"Army Says No To More Tanks, But Congress Insists"

"'When an institution as risk averse as the Defense Department says they have enough tanks, we can probably believe them,' Kennedy said."

I read an article on NPR a few days ago titled "Army Says No To More Tanks, But Congress Insists" that I thought was very relevant to our discussion about Mises' "Liberal Foreign Policy" a few weeks ago.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=179606996

We discussed how it is possible that our spending on an overseas military may yield a net-zero use of the productive resources that need to be shifted from the domestic, private sector to the military. However, much of the time the use of the resources proves to be worse. In this case, legislators trying to achieve protectionist economic goals are pushing for more Abrams tank production while the Army itself is saying they do not want them. 

According to Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army's chief of staff, "If we had our choice, we would use that money in a different way." According to the article--and I'm not sure I needed it to tell me this after the first few paragraphs-- is that the reasons are entirely political. The article states that the two champions of more tanks are legislators from Ohio, the location of the plants that make them. These Congressmen, and others in support, will first and foremost say that national defense is a key goal of their platform. However, when they are confronted with the fact that the Army itself does not want them, they shift their statements to include rhetoric often associated with most interventionist economic policies. They cite the fact that the Abram's tank production requires a large network of contractors throughout the country, all of which will inevitably have to make employment cuts. These "highly specialized" jobs cannot be lost, as the skill set will disappear and ""When we start to lose this base of people, what are we going to do? Buy our tanks from China?" (Verhoff). 

As we are nearing the end of the semester, I'm sure I don't have to explain how these kinds of statements are ludicrous. Any public debate where people begin to talk about specific outcomes via government is usually inconsistent with a government for liberty. As I mentioned earlier, this is a very good example of how it is difficult to shift factors of production to an overseas military and have it be equal to the production if it were being used domestically (but at least our tanks are not being produced only to be destroyed in large numbers). However, it is also a perfectly adequate example of any other interventionist policy. With the statements from the Army, it practically forces the legislators to lay out their true intentions on the table. They may or may not believe that what they are doing actually is consistent with liberty and free trade, but they certainly know it will get them the votes and money of the contractors and workers that it benefits. The fact of the matter is that this type of policy is only prolonging shifts in production that are going to inevitably occur. One man in the article even claimed that these jobs are not nearly as specialized as they are made out to be, and are easily replaceable if we need more production of tanks in the future. It does not make sense to me how voters still buy into this kind of political rhetoric when the true situation is so cut-and-dry; when the 'consumers' of the tanks (albeit artificial), which are the reason for production in the first place, even say they have no interest in acquiring more. 

Government is Force (Feb Posting)

Over the course the semester, I have benefited from examining some of the literary works of notable Austrian Economists. Although I have had difficulty adjusting my thought process from a neoclassical economic one to an Austrian one, I have especially become fond of the work of Murray Rothbard.

To be sure it took me a while to appreciate some the philosophical implications of Rothbard’s work. And while I have made every attempt to partition my neoclassical academic training from my new Austrian academic training, inevitably the sound arguments from the Austrian School have slowly taken over the neoclassical.

One particular position Rothbard has, that I have come to be fond of, is his view of the “role of the State—the government.”

Rothbard writes in For a New Liberty, “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.”

Government uses its coercive power to tax to compel its citizens to pay for services and goods he or she may not otherwise use. I get taxed to pay for our police departments and our Sherriff’s Office, but I have never called on them for service. I am compelled to pay taxes to support our local fire department, but I have never used them to extinguish anything.

Grocery stores do not force me to purchase groceries from them. I willingly enter into a free-exchange agreement to purchase foodstuffs from them. Clothing stores do not compel me to purchase clothes from them. I voluntarily purchase clothing or other goods from them as a consumer.

But government forces and compels its citizenry to purchase goods and services through the threat of coercion. To be sure we can all refuse to pay taxes. But the State will compel payment by the threat of wage garnishment or imprisonment. The State will get its share because the State can freely exercise its force wantonly.

There is no protection from government. The military is government. The police are the State. There exists no protection from the freely exercisable force that is government.

As stated in class, “Government is force.”

