The two party system is set up so that third parties are mostly shut out of the discussion. Occasionally a third party will bring up a valid position on an issue but once it is adopted by either major party, the third party originator of the idea slumps back into obscurity.
But what if it didn't have to be this way? What if magically we could have a new start to go along with this New Year? What would a libertarian country look like?
Libertarians have one answer for most economic questions: the free market. Austrian economists (notable among them, F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman) teach us that prices are transmitters of information and that anything that distorts prices (usually government intrusion) adds static to that information. For example, when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac distorted the mortgage market by allowing un-creditworthy people to buy homes, prices rose. These prices were lies that the government was telling its people.
Free markets could do everything from prevent the next real estate bubble to providing kidneys to people on transplant lists. Markets are examples of spontaneous order. If people have a want, need, or desire, someone else will fill it for economic gain. When people move into an area in large numbers invariably churches, supermarkets and retail stores follow. If the desire for pizza in an area increases, it is only a matter of time before another pizzeria opens.
All without one central planner, markets provide efficient solutions to problems that don't even need to be vocalized. Government does a bad job of planning even for vocalized problems with resources that vastly outnumber private sector giants like Wal-mart.
On social issues, a policy of noninterference is what most libertarians would like. People regulate themselves remarkably well and as long as they are not hurting anyone else, it is no one else's business anyway.
Unfortunately government is the biggest intruder into the "culture war" issues taking sides on issues like gays in the military, gay marriage, the amount of salt allowed in restaurant food, banning happy meals, redistricting fast food chains out of urban areas, banning alcoholic beverages that contain caffeine, banning smoking in public places, banning lingerie football, banning trans fats, even banning singing and dancing.
Private proprietors are free to do most of these things (excluding, at least, the first two) and I would even prefer a restaurant that bans smoking entirely but when government makes these decisions for people, it treats them as children. Top-down solutions always have unintended consequences such as when smoking bans hurt bar revenues especially in areas that border states that don't have that law. If half the bars voluntarily banned smoking and the other half let it stay, maybe a happy medium could be reached through spontaneous order and everyone could be made happy.
Although conservatives would applaud libertarians' economic policies and liberals would applaud at least some of the social ones (on the other hand, many bans were initiated by do-gooder progressives, one good reason libertarians tend to side more with conservatives than liberals), there are some issues which put libertarians on the fringe of both the right and left.
Libertarians advocate an end to prohibition, not just of marijuana laws but virtually all drug laws and all laws banning prostitution. Do libertarians really desire to put heroin in their arm and then have sex with a prostitute? Well, not really. Prohibition is the opposite of a market. Prohibition raises prices due to the danger involved with the business, then it attracts the criminal element to run it. Even worse, when a dispute occurs, there is no legal way to settle it so the most violent criminal tends to prevail.
By enriching the pushers while stuffing our jails full of johns and users, we create a worse situation than would exist with total legalization. At an average price of $30,000 a year to incarcerate someone, we need to focus on those who are breaking laws that impinge on other people's rights, not merely our social norms. As I said before in Just Say Now, we lose 14,000 people a year to drunk driving and still never talk about alcohol prohibition. We realize the current system of creating a legal market is the best of the realistic outcomes.
Of course there is no such thing as magic and libertarianism will likely remain in the shadows. However, with growing disenchantment with liberal fiscal policy, a mounting debt that will come due in the next few decades and younger people continuing to drift leftwards on social issues, libertarianism looks like it could be the philosophy of the coming generation even though the mainstream might never adopt the fringe issues and likely won't fully embrace free markets.
Norman Thomas, an American socialist once said that, "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." I believe that in time America might simply become an economically conservative and socially moderate-to-left country and one day we will all wake up in a libertarian country.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Musings On The Past Two Weeks
I had intended that I would post a short video as per my usual holiday tradition. Alas, the government has recently been up to so much I feel the need to comment on the happenings during the past couple weeks. My own schedule has prevented me from from my usual research so this is largely an opinion piece.
The Obama tax compromise was a true compromise in that there are parts that each side finds deplorable and other parts that each side are happy with. I'm disappointed that the Republicans didn't hold out until the "Zombie Congress" (a term I much prefer over "Lame Duck Congress") left Washington and an invigorated Republican House took office but it does make sense to extend the cuts for all tax brackets. By extending them for two years, this ensures taxes will be the main issue in the presidential election. I predict this will help the Republicans because tax cuts are more palatable than social issues to the electorate.
