Christian Libertarianism

This nation’s legislative branch has a tendency to infringe
upon our rights to liberty. According to an article by Deirdre McCloskey, “A
big or small entrepreneur, encouraged by dignity and enabled by liberty,
alertly notices an opportunity and takes it. (p. 6)” This is the mechanism by
which we prosper.
The dignity of the entrepreneur is being threatened.
Consider Occupy Wall Street. Among many vague and untenable claims, those who
‘occupy’ are protesting economic inequality. Rather than viewing entrepreneurs
as courageous and hopeful, the 99% is stripping those who successfully embark
on entrepreneurial endeavors of their dignity. The demands of those who occupy
include creating a maximum wage rate to limit inequality and an income tax
system which strips the wealthiest of their earnings.
Rich Lowry wrote an article claiming that even the president
is denying the successful entrepreneur his or her dignity. “Income inequality,
[Obama] he said, ‘gives lie to the promise that’s at the very heart of America.”
However, why would the fact that one person’s income is greater than the income
of another prevent the lower earning individual from earning more? The comments
on Lowry’s articles belie a common theme among the citizens of this country who
are bringing back the ‘evil capitalist’ mentality.
Not only is the dignity of the entrepreneur under attack,
but the liberty of the citizens of this country is being slowly eroded.
Recently, the Senate approved a $662 billion bill which removes the right to
trial for US citizens deemed a terror threat. We are slowly but surely losing
our liberty. The government to whom we granted to right to use force and
coercion is running with it.
Some people think that socialism can be advocated for on the
basis that it’s more commensurable with Christianity than is capitalism.
However, in an article by Steven Gill which provides an analysis of C. S. Lewis’s
political views, he argues that liberty is a fundamentally Christian
ideal. “In short, Lewis suspected that
populist demands for unchecked political freedom and absolute equality
originate from human pride and jealousy.”
Consider OWS: Are they just jealous of those who make more
money? Do they believe that they are entitled to whatever the wealthiest have
regardless of their worth ethic or natural abilities?
Consider the recent legislation passed: Does our rampant
fear of terrorism actually belie a belief in the superiority of the United
States?

That which waits ahead...

This is an unconventional blog, but I am hoping to make it relevant. The article I read is all about how companies are less willing to hire new graduates because of the lack of new creative ideas and because they are less tolerant of the missteps that new graduates are bound to make. The article suggests that employers adjust and invest in training of these new graduates rather than turning them away. And I got to thinking, what would liberty say about this? While mostly liberty would say that if it is the companies preference to do so, then it should be able to(should be used in the sense that there are all these pesky government regulations that might get in the way). But I was also thinking that while this could be a great risk for companies, this could create a great advantage for companies as well. Most people (myself included) graduate college with a lot of more or less non-specific knowledge. Sure we are taught the things with our majors and all those extra 'well-rounding classes' we need to take, but it is not like an apprenticeship, where we are taught the specifics of the industry that we are going into. This is nice because it allows flexibility when we do graduate but it leaves employers having to tie up the loose ends. However, if there was an actual training program for each company they wouldn't need to worry about it, they would simply tailor the student to what they needed and if at the end of the given training period the student did not work out, well at least they would find out sooner rather than later. This can also be an indicator of error, perhaps the schools are erroring and not properly educating their students. Either way this seems to me to be a big red arrow for some entrepreneur to come and fix it, or it is possible that this guy at the New York Times is full of crap but I guess I'll find out soon enough!

Slow Day for News...

Today I stumbled across the issue of the recent lift on the ban that prevented the use of federal funds to inspect facilities that slaughter horses. It turns out to be an interesting example of the effects of interventionism.

In 2006, the ban was placed and ended horse slaughter in the United States. All meat that crosses state lines must be inspected by the USDA. Because this inspection funding was banned, the horse meat market in the United States was forced to shut down.

It seems like this would be a great thing for horses. In the United States, horses are viewed as pets and as a symbol of the west. Slaughtering them for their meat is about the same as chopping up your dog and barbequing it. There is certainly no market for horse meat in the United States anyway. Why not just let them live happy lives and eliminate the possibility of being slaughtered to death.

Unfortunately, this ban did not stop the slaughter of horses and even led to horse abuse. Old horses are typically sold to slaughter houses. Since no American slaughter houses were available, they were sent out of the country to Mexico and Canada. The ban did not end the slaughter of horses. People will always find alternatives and other markets.

Also with the economic downturn, many people could no longer sustain the expensive livelihood of a horse. Because there were no slaughter houses available, many horse owners abandoned or failed to maintain enough food and veterinarian visits for their horses. Instead of just being killed, horses had to suffer for months or even years before they died. If anything, the ban created more problems. This ban that was meant to save horses only increased their suffering.

This example shows that government intervention creates more problems that it attempts to solve. The ban did not end horse slaughter. Instead slaughtering was simply outsourced to other countries or horses were abandoned and left to suffer.

In case you’re wondering, horse meat is considered a delicacy in Asia and Europe. It is also considered a good source of protein for zoo animals. There is no market for horse meats in the United States so don’t worry about being force fed horse burgers because of the lift on the ban. Your chicken nuggets and Taco Bell meals are horse free!

On Healthcare

To begin, it might be worthwhile for readers to check out the article that inspired my thoughts this time around (it should be linked above, but just in case: http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/mi/201111290.asp).