Rent Seeking

 

            In today’s political climate, special interest groups and “lobbying” are a constant topic of discussion. Many special interest groups or individuals attempt to use government to provide them with special privileges in the market. Economists refer to this activity as “rent seeking.” In a marketplace, competition provides incentive for other players to enter the market in order to reap the same benefits, thus lowering the cost of goods and services over time. With the ability to use force, Politicians are sought out by individuals in the market in an attempt to keep others out of the market so that they may eliminate competition and see higher profits for themselves. This, of course, is harmful to consumers.

Most often, rent seeking takes the form of occupational licensure; where government limits the number of entries into the market below the level of competition there would otherwise be in a free/competitive market. There are literally thousands of examples of rent seeking in the United States alone. A good example right here in Colorado would be the monopoly on Taxi Cab drivers in the city of Denver. For nearly 50 years, the city had only three taxi cab companies. The city, through the power to permit licenses, denied entry to any companies that made an attempt to enter the market. This placed the three existing companies at a competitive advantage, and left the consumers paying higher prices.

When companies attempted to enter the taxi business, the city would deny them entry because they would take business away from the existing companies and that would be “unnecessary.” This type of arbitrary decision making is obviously harmful to the market process in various ways. Not only are competitors forced to stay out of the market, but consumers are stuck with higher prices. Also, productive resources are spent by the special interest groups on political affairs rather than in the market where they would benefit consumers. The problems that rent seeking creates will continue as long as government has the power to force potential players out of the market.

The problem is in concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. Existing businesses have an incentive to “seek rent” from government due to the increased profits that are at stake for them. Therefore, they are willing to spend a lot of time and resources in an effort to convince legislators to pass laws that work in their favor. The rest of the population, mainly consumers, have hardly any knowledge of these events, nor do they see much incentive to spend a large amount of time and recourses fighting their case just to save $20 on their next cab ride in Denver Colorado, which most consumers will probably never notice. Most people are unwilling to spend hundreds, perhaps thousands, of dollars just to save $20. This is not a problem; it’s great that people act rationally. The problem is that we have sanctioned government’s ability to use force in the market.

The only solution to this problem is to remove the government’s power to influence the market. As long as the government’s power to arbitrarily choose the success of certain players in the market is legitimized by our society, then individuals will continue to spend time and resources seeking that power, instead of providing for consumers in a competitive market. If government did not have the power to use force in such a harmful way, then the market process would provide consumers with products and services at the lowest cost, while supplying incentives to innovate and spend more time and resources doing so, rather than seeking rent from the legislators and the political process.

United States Sugar

     One thing it seems many of my peers are aware of, even outside economics, is the high price of sugar in the US. In fact, we were recently discussing different types of exchange in an Anthropology class, and many students seemed to be aware of protectionist trade policies, and especially the fact the sugar in the US is sold at a much higher price than other places of the world. I recently read an article that I believe explores most of the important implications of interventionist policies that often go unmentioned...

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/28/175569499/farm-bills-sugar-subsidy-more-taxing-than-sweet-critics-say