The defeat of the omnibus bill was a victory for America. Normally, appropriation bills fund the government but the previous Congress has pass continuing resolutions, basically running government without a budget. This, in and of itself, is shameful. The omnibus bill would have funded government but also included over 6,000 earmarks. Everything from studies of bugs, bridges to nowhere (sooner or later we're going to run out of nowheres to build bridges to), light rail, and other sweeteners for various congressmen trying to get a few million to take back to their district in time for Christmas. The Republicans deserve credit for killing the bill and leaving the Democrats hoping that Santa will give them their Christmas wish list rather than the American taxpayers.
The repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a good thing. America is one of the few countries which does not allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military. Although there will be some effect on unit cohesion, anyone who tells you otherwise is naive, any soldier who acts out regardless of sexual orientation will be reprimanded. When such reprimands occur, we need to remember that soldiers are held to a higher standard because their job is truly a matter of life and death.
The defeat of the DREAM act, a bill which would give illegal aliens tax subsidized in-state tuition to colleges in whichever state they claimed residence in (who could check?), was also heartening. The supporters of this bill tearfully claim its defeat means that college is out of reach for millions of children who had little choice in choosing to cross the border. When one looks at the plethora of free services from social to governmental to medical that illegal aliens get for free while contributing nothing in taxes, the question is not what more can we do for these people but how can an American renounce his citizenship to cash in on all these benefits!
And since I already had a couple videos picked out for today it seemed a shame to waste them. Does Joe Biden hate Christmas? This edited video says yes:
Most people don't think of Santa Claus as a business owner but this video reveals his struggle to make toys for kids all over the world while still not knowing what the tax rates will be long term:
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all my readers,
Conservative Ken
The Obama tax compromise was a true compromise in that there are parts that each side finds deplorable and other parts that each side are happy with. I'm disappointed that the Republicans didn't hold out until the "Zombie Congress" (a term I much prefer over "Lame Duck Congress") left Washington and an invigorated Republican House took office but it does make sense to extend the cuts for all tax brackets. By extending them for two years, this ensures taxes will be the main issue in the presidential election. I predict this will help the Republicans because tax cuts are more palatable than social issues to the electorate.
The defeat of the omnibus bill was a victory for America. Normally, appropriation bills fund the government but the previous Congress has pass continuing resolutions, basically running government without a budget. This, in and of itself, is shameful. The omnibus bill would have funded government but also included over 6,000 earmarks. Everything from studies of bugs, bridges to nowhere (sooner or later we're going to run out of nowheres to build bridges to), light rail, and other sweeteners for various congressmen trying to get a few million to take back to their district in time for Christmas. The Republicans deserve credit for killing the bill and leaving the Democrats hoping that Santa will give them their Christmas wish list rather than the American taxpayers.
The repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a good thing. America is one of the few countries which does not allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military. Although there will be some effect on unit cohesion, anyone who tells you otherwise is naive, any soldier who acts out regardless of sexual orientation will be reprimanded. When such reprimands occur, we need to remember that soldiers are held to a higher standard because their job is truly a matter of life and death.
The defeat of the DREAM act, a bill which would give illegal aliens tax subsidized in-state tuition to colleges in whichever state they claimed residence in (who could check?), was also heartening. The supporters of this bill tearfully claim its defeat means that college is out of reach for millions of children who had little choice in choosing to cross the border. When one looks at the plethora of free services from social to governmental to medical that illegal aliens get for free while contributing nothing in taxes, the question is not what more can we do for these people but how can an American renounce his citizenship to cash in on all these benefits!
And since I already had a couple videos picked out for today it seemed a shame to waste them. Does Joe Biden hate Christmas? This edited video says yes:
Most people don't think of Santa Claus as a business owner but this video reveals his struggle to make toys for kids all over the world while still not knowing what the tax rates will be long term:
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all my readers,
Conservative Ken
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Julian Assange Is Not A Freedom Fighter
I believe there are very few secrets that a government should keep from its people. That being said, Julian Assange crossed a line when he released a quarter of a million diplomatic cables passed onto him from Pfc. Bradley E. Manning.
Some of the cables have identifying information about elders in Afghanistan that are actively helping the United States. Even with the names redacted, enough information remains to endanger those that we will need to rely on when we leave the country so that it is even marginally better than before we invaded it. Assange is a third party on these cables, not knowing the full extent of what should be redacted to protect the identities of those who may be put at risk. In the cited article, the Taliban actually thanks Assange for letting them know who to target.
When the judiciary rules on free speech, they often strike down laws that do not restrict speech but could be said to have a "chilling effect" on speech due to onerous requirements. Assange's release of diplomatic cables could very well have a "chilling effect" on other countries which may want to share information off the record. With two hot wars winding down, Iran pursuing a bomb, and North Korea launching offensives on South Korea, we need as much diplomatic leverage as possible.