What bothers me the most about the abuse that health care professionals are able to practice is that they are only able to carry it out because of the trust they receive from society and the support that they receive from the State. The United States of America is fortunate enough to enjoy the benefits of a health system that more or less operates autonomously from State control...relatively speaking.

It still puts up with Medicare/Medicaid.
It has the Food & Drug Administration to deal with.
There's a good chance private insurance will be a thing of the past if our Hopeful Leader has anything to say about it.

What could possibly go wrong? Except the violations of human rights that you see every day in countries where decisions about patient care are taken out of the hands of patients and put into the hands of members of an establishment.

Doctors in the Netherlands exercise euthanasia without explicit patient permission.
Special boards in the United Kingdom use the following calculation to determine who receives treatment: #of productive taxpaying years remaining - cost of treatment = X, where X must be a positive amount in order for the patient to be treated.
Children receive dangerous treatments without a reasonable risk assessment in Michigan because the doctor is inflexible in "this type of case".

My only hope if State control of health care in the U.S. increases is that if I ever need serious medical treatment I might be able to afford a Carnival Cruise to the Bahamas where an Ivy League graduate will perform my surgery using recycled scalpels that a good autoclave sterilized but were still deemed "unusable" in the nation of my birth because of a government regulation. And maybe my transplanted kidney came from a person suffering from poverty in Guatemala. My life is on the line, and the decisions foisted on me by a controlling State leave me with fewer options, fewer chances to exercise survival in a way that is consistent with liberty.

How is the State's control of medical care supposed to help anyone prosper if it enforces its opinions on what life, particularly the life of its slaves, are worth? In ancient Rome many slaves enjoyed practical autonomy from their masters, even being serviced by other slaves because they were so valuable to their masters through their intelligence or productivity...yet in the end, when they became sick, or old, or an accident befell them, the common practice of a Slave master was to end his liability.

I am not a liability, nor is any person who is willing to put their self on the line and say "I am a person, not your property."

Economics: Brain Drain, Brain Gain and Brain Circulation

For economic growth a company or a country as whole need human capital. More importantly, skilled workers are engines of the innovation that allows a company or a country to stay competitive; not only nationally but also internationally. A couple days ago I was reading news on the internet and I came across an interesting topic in one of UK newspapers Telegraph. The story was by Rebecca Smith “African Countries Losing Doctors in the “Brain Drain.” Building on thought of freedom of movement and pursuit of happiness the topic raised many questions in mind that enticed me to read further. In my readings, I found that not only there is a brain drain, but also “brain gain, brain circulation. The question is what does this mean on economic perspectives.  In his book:  “Naked Economics, Undressing the Dismall Science, Charles Wheelan wrote: “Human capital is the sum total of skills embodied within an individual: education, intelligence, charisma, creativity, work experience, entrepreneurial vigor, even the ability to throw a baseball fast.” (Wheelan 127).

It should be noted that no matter how developed a country’s economy is, there is always a shortage of skilled workers in various fields such as medical, engineering, management - just to name few and this is a shared burden across the world but dynamics are of course different. Talking about professional migrants from developing nations such as those from Africa or Asia, they do so for various reasons.  Some decide to leave their home countries to the west in the hope that they will get a better life, better job and better prospect. According to Dr. Harley Balzer, Associate Professor of Government and International Affairs at Georgetown University - audio presentation at the Center for Strategic and International Studies of April 14 2010, “People migrate to other countries in response to economic conditions and try to maximize their options.” He continued saying that there is an estimate of 35-40 million Chinese who live abroad and this exodus started in 1978 (not all of them are skilled professionals).

 Hence, while the migration of skilled human capital is still debatable on who benefits and who loses, some would argue that people have the right to move and live wherever they want (when applicable). However, when it comes to brain and drain, Ms. Smith asserts: “In total the nine sub-Saharan countries in the study lost the equivalent of $2billion as doctors left the continent to work overseas while the UK benefited by the equivalent of $2.7billion and America benefited by $846million.” Also, the brain drain might be true when you read the following segment of the World Bank report on Sierra Leone  on the htt://irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=82755 :  “In Sierra Leone, for a population of more than five million there are 75 state medical doctors as of February 2009, according to the Ministry of Health.”

Clearly, losers are countries where skilled professionals are coming from. First, in many circumstances political unrest, civil wars and poor governance do not give much of options to skilled human capital other than leaving their home countries. In quoting Mr. Gary Becker speech, Wheelan, wrote: “While all forms of capital-physical capital, such as machinery and plants, financial capital, and human capital- are important, human capital is the most important. Indeed, in modern economy, human capital is by far the most important form of capital in creating wealth and growth” (Wheelan 134).

Conversely, the brain circulation also exists. For example some people may go back to their countries after studying in developed countries. Dr. Balzer contended that a good fraction of some Chinese who studied abroad return back to their countries to apply acquired knowledge.  In this light, China and India have recognized the importance of investing in human capital by putting more focus and effort in education. According to Uttara Dukkipati, “The growth of China’s higher education sector provides a good example of how private investment can be used to improve the status quo.” He added saying that “According to Venture Intelligence, in 2000, the Chinese tertiary enrollment ratio was 6 percent and the regulation on for-profit participation in higher education was murky. In 2002, the government issued a law permitting for-profit participation in the higher education sector. China’s higher education enrollment increased from 14.7 million students in 2002 to 23 million by 2006.”