     Essentially, the price of sugar in the US is due to "a complicated combination of import restrictions, production quotas and a kind of guaranteed price." Chris Edwards of the CATO institute calls it "essentially a Soviet-style control on production." Basic economic principles will tell you that these types of policies will undoubtedly create some kind of a surplus, but the article became much more interesting when it discussed the loan program for sugar refineries. In order to encourage them to buy more sugar from the producers, they take out government loans using the sugar itself as collateral. So we have an ill-effect of government intervention (sugar surplus), and now another policy to combat the effects of it. Now the incentives for refineries are to either sell their sugar at market prices, or simply 'give' the sugar back to government and keep the loan money. As economics students, I'm sure you see how this could easily go awry, and apparently this year, it is expected to. When the loans cannot be repaid, the government plans to buy the excess sugar and sell it at a loss to ethanol producers, at the expense of the taxpayer. 
     The article humorously said that there is an ongoing feud between "Big Sugar" versus "Big Candy." The President of Jelly Belly said he only wishes that producers would have to compete in an open market, and he even opened up a manufacturing plant in Thailand partly to avoid the trade restrictions. This is yet another effect that I doubt politicians or big sugar saw coming, the adaption of the entrepreneur. Jack Roney, of the American Sugar Alliance, argues that sugar market policies are "the most successful of any US commodity policy," and that they almost never cost the US taxpayer anything. After reading the article, it seems that they are very ineffective, and Roney apparently does not understand that artificially high commodity prices is, in fact, an unseen cost to the masses, even without direct taxation.
     Roney even adds that his opposition is simply profit-seeking, is not doing any of its lobbying for the benefit of the consumer, and that getting rid of the policies would cost thousands of sugar jobs (and then proceeds to blame the problems on the tariff-free Mexican imports, suggesting that they, too, need to be regulated). I cannot say I would not expect a response along these lines, as this is the kind of rhetoric that usually gets the policy there in the first place. He discusses profit in a negative light, and uses emotional arguments about jobs and exploited consumers to garner support. 
     Overall, although it is somewhat brief, I believe this article brings to light many concepts we have discussed in class. Primarily, it shows the 'chain reaction' of interventionist policy--how much must be done just to combat the problems of the previous intervention, and suggests who is really paying for it. It exemplifies policy that obviously benefits one group with the often-unseen costs to everyone else. However, I do not understand how more people are not upset about paying nearly twice the price for sugar as the rest of the world. Maybe they buy into the rhetoric that it benefits sugar producers, and see it as a good thing, but perhaps do not draw a line to how they end up paying for it. Maybe the consumers lack the organizational power of the sugar lobby. Whatever the reason, more people should recognize how these sugar trade policies, and others like them work--and mainly understand that there is no free lunch. 

Does Inclusion in Democracy Lead to Liberty?

To increase inclusion in democracy, Young argues for proportional representation as means to encourage voter involvement in politics. A voting system that elects party members proportionate to the overall votes they receive, eliminating “single-member, winner-take-all” system that we currently utilize, “provides more opportunity for differentiated representation,” (Young 152) claims Young. Furthermore, “proportional representation tends to increase party competition and enable more parties to obtain legislative seats.” (Young 152) This, Young believes, will eliminate exclusion by giving minority groups more incentive to vote. She believes proportional representation to be a viable solution to many of the problems that are apparent in our democratic process.

            Young says participation is still an important factor in the success of proportional representation. Without it, representatives are “liable to become separate from the constituents, and the citizens relatively passive in relation to the representatives.” (Young 152) While Young discards this as a minor problem with the thinking that this model encourages participation by giving minority parties a deciding voice in political situation and one which holds politicians accountable, I disagree. Proportional representation gives these groups a false sense of inclusion, “you can speak and we will listen but, your voice doesn’t matter,” consequently promoting exclusion. In addition, it follows that the proportion of the popular vote that is received by a minority politician, is also the weight of their particular vote in legislative decisions. It seems improbable that the small percentage of influence that is possessed by a minority group could ever be enough to swing a positive result in their direction, even if several groups agreed on the same issues and voted accordingly, the problem would still persist.

            Political congestion is an inevitable outcome that would seem to positively correlate with the number of parties that exist. With an expanded legislative system that is required to accommodate proportional representation, it follows that inefficiency in the government process is a strong possibility. Assuming that the model works and many different groups are represented proportionately. With such diverse opinions presented across a wide range of represented groups, if a conclusion could ever be agreed upon, the concessions made to achieve a compromise would in no way satisfy the entire population of groups, if any at all. Assuming again that the model works and many different groups are represented, but disproportionately, the weight of their vote is once again taken into account making their vote irrelevant; much like a third party in our presidential elections.

Again, assuming that proportional representation does work and the new system does give opportunity for minority groups to gain power. The possibility then increases for radical groups to achieve representation. If inclusion is indeed promoted and representation is in fact accounted for, nothing is present to prevent groups like the National Socialist Party of America from gaining legitimate status in government. It may be a stretch to argue this fact, but a causal link does exist and with Young’s argument being so general in nature, it seems she overlooked some of the key variables that could have at least added some validity to her argument. 