Although Assange maintains no damage is done by his leaks, he maintains that he has stores of unredacted and damaging documents that he will release if he is imprisoned or in any other way held responsible for what he has done.
Currently Assange is in jail for unrelated sexual assault charges stemming from, supposedly, his refusal to wear a condom despite two girl's wishes. Others say the condom was not part of the charge while Michael Moynihan of Reason.com, who lived in Sweden for many years, says that overly radical rape laws in Sweden can charge me for merely rejecting a woman's wish to wear a condom even if consensual sex follows.
Some of the people defending Assange include MSNBC's Keith Olberman who believe the women are US operatives that lured Assange into a "honey trap." Olbermann's source for this information was an article on the far-left website Counterpunch by the writers Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett. Shamir is a fringe writer who has devoted his professional life to exposing the supposed criminality of “Jewish power," a paranoid anti-Semite who curates a website full of links to Holocaust denial and neo-Nazi sites, defenses of blood libel myths, and references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Note: For those who don't know, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, was published by the Russian Empire in 1903 supposedly revealing a Jewish plot for world domination. The text was conclusively determined to be fraudulent anti-semitic propaganda in 1921.
Olbermann later tweeted that he regretted citing the article and repudiated the author.
It seems very likely that Assange could be charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 and some lawmakers of both parties have endorsed the idea. Assange seems to get a pass from the same people who decried the Climategate E-mail dump and the outing of non-covert operative Valerie Plame. He is even an early favorite for Time's Man-of-the-Year. Just because Assange used the Internet to disseminate his intercepted cables does not make him any more noble than anyone else who has ever revealed state secrets. Assange is not a freedom fighter, he may well have put America and her allies in danger and he belongs in a jail cell.
Some of the cables have identifying information about elders in Afghanistan that are actively helping the United States. Even with the names redacted, enough information remains to endanger those that we will need to rely on when we leave the country so that it is even marginally better than before we invaded it. Assange is a third party on these cables, not knowing the full extent of what should be redacted to protect the identities of those who may be put at risk. In the cited article, the Taliban actually thanks Assange for letting them know who to target.
When the judiciary rules on free speech, they often strike down laws that do not restrict speech but could be said to have a "chilling effect" on speech due to onerous requirements. Assange's release of diplomatic cables could very well have a "chilling effect" on other countries which may want to share information off the record. With two hot wars winding down, Iran pursuing a bomb, and North Korea launching offensives on South Korea, we need as much diplomatic leverage as possible.
Although Assange maintains no damage is done by his leaks, he maintains that he has stores of unredacted and damaging documents that he will release if he is imprisoned or in any other way held responsible for what he has done.
Currently Assange is in jail for unrelated sexual assault charges stemming from, supposedly, his refusal to wear a condom despite two girl's wishes. Others say the condom was not part of the charge while Michael Moynihan of Reason.com, who lived in Sweden for many years, says that overly radical rape laws in Sweden can charge me for merely rejecting a woman's wish to wear a condom even if consensual sex follows.
Some of the people defending Assange include MSNBC's Keith Olberman who believe the women are US operatives that lured Assange into a "honey trap." Olbermann's source for this information was an article on the far-left website Counterpunch by the writers Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett. Shamir is a fringe writer who has devoted his professional life to exposing the supposed criminality of “Jewish power," a paranoid anti-Semite who curates a website full of links to Holocaust denial and neo-Nazi sites, defenses of blood libel myths, and references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Note: For those who don't know, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, was published by the Russian Empire in 1903 supposedly revealing a Jewish plot for world domination. The text was conclusively determined to be fraudulent anti-semitic propaganda in 1921.
Olbermann later tweeted that he regretted citing the article and repudiated the author.
It seems very likely that Assange could be charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 and some lawmakers of both parties have endorsed the idea. Assange seems to get a pass from the same people who decried the Climategate E-mail dump and the outing of non-covert operative Valerie Plame. He is even an early favorite for Time's Man-of-the-Year. Just because Assange used the Internet to disseminate his intercepted cables does not make him any more noble than anyone else who has ever revealed state secrets. Assange is not a freedom fighter, he may well have put America and her allies in danger and he belongs in a jail cell.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
T (S) and A!
Anyone planning on flying this holiday season is in for an awkward choice. Due to the latest security measures put in place by the TSA you can either walk through a full body scanner which takes pictures of you without that pesky clothing that you put on that morning in the way or you can opt for the enhanced pat-down complete with groin check. If it sounds ridiculous and Orwellian, that's because it is.
Although they've only been in place for a short time, The U.S. Marshals Service