of new laws added to the public, then I can see this as a positive result.
      I believe that we want government to play less of role in our individuals lives. Government is force, and most times they use their force inappropriately. This can make government a tyrant, and it is very tricky to try and limit government's tyranny. If the 112th Congress argued and bickered enough to not get anything done, then this is at least a bit of a win. Unfortunately, the unnecessary laws that they already had in place would still affect the public, but if they were able to get rid of some of those unnecessary laws and then proceed to stand at a stalemate, that may be the limited government that some people are striving for.
     The 113th Congress is shaping up to look like they will do much of the same as the 112th Congress. They already could not avoid the sequester that they claim that "no side wanted", and they are still arguing over new budget plans. Moving forward, I hope to see more legislatures concerned with liberty first so that they can destroy old laws that are unnecessary and are more careful about making new ones; but for now this is at least an interesting solution to the limited government problem.

Advocating Freedom: Sweatshops & Fair Trade

For a middle-class American, the thought of child-labor sweatshops is understandably despicable.  And I agree.   It is an unimaginable horror that we have a tough time relating too, and has become a hot-button political debate.  But that debate often times ignores other issues that are also a reality in our world and are even more despicable; issues like child starvation and child prostitution.  Children work long hours at garbage dumps for wages barely high enough for personal subsistence.  Children starve while begging in the streets.  Children prostitute themselves to be able to eat; or worse yet, vulnerable children are abducted and forced into prostitution as sex-slaves.   These evils are just as real as sweatshops. 

We must never forget that the modern evil of “sweatshops” is not slavery; the children choose to work there.  Why would they make such a choice?  There is only one answer: they are better off with a sweatshop job than without.  They make the choice to better their lives.  They have the economic freedom to choose to work instead of beg, prostitute themselves, or starve. 

The empirical data on sweatshop laws is quite clear.  When governments make laws to ban sweatshop, there is a quantifiable increase in child prostitution and starvation.   The bottom line is this: sweatshop laws are anti-freedom.  Government is taking the economic freedom from these children to make a better life for themselves and the results are that they are worse off.  They are forced back into lives that they freed themselves from with these job opportunities. 

Don’t get me wrong.  I’m anti-sweatshops and advocate Fair Trade.  I believe that people deserve better working conditions and better pay.  But I’m also pro-freedom.   I believe that government should not take away economic freedom from people who want to work to better their lives.

So what’s the solution to this apparent contradiction?  Economic freedom is solution on both ends.  I have the economic freedom to put my money where my mouth is.  I believe that workers in third-world countries deserve better pay, so I will shop fair trade.  Next time I buy a pair of tennis shoes, I’ll pay the extra $5 to know that they were made at a factory with good working condition a high pay.  That’s the economic freedom I have as a tennis shoe consumer. 

So if you are anti-sweatshop, you must realize that labor laws are not the solution: you’ll be taking away their freedom and forcing them back into starvation or prostitution. Instead, use your own economic freedom to shop fair trade.  Or better yet, sponsor a child.

Socialism in Business

     In a recent argument with a friend of mine surrounding socialism vs. capitalism, he mentioned so-called "socialist enterprises" as being living proof that socialism can work. He referred me to one particular corporation in Spain, the Mondragon Corporation. While looking into it, I came across this editorial article on The Guardian entitled "Yes, there is an alternative to capitalism: Mondragon shows the way..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/24/alternative-capitalism-mondragon

     Essentially, these socialist corporations are owned and operated by the workers themselves, and all business decisions, including allocation of labor among enterprises, are decided on democratically. From the article: 

       
    MC is composed of many co-operative enterprises grouped into four areas: industry, finance, retail and knowledge. In each enterprise, the co-op members (averaging 80-85% of all workers per enterprise)   collectively own and direct the enterprise. Through an annual general assembly the workers choose and employ a managing director and retain the power to make all the basic decisions of the enterprise (what, how and where to produce and what to do with the profits).
    As each enterprise is a constituent of the MC as a whole, its members must confer and decide with all other enterprise members what general rules will govern MC and all its constituent enterprises. In short, MC worker-members collectively choose, hire and fire the directors, whereas in capitalist enterprises the reverse occurs. One of the co-operatively and democratically adopted rules governing the MC limits top-paid worker/members to earning 6.5 times the lowest-paid workers. 

     There are many things incredibly wrong with Wolff's argument. To begin, socialism is a term used to describe an entire political-economic system, not a way a particular group or business operates. I would say, at this point, that it was a simply a debate of semantics, as it is not uncommon for people to discuss the benefits of socialist-style groups in different terms than socialism as an economic system. However, he begins the article by criticizing the policies of Margaret Thatcher and capitalism as a system, then presents his argument that socialism is a better alternative, using the Mondragon Corporation as some kind of a relevant example. The fact of the matter is that the MC is simply operating with an unusual business model, but is still working within a largely competitive, capitalist economy. All of its workers, including the "elected" directors,  voluntarily join the corporation, with knowledge of its business operations and their salaries beforehand. Just because they run their business democratically does not mean that the voting individuals are not still profit-seeking.