The aforesaid examples indicate that there is a striking correlation between a country’s level of human capital and its economic well-being. As long as the unrest, poor governance, lame economic growth and political instability continue, people will always try to maximize their options and try to respond to their economic conditions.

http://csis.org/files/publication/sam_141.pdf

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8912781/African-countries-losing-doctors-in-brain-drain.html

Who is to save Europe, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, China or the US?

As the world continue going global whatever affects one country will certainly affect neighboring countries or even across the continents. This is true nowadays when you look at both political and economic spectrums. Building on ideas “What is the role of government in people’s life” I think that we as people across the globe gave too much power to governments. Be in capitalist or socialist (not to mention communism) countries people relied on their governments. People trust in governments and its institutions to do the right job for its citizens as well as to the country. However, what is still unknown to many is that from economic stand point, governments are different from businesses so, they are or should be run differently. As an example, a businessman will carefully count every penny that comes in or goes out on cash-flow while the government institutions manage public funds (tax payers). Also, most politicians tend to follow their own interest rather than working or championing for the welfare of people they represent. This phenomenon happened globally so the sentiment of angry citizens is spread all over. Yet, people continue to rely on government to take measures in tackling the inequality, poverty and financial problems. One thing to recognize is that to have gone global, losers and winners were created. As matter of fact, some countries are more advanced than others in intellectually, economically, politically, just to name few.

In this light, it is hard to know who would like to help Europe recover from its pressing financial crisis as all countries are on the edge. After all Robert Heinlein said it. “There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.” Therefore, building on what the president of World Bank Robert Zoellick said China may intervene in Eurozone financial crisis http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/eurozone-seeks-bailout-funds-from-china/101540/. In fact, it is in China’s interest to help Eurozone because China has a significant investment in various European countries. For instance,
Alessandro Antonelli, an economist, John Cabot University reckons that China will be interested to buy European government bonds. During an interview on Reuters, he added saying that China will buy assets in those European suffering countries (Portugal about 10 billion dollars, Greece about 9.5 billion dollars etc). It is important to mention also that German’s export sector would benefit from the existence of Europe.

In the meantime, another important and crucial issue the Eurozone may be facing is how member countries have historical, political and socio-economical divergences. This may be a factor that some European countries tend to act behind the curve in dealing with common currency. According to Antonelli, there is also a credibility issues among Europeans. He gave an example in which top German politicians would say one thing today and a different one tomorrow. This may be true in the same footstep when German Chancellor Merkel was quote by Reuters addressing the Polish audience six months ago that “If the euro fails, then Europe and the idea of European Union will fail.” Next, Cimbalo on asserts that the Polish had the desire to join the EU but now those ambitions were set back given what is happening in current EU members. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jeff-cimbalo/euro-crisis_b_1086194.html

Nevertheless, what the US would like to do about the pressing European financial crisis? Given the controversy in this matter, people will give opposing views. If my memory can recall correctly, in the last televised republican presidential debate in Michigan some days ago, Herman Cain and Mitt Romney and others said that US should not intervene to rescue EU. I found their position as detriment especially when we continue to rely on (them) politicians. First, reading the report by James K. Jackson of February 1 2011 I found that Europe holds $2 trillions of US investment (about 70% of US investment abroad). http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21118.pdf. in any case, US as global economic player should wary some. When a neighbor’s house is burning you cannot sit dull. You do something.

The Best Party

If the ideal government is one which is thoroughly prevented
from using its force and coercion to accomplish anything other than protecting
our property rights, what would this look like? Surely this government would look
vastly different from the one we are currently subjected to. Due to a personal
view that anyone in power should not be in power because they want to be in power
and thereby gain the prestige riches and power that go along with it (Plato); I
can’t help but think that a government which countenances libertarian values is
inherently impossible. If I reason correctly, then this is a tragedy, and all
we have left to do is fight the government tooth and nail for every right it
tries to take away from us.
What if I don’t reason correctly? What if it is a possible
to elect the type of government or government official who has identified
problems with the status quo, is capable of stringing together coherent
sentences which relate his views to the masses, has surrounded himself with
loyal friends rather than plundering politicians, and is in no way interested
in the prestige surrounding political office but just wants to get in, fix some
stuff, and get out?
Consider Iceland. The situation which I will eventually claim
is analogous to what a free market government would potentially look like is
not truly analogous. The United States has a population of roughly 300 million
people. Reykjavik, Iceland has a population of about 120,000. The Unites States
no doubt has a wider spread of viewpoints, a larger government, more money,
more power, and more to lose (Iceland declared bankruptcy in 2008). It seems
unlikely that the situation which has occurred there would ever occur here.
Jon Gnarr and his party, The Best Party, won the 2010
election for mayor of Reykjavik. This city is home to more than a third of the
country. Among the issues on his campaign platform included promising polar
bears in the zoo, free towels in public pools, and Disneyland in the airport.
To those watching the campaign progress, it appeared to be a joke; Gnarr is a
well-known comedian and musician in Iceland. Then he won and the joke became a
reality.
Under the surface of the comedic campaign videos slogans and
promises which he prefaced with the claim that many would not actually be
fulfilled (as he said, he’s a politician after all) was a disgruntled citizen.
In the aftermath of the 2008 bankruptcy he is quoted as finding himself in a
moral dilemma; it seemed he owed money to Britain and the Dutch that he himself
did not spend so he decided to do something about it. It wasn’t a frantic grope
for power, but a desire to upend the corruption of those who were previously in
power which led him to make his election bid.
What is more is that behind his promises which seem
initially absurd, hid decent rationale. Bring the polar bears to the zoo, he
proclaimed, because many more had been swimming ashore due to ice caps melting
and instead of continuing to shoot them, his plan was to put them to good use. Gnarr
supported free towels in the public baths to draw in tourism; public baths
count as spas under European Union law only if they provide free towels.
Regardless of how good or bad these ideas are I suppose that
my main point is that Iceland had a man running for election who was not doing
it out of political prestige, he simply wanted to make changes. Gnarr was more
than willing to make fun of himself and the political process he was partaking
in. He was honest and effective and was surrounded by people he trusted and
upheld the same values. And Reykjavik voted for him. They realized that the
current system is flawed, and that it takes someone outside the system to
change it. What would happen in America if someone ran for president, or any
office for that matter, in the same honest and delightful manner?
Also, just for viewing pleasure, this is his campaign song
and video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxBW4mPzv6E