Another reason for criticism of Young’s model is it fails to present any viable options for eliminating corruption through elections. With the existence of advocacy groups such as lobbyists and money from big business, whose interests often oppose those of the general public’s, the doors still remain open for unethical decisions that are influenced monetarily and predacious activity that is inconsistent with liberty. The process of campaigning for a political position and the money required to even be a feasible candidate presently puts the minority in a position of exclusion from the start. Until these problems are addressed it seems that any democracy that suffers these initial setbacks is flawed from the beginning. The quandary with the repeating process of political corruption is the group of politicians, businesses, and advocacy groups who benefit from the existing conditions, ironically are the ones who have the power to change them. If the incentive outweighs the likelihood of repercussion, political corruption through campaigning will persistently be a problem that needs to be addressed.  

Young argues that equal representation is a key aspect of justice and inclusion in democracy. I agree, but I fail to see where Young makes any clear accounts of how to accomplish this. The solutions that she supports don’t seem to rid politics of the oligarchy or even the fascist tendencies that are present in our contemporary model. The proportional representation model argued for in this instance, still allows for the same unequal grounds in representation that our current model boasts. Existing problems will endure until the terms money and politics are no longer synonymous or each individual citizen takes our political process to be one with intrinsic value.   

Young, Iris Marion. Democracy and Justice. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2000.

On the Verge of Totalitarianism?

Are We on the Verge of Totalitarianism?

On pages 70-71 of Law, Legislation and Liberty, Vol. 1, FA Hayek states:

"What concerns us here however, not so much the past as the present. In spite of the collapse of totalitarian regimes in the western world, their basic ideas have in the theoretical sphere continued to gain ground, so much so that to transform completely the legal system into a totalitarian one all that is needed now is to allow the ideas already reigning in the abstract sphere to be translated into practice."

If you believe FA Hayek, this is a bone-chilling prophecy. He is saying that although our law books have not yet caught up with the contemporary mindset, they are not far behind: all it would take is to allow the "reigning ideas of the abstract sphere" to become physically represented in our law books.

In chapter three of Rules and Order, Hayek describes the process by which lawyers establish law over time.  He argued that quite often, these lawyers are merely pawns serving their masters: "Tools, not of principles of justice, but of an apparatus in which the individual is made to serve the ends of his rulers."

He then goes on to describe how this process of change in legislation leads to the movement away from private lawyers, towards public lawyers, "whose main concern is the public law". Hayek claims that this movement has been occurring in error, based on the myth that spontaneous orders are something that can be easily adjusted or 'fixed' via government policies.

Hayek says that most contemporary legal philosophy is "full of outdated cliches about the alleged self-destructive tendency of competition, or the need for 'planning' created by the increased complexity of the modern world, cliches deriving from the high tide of enthusiasm for 'planning' of thirty or forty years ago, when it was widely accepted and its totalitarian implications not yet clearly understood."

Because the lawyers creating new legislation are not serving justice, but rather their masters, the law is beginning to resemble, more and more, the mind of the ruler. Hayek reminds us that it was not the evil men of the world who have brought the most pain and suffering, but that it is the great ideologues whose ideas have  infiltrated and permeated the abstract sphere who have truly been the most destructive, despite having "good" intentions.

On page 62, Hayek reminds us that we have strayed far from the original ideals embodied in classical liberalism, yet much of the population is still under the assumption that these are the ideals that still govern our nation. Because of this underlying misconception, Hayek fears we are dangerously close to falling back into a totalitarian state.

It is of utmost importance that each individual understands the ideal Hayek is promoting in this reading. If we do not understand the nature of spontaneous orders and the purposes they serve, we will easily be convinced that the solution to our woes is not more freedom, but is actually less!

If we do not take the initiative to investigate the "development of social institutions", we will, like the examples in Hayek's book, be likely to believe that when problems are 'fixed' within a spontaneous order, it is due to some kind of government intervention or regulation, not the process by which all problems are fixed within a spontaneous order - through the discovery process of competition.

It is time we stop "waiting for superman" or some other hero to solve our problems. This is the exact mentality that leads to a totalitarian state. A bunch of crying babies screaming "please help us" form exactly the perfect conditions for a totalitarian takeover.

"The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness. ...This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector." - Plato

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