     

    Wolff claims that... 

        

      "The MC rule that all enterprises are to source their inputs from the best and least-costly producers – whether or not those are also MC enterprises – has kept MC at the cutting edge of new technologies...In 2010, 21.4% of sales of MC industries were new products and services that did not exist five years earlier." 

     What a profitable way to do business! Wait...what kind of force could be driving them to be so innovative? This statement implies that he understands the nature of competition...do capitalist businesses not also operate in this way? The fact that he cannot distinguish between an economic system and a business model undermines his entire argument. Perhaps the method the Mondragon Corporation, and others like it, uses is an innovative way to operate, and I don't doubt that it benefits the workers and directors alike, they are members of it after all (I would still argue that it is inherently less profitable than "capitalist enterprises", as they are deliberately reducing the division of labor, but that is a different argument than I'm trying to establish).

      However, its mere existence depends on the system in which it thrives, which is something fundamentally different than an operational model. Him and my friend seem to think that since these basic principles function within a relatively small group, it is logical to extend them to the system in which it, and all economic exchange operates. He is entirely mistaken, and I believe that is what is wrong with a lot of political philosophy/ideology today.  

Corruption and Communism

            Mancur Olson’s book, Power and Prosperity would predict that communist countries are at a much greater risk for corruption than are democratic societies with a free market.  It then comes as no surprise that when Mr. Xi, the new leader of the communist party in China, made his first speech he pointed out that corruption is one of the main concerns surrounding the success of his party.  This corruption comes as a result of market contrary policy.  Everyone inside a communist country will at some point see a reason to break the laws, even those who help to lead the country.   It should not be surprising then that the last leader of the communist party is accused of wide spread corruption.  The final straw for him was actually an accusation of involvement in a murder.  This may be a little outside of what Olson predicted would happen in a communist party, but we can see how corruption such as skimming off the top could lead to a crime as serious as murder.  It could very easily happen in an attempt to conceal the initial crime of stealing from the regime.

            Respondents to Mr. Xi’s speech pointed out that nearly every new leader of the communist party has mentioned combating corruption, but non have been able to limit it.  This would be inline with what Olson would predict, the system of communism fosters corruption so it will be impossible, or nearly impossible, to get rid of.  If what Olson says about corruption and communism is true, and so far all evidence what point to it is, then communist China will continue to have problems with corruption until they become so sclerotic that they eventually can no longer “pay the bills.”

Source Article Link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/world/asia/new-communist-party-chief-in-china-denounces-corruption.html?_r=0

Sharing Stationary Banditry Between Countries

            Enrique Pea Nieto from the Washing Post claims that the U.S. and Mexico can prosper as partners; this last U.S. presidential election demonstrated to him the growing demographic bonds between the U.S. and Mexico that connects the two counties’ prosperous futures.  “To build a more prosperous future for our two countries, we must continue strengthening and expanding our deep economic, social and cultural ties.  It is a mistake to limit our bilateral relationship to drugs and security concerns.  Our mutual interests are too vast and complex to be restricted in the shortsighted way…. I want to discuss the best way to rearrange our common priorities.  After all, our agenda affects millions of citizens.”  I think what he is implying is that Mexico may understand the logic of force and exchange and would like to become a stationary bandit with the U.S. government.  Mexico seems to want a larger population to steal from; they see that the net benefit for trade outweighs the net benefit for force.  “Perhaps the most important issue is finding new ways to bolster our economic and trade relationship to attain common prosperity in our nations.”  Clearly Mexico wants to enhance their stationary banditry power through the U.S. understanding of Diplomacy.  Mexico needs more people to prosper under them in order for them to see increased revenue in their country.  “Consequently, in NAFTA we have a solid foundation to further integrate our economies through greater investments in finance, infrastructure, manufacturing and energy.  Together, we must build a more competitive and productive region.”  For Mexico to become a successful bandit, they need the help of the United States power and a growing population that is more prosperous.  Right now it seems to me that the Mexican government is stealing too much and the country has become corrupt.  Thus,  “Above all, our mutual interest lies in our intertwined peoples.  More than 1 million U.S. citizens live in Mexico, and my country remains the largest source of immigrants to the United States.  Some analysts detect new momentum for comprehensive immigration reform since the U.S. presidential election.  All Mexican would welcome such a development.”  It’s obvious that Mexicans would be open to higher immigration rates into their country.  Again, for their government the be better off they need to protect their own property rights and play less of a predator role on their society.  Mexico needs more people to steal from, but first they need to understand the logic of force, exchange and diplomacy in order to become a successful stationary banditry. 

http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/11/25/4438329/us-mexico-can-prosper-as-partners.html