Can a Tsunami Hit Politics not Economics in any Given Country?

Looking at what is happening around the world; one would argue that politics and economics are indeed intertwined. Therefore, when there is a fire in economy, politics will feel the heat. This may be true when you observe what is going in Eurozone. Greece, one of the European members was to be bailed out by Euro bank because it was almost on the edge of a financial precipice. Because of the flip flop, George Papandreou, the Greek prime-minister, calling - and then cancelling - a referendum on the bailout plan.  Papandreou is to resign because he was seen as incapable for assuring other European members that they will pay back.

Also, due to prevailing economic-political situation, Italy may be the next. Next, the politic and economic sphere in Greece pushed stocks around the world into the fresh shockwaves of doubts about the sustainability of the Eurozone.
Stacy Meichtry, in Wall Street Journal; quotes Girgio Napolitano, Italian president saying that Silvio Berlusconi, Italian prime-minister is to resign and a new national unity government is to be formed in order to tackle and overhaul Italy’s economy and take immediate steps to reduce its 1.9 trillion euro debt.

US politics is not safe when it comes to the influence on politics and economics vice versa. According to Daniel Eisenberg, University of Michigan and Jonathan Ketchan, University of Southern California contended in their article “Economic Voting in the US Presidential Elections: Who Blames Whom for What”  in which they presented  four evidences that influence voters namely:

 1) Which is more important for determining people’s votes, national or local economic conditions?

2) What time frame do people consider in economic voting?

3) Which demographic groups are most sensitive to the economy in their voting behavior?

4) How does economic voting depend on the political context—in particular, whether a candidate is running for re-election, and whether the incumbent party also controls Congress?

To sum up, their findings showed how economic conditions influence greatly voter’s decision.

Reference

http://www.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1285&context=bejeap

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203804204577016213985874218.html?KEYWORDS=greek+debt

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204190704577025613250061628.html?KEYWORDS=italy

Oh, Ayn Rand...

So mostly this article has nothing to do with economics, but there is a small part that I have some problems with and thought I would dish them out here. So the article is about Ayn Rand's Objectivism (by the way my 'i' key is not workng so well, it is highly probable I will miss a couple), and guiding your life by such values. Apparently she wrote a book detailing out what she means by each of the 4 objectives, however I have not read it. A friend of mine sent me this site telling me how much she thought I would love this yadda yadda. One of the problems is that she doesn't know about my feelings on Ayn Rand, but when I did read this little abstract, I found myself thinking 'Gee, Ayn Rand should have taken an Economic Freedom course'. On the surface (or rather if these two paragraphs - numbers 3 and 4 by the way), it all sounds fine and dandy, but I stopped and reread it and thought oh boy. And here's why:

First she talks about how man must do things for himself, not for others, he must act in his own rational self-interest. But this implies very little human connection. It may not be in your self-interest to loan a family member money, but you do it for them out of love. (And if this blog was about more than just economics I would go into, what is life without love?). It also implies that people know all the things they need to know in order to make 'rational' decisions, as we have discussed many times in class, this is simply not true. People do not get to have all of the facts they need when making decisions.

She also talks about how the only way to have growth in a society is by banning physical force. That is all fine and dandy (even though it is likely that we have less growth now, we still do have growth, and physical force). But, I take issue that is specfically says physical force, and then she goes on to talk about how persuasion is necessary to organize human activity. The government does not hold a gun to my head and force me to pay my taxes in that manner, but rather they force me by using persuasion that paying my taxes is better than going to jail. Also, necessary for the organization of human activity, what? I don't necessarily have anything to combat this with, but mostly because I don't understand. Perhaps we have different definitions of persuasion, and this is where these problems really lie. Persuasion to me has always had a negative connotation, people don't try to persuade you into doing things that you want to do, it is usually not a good thing. In what I have read she basically replaces 'entrepreneur' with 'persuasion' which doesn't work very well or make much sense.

Another claim she makes is quite funny, she says that capitalism is the only system which bars physical force. Ayn, did you do your homework?

She also makes a point to talk about using capitalism in order to achieve the highest moral principles of man's life. I pretty instantly get nervous whenever the word 'moral' comes into any discussion of economics. While I can hope that she simply means that the purpose of a man's life should not be to murder every person he ever sees and what not, it is still ambigous and makes me become skittish.

One last issue, Ayn rather quickly says that the state and economics should be separated, "in the same way" that the state and the church are separated. So they should be only kind of/sort of separated is what you're saying?

Maybe one day when I'm not devoting all of my time to work, school and my dog I will read this (though not very likely, I'm not an Ayn Rand fan), and I will think 'gosh how silly of me to have bashed this in such a way, this philosophy is in fact the greatest thing I've ever heard of!' in which case I will log back onto this blog (if I can) and announce my apologies, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. And upon reading a comment on my last blog, perhaps I should bite my tongue on my opinions that differ from these hot-shots, for Ayn Rand might come back from the grave and challenge these views I have presented in this blog.

Guy Fawkes

"Remember, remember, the fifth of November, the gunpowder treason and plot."

Today is the four-hundred and sixth anniversary of a failed attempt by English Catholics to destroy the English Parliament. Made popular in recent years by the movie "V for Vendetta", today is heralded as a day of remembrance for "fairness, justice, and freedom" as "more than words, but perspectives."

The problem that I have with this is how utterly skewed this perspective is. In the perspective of today, Guy Fawkes bears a striking resemblance to Islamist terrorists, a fanatic who attempted to impose his minority will on the greater populace through an act of gross violence: the murder of most of a somewhat representative government...well, not really.

For the government of England was hardly better than the beliefs that Fawkes supported. Neither the English Parliament nor the Catholic autocracy represented by the influence of the Pope believed in "fairness, justice, and freedom." The main criticism of "the Church" throughout history has always been for its behaving too much like the State.

All too often the State seeks to control the influence that "true faith" holds over a populace. It need only find something it can control and that people can wish to believe. The popular wish is that humanity is somehow capable of achieving utopia if left to its own devices. The main problem with such a wish is the decision our professor spoke of in class. Each person must constantly choose to either give of themselves in order to please others or to use force in order to compel others to please them. It appears far simpler for those who possess great force to use compulsion, and humanity prefers simplicity.

Guy Fawkes chose the latter because the people who led his "true faith" were proponents of the Church acting like the State. If there is anything to be learned about "fairness, justice, and freedom" from Guy Fawkes, it is simply that he supported none of them, for the State is so often the thief of liberty, rather than its enabler.

Perhaps you should occupy your free time instead...

I’m surprised to find, in a blog dedicated to one of the more politically charged classes on campus, that no one yet has mentioned Occupy Wall Street. Media coverage of this movement is spreading as quickly as the gathering of demonstrators themselves. Everyone from Fox News, the BBC, National Public Radio, and all those in between have has put out extensive new coverage on the protests since they began in September. However, any well-defined explanation as to the purpose of their assembly is hard to find. Even for me, I had very little specific information other than the fact that their numbers were, and still are, rapidly growing. Herein lies my issue and the purpose of this blog—why assemble if not for common purpose? I beg the question, then, that If the purpose of peaceful assembly is to combine the voice of individuals to form a group in the effort to achieve a common goal, then what are they really doing? I offer a possible theory as to the real aim of this movement, as well as some basic facts about their purpose, in case anyone else finds that they are as confused as I am.

Unfortunately, however, it seems that there is so little commonality amongst the various off-shoots of Occupy Wall Street that almost no information about the movement is to be found from scholarly sources. The Economist magazine seems to agree about the cluttered nature of the protests: “Some want to tax the rich, others to decertify business schools. Hostile references to Wal-Mart and Starbucks outnumber those to any Wall Street firms.”(2011). It would be easy to simply say that Occupy Wall Street unanimously operates under the slogan, We Are the 99%. ‘But of course! They are protesting the widening gap in wealth between the infinitesimal minority of the super-rich and the growing number of those who live in poverty!’ However, it would be just as easy to claim that they are protesting government corruption being fed by corporate lobbyists, as indicated on the Occupy Wall Street website: “Our nation, our species and our world are in crisis. The US has an important role to play in the solution, but we can no longer afford to let corporate greed and corrupt politics set the policies of our nation.” The problem is that these protests are directed toward both issues, and even more still. Occupy Wall Street, while possibly having had a common end in mind in the very beginning, has grown into a network of increasingly smaller and dissimilar movements, each of which has their own reason for protesting.

As Mises would say, they have become special interest groups, each lobbying for the realignment of law in their favor. Because Occupy has fallen into this category, the strength of its movement becomes immediately less credible: “On the one hand, they are obliged to rely on only a small group, because privileges cease to be privileges when they are granted to the majority; but, on the other hand, it is only in their guise as the champions and representatives of the majority that they have any prospect of realizing their demands.” (Mises, 169). The very use of the 99% slogan indicates this behavior. They are referring to their cause as being an issue that affects the majority of the country, rather than the minority only, or the group with the special interest in mind. Ignoring the fact that the original reason for their protest is based in factual misdirection, the very method of their protest now bears no efficacy in their fight for the changing of the law.

Their methods are firmly set and are being followed by an increasing number of people every day. Whatever their goals are, I would not quickly assume that the Occupy Wall Street movement would die out before seeing those goals fulfilled, even in part. That’s what scares me; if their goals are not all similar, how can they all possibly be achieved? Let’s assume for a moment that the entirety of the Occupy movement in the United States had in mind only three goals whose accomplishment would end the need for their protest, those are ending government corruption, removing the power of corporations to create corruption within the government, and shortening the income gap between the wealthy and the poor. How would those goals be accomplished? The answers to the first two are easy, and can be accomplished through the reinstatement of policies that are more consistent with liberty. Particularly, this means the removal from law any policy that grants special privilege to any particular group. However, the answer to the inequality of wealth is non-existent. In any economy that adheres even loosely to the principles of free exchange and private property there will be inequality, and for good reason. Even Mr. Rockwell would agree: “In fact, that 1 percent includes some of the smartest, most innovative people in the country — the people who invent, market, and distribute material blessings to the whole population. They also own the capital that sustains productivity and growth.” (Rockwell Jr., 2011).

Whether or not it is Wall Street or Pennsylvania Avenue that is being occupied, the reason for the occupation must be consistent amongst all of its members. In the same way that I cannot simultaneously protest for lower tuition rates and wider availability of quality education, Occupy Wall Street cannot simultaneously protest for a multitude of different issues. With that being said, I invite the occupiers to protest randomly to their hearts’ content, while I sit back and watch the real issues unfold unchallenged by any serious-minded intellectuals.

Works Cited:
Not quite together. (Cover story). (2011). Economist, 400(8756), 73-75.

Von Mises, L. (2002). Liberalism: In the classical tradition. (3rd ed.). Irvington-on-Hudson: The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc. Retrieved from http://mises.org/books/liberalism.pdf

Rockwell Jr., L. H. (2011, October 24). The state is the 1 percent. Retrieved from http://mises.org/daily/5776/The-State-Is-the-1-Percent

The Latest Teen Craze and Economic Freedom

The Hunger Games series has teen cult-like following similar to that of Twilight and Harry Potter. Naturally, I absolutely had to read it. After such a popular following in the books, the first of three movies comes out in March. Unfortunately, unlike both Harry Potter and Twilight, Robert Pattinson will not be starring. I finished the last of the three books a few weeks ago and I noticed a relationship between the world of the Hunger Games and many ideas of economic freedom.

It takes place in the future in a country called Panem, which is post-apocalyptic North America. Twelve districts are lead by the Capital, a socialistic government that maintains control over its people by a violent police force called the Peacekeepers, control of all resources, and the yearly Hunger Games. In this event, children from the ages of 12 to 18 are chosen from each district in a raffle to compete against each other. A theatrical, but deadly arena is built for the players each year and it is televised just like a reality show. The last person alive is the winner. The Hunger Games is a tool for the government to maintain control over Panem. Acts of violence on these children foster a major fear of the government and quell any possibility of rebellion.

Government control of all factors of production creates scarcity. Consequently, starvation and poverty affect all of the twelve districts. One way to get more food is to add your name into the Hunger Games raffle again, increasing your odds of being chosen for the games. There is another way to get food or even liquor. A black market called “The Hob” exists in an old barn. The main character, Katniss Everdeen hunts in the surrounding forest and then sells or exchanges her game so that she can buy bread or other meat.

Even under an all powerful government, a market still forms. People want more than what the government provides in a socialistic government. The Peacekeepers (the government police) shop in The Hob. They like to buy soup made with strange meat, usually dogs or mice, from a creative cook name Greasy Sae. Haymitch, a notorious alcoholic, buys unlimited bottles of homemade alcohol here. When it’s burned down by the Capitol, Haymitch suffers withdrawals and has no other place to buy liquor. Government officials even have a weakness for products on the black market. Katniss sells strawberries to the mayor every week.

While this example is entirely fictional, it seems possible. It is possible for a nuclear war or major pollution to destroy most of the world. Throughout human history socialist governments have been formed and still exist today. The use of government force can always be manipulated and used to hurt its people. However, I appreciate the author’s choice to include a black market. People like markets. They allow consumers to be fully dependent on alcohol and eat weird dog meat soup or whatever their heart desires. It’s possible for a wide array of strange demands to be satisfied in a market.

The Noble Highwayman

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its people may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end."
-C.S. Lewis

This particular quote draws our attention to the ethical side of liberty and makes no direct mention of economic freedom. However, I believe that its sentiment potentially captures what exactly it is about the government that so bothers the anarchists, and also occasionally irritates everyone whose government declares itself a protector of the arenas in which no one desires protection.

The next quote I will use is from The Ethics of Liberty by Rothbard. Rothbard’s claim is that there exists no way to structure government so that it will escape from certain allegations. Among these being that a government cannot possibly follow its own laws and creates a monopoly over things like the money supply, violence, and land/transportation using force and coercion. In chapter 22 Rothbard quotes a 19th century anarchist Lysander Spooner who points out that the way a government conducts its robberies is more ‘dastardly and shameful’ than that of a highwayman [a robber who conducted his robberies on the side of the highway up until the early 19th century]:

“[The highwayman] does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a ‘protector,’ and [to profess] that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to ‘protect’ those infatuated travelers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection.”
A further distinction, Spooner explains, between the highwayman and the government which ties in directly to the previous quote by C.S. Lewis is that:

“[The highwayman] does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful ‘sovereign,’ on account of the ‘protection’ he affords you. He does not keep ‘protecting’ you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands.”

And so it is; the government-unlike the upstanding highwayman or robber baron-skulks behind a parade of promises and empty justifications, tirelessly working to improve the lives of its subjects-whether they like it or not.

Issue Avoided.

I stumbled upon this article while procrastinating of facebook a couple of weeks ago, and at first didn’t think of it for a blog until I read the comments. The article is about a girl who wore a shirt that said ‘Marriage is so Gay’ on it to her public school one day and was forced to change. She went to the news and explained she just wanted to show her support for the gay community. The ACLU got involved, and it became a big deal. Majority of the comments are people explaining how they think that being gay is the equivalent to being a child rapist, somewhere criticizing the school, some criticizing her parents, and other saying that they supported her but felt that the shirt was inappropriate for school.

It was these last kinds of comments that got me to thinking about economic freedom, and freedom of speech and such. Regardless of how you feel on the subject of gay marriage, the real question at hand here has to do with ‘freedom of speech’ or rather it even more so has to do with private property. Many people will say it is her right to wear that shirt because of free speech, other will say it is the right of the students to not be distracted.The question that came up a lot was where do you draw the line? The example used most frequently was what if she had worn a shirt that said ‘Marriage is so Christian’? These people who asked these kinds of questions will probably never realize that they were questioning the entire right to free speech. But as we established in class because there is nowhere to draw the line, the right to free speech is rubbish.

Instead of trying to figure out whether or not this young girl was within her rights to wear the shirt or not, why not just enforce property rights? If the school was privately owned, the owner gets to make the rules, and say yes you can wear that shirt to school or no, you can’t wear that shirt. If the girl and her parents don’t like it, they can go to another school, and the same extends for other students and parents.

A "Thrilling" Analysis of Conrad Murray's Trial

Dr. Conrad Murray, charged with involuntary manslaughter and gross negligence, is on trial for the death of famed pop star Michael Jackson (basic information available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15058723). Dr. Murray, who was Jackson’s personal attending physician at the time of his death, is implicated in having given Jackson an overdose of a sedative, similar to that used during surgeries, to help the singer sleep. This took place during the stressful rehearsal for his widely anticipated return to the stage in “This is It,” a tour that would cross Western Europe and North America. In a world where mere implications are enough to put a man under the banner of “guilty”, what would this doctor’s fellow Murray (Murray Rothbard) have to say about the whole ordeal? Would he believe that what Dr. Murray did can be constituted as a form of murder? Perhaps in not so few words, I believe Rothbard might say what we would recognize as “bogus!” In Rothbard’s Zion of pure liberty, there is no legally technical combination such as involuntary manslaughter; there is only that which is voluntary, that which is involuntary (which will produce no action), and murder.

The question of Dr. Murray’s innocence (or otherwise) can be asked by considering the notion of contracts. There are two kinds of contracts; enforceable contracts, and non-enforceable contracts. A contract is enforceable (protected through the use of violence, or the threat thereof in the violation of that contract) if it represents a transfer of property from one person to another. An example would be the contract between the debtor, who agrees to lend capital for an agreed-upon amount of time, and the borrower, who agrees to repay that money and an interest payment by an agreed-upon date. In short, an enforceable contract is nothing more than a mutually-decided statement of voluntary exchange. A contract that is not enforceable, therefore, is one that is merely promissory, and does not state a transfer of ownership rights. A contract made by one person who agrees to spend the duration of his or her life in the servitude of another cannot be enforceable, for a man cannot willingly (or even absolutely) transfer the ownership of his or her choices.

The exchange between Dr. Murray by Jackson could only have been arranged as a contract of employment, whereby Dr. Murray agreed to sell his services as a physician to Jackson in exchange for a reasonable payment, a wage (the reasonable wage, in this case, equaling $150,000 per month). The legitimacy of Dr. Murray’s prosecution depends upon whether this contract was enforceable, depending furthermore upon the terms of that contract. Jackson may have agreed to the terms of: “I will pay you $150,000 per month to keep me alive.” Such a contract would clearly be unenforceable, as it is based on a promise that not even the most reputable physician could keep. However, had the contract been arranged under the premise of: “I will pay you $150,000 per month to treat me as necessary,” then the entirety of the law could be used to enforce it. If, at any point during the agreement, Murray had failed to provide treatment, Jackson could righteously withhold future payments (or seek legal action to compensate for payments already made), as could Murray refuse service to Jackson for late or absent payments. Not once during Murray’s prosecution, nor existent in the multitude of charges being levied against him, has the question of his continued provision of medical treatment to Jackson been brought up. Not one attorney, nor judge, nor witness denies that Dr. Murray was at the constant attention of Jackson at the time of the latter’s death. Furthermore, none of the parties involved could accuse Murray of intentionally attempting to murder Jackson (such an accusation would be ridiculous: all other things equal, why would Murray attempt, by way of murder, to end the contract he voluntarily agreed upon, thereby consequently terminating his source of income?). So, in what sense was he in violation of their contract, against which legal action may be used?

Some may object that Murray should have known better: the combination of treatment was obviously unhealthy and not good for Jackson, and therefore he, in a sense, violated his agreement to treat the singer properly. I partially agree; if, in fact, any treatment concocted by Murray was a sub-optimal course of treatment that, even in part, contributed to Jackson’s death, then the poor quality of his physician-ship cannot be doubted, and his reputation must be rendered necessarily questionable. However, the question of choice cannot be brought up in the legal enforcement of contracts. Jackson willingly hired Murray to provide services, and in no way was this agreement made against his will. Although selecting Dr. Murray as his primary physician instead of someone else may have been a poor choice, it was undoubtedly Jackson’s choice. The burden is not upon the seller to provide the best quality of a particular service or product (though, in regards to the web of exchange, it is in his best interest to do so), but rather it is upon the buyer to properly consider as many of the alternatives that are available to him as possible, and to make the most appropriate decision.

Although opinion takes no place in this analysis, I will conclude that the nature of Dr. Conrad Murray’s prosecution is, at the very least, misleading. From a liberty standpoint, it seems that there is no legitimate accusation with which Murray may be charged. He could not have violated a contract established with Jackson acting how he did, and he most certainly had no intention to murder. Motivated by the sadness surrounding the death of the cross-generationally popular entertainer, many people are eager to blame. However, blame purely for the sake of blame cannot be the reason for implicating an otherwise innocent man for a crime that he did not commit.

Proposition 103: Temporary Tax Increase for Public Education

This morning I found a blue book for Proposition 103 on my dining room table. I don't know how it got there, but I'm glad it did. Proposition 103 asks Colorado voters to take on a small increase in both state income and sales taxes for a five year period. For a single person with an annual income of $35,000 dollars a year, in other words, me after I graduate (hopefully) this comes to about $110 extra state revenue each year.

It is important to bear in mind that Prop. 103 is specifically designed to fund public education (k-12 & higher), in addition to the 4.3 billion annually spent by the state already. Prop. 3 does not specify how the additional funds will be split among the different educational levels.

There is one primary issue that I take with Proposition 103, and I will note that this issue applies to most tax initiatives in Colorado under Tabor (the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights). My issue is that the proponents of this tax increase want to use the force of the government to maintain it's monopoly control of education by making me pay for it. I feel like the only thing stopping them is Tabor, and even then I am reduced to what Rothbard described as "one man using his vote for tyranny in avoidance of being himself enslaved (paraphrase)."

$550 is a lot of money to me ($110 times 5 years). That's enough for me to go on this awesome cruise coming up in March with most of my friends. That's more than my current rent, utilities, and gas consumption right now for one month. These people, not the State, not the Government, people! are telling me that I should give them my home for a month, and it's impolite for me to express myself fully about it in this forum.

I understand the good that can be gained from public funding for education. I also understand its inadequacy. I have been both home schooled and charter schooled during my education, so I feel I have a good understanding of the effectiveness of these alternatives to public education. Mainly, they're competitive, they're flexible, they met me where I was as a student because they were able to respond to my intellectual needs and wants. Organizations that must ask for my money will listen to my questions. Organizations that can take my money will tell me what to think.

And yet I will be reviled by many of my peers because I refuse to be swayed by emotional appeals to my humanity and my deafness to cries that both beg and demand me to "think about the children!"

My response is "I am." I will not willingly support a system of education that is the result of a government instituted monopoly. Are they thinking about what is best for the children, or about what is easiest for the government?

The Advantages of Inequality

The Goodwill is a nonprofit organization that provides rehabilitation for and hires disabled people. They have created a very unique niche in the nonprofit sector by creating a sustainable way to help the disabled. They collect used items and sell them, which not only creates jobs, but raises funds for rehabilitation costs.

Disabled people are a very unique, but valuable workforce. They are a good investment in the workforce because many people can be rehabilitated when joining the workforce, they have higher retention rates, there are tax breaks (which the libertarians don’t favor, but businesses appreciate) and the hiring of disabled people portrays companies with an image of social responsibility.

This example illustrates the statement that people are not created equal. While it seems like most inequalities create major life challenges, they can also be used as an advantage. An extremely successful organization like The Goodwill wouldn’t exist without inequality. People that value social responsibility shop at The Goodwill to support their cause. The Goodwill also has very low prices that frugal people can afford. Poor families can buy their children winter coats at an affordable price because the Goodwill exists. College kids can furnish their apartments.

I once volunteered at The ARC, a similar organization, on a Saturday as a school project and learned a lot about these organizations. They are there to reach out to people who desperately need it. Mentally ill people are often left to fend for themselves, but the ARC finds them and helps them. They provide jobs, food, clothing, and most importantly rehabilitation. They are able to refresh and renew people that have not been productive members of society and turn them into a valuable part of the workforce. Every person has something valuable to contribute to the economy. It’s important to highlight that uniqueness and use those advantages to increase production. Inequality makes life unique, exciting, and dynamic. It creates new challenges and spurs innovation.

“Even between brothers there exist the most marked differences in physical and mental attributes. Nature never repeats itself in its creations; it produces nothing by the dozens, nor are its products standardized. Each man who leaves her workshop bears the imprint of the individual, the unique, the never-to-recur” (Mises 28).
Inspiration:
http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=PR&Date=20110929&ID=14326293&topic=TOPIC_ECONOMIC_INDICATORS&isub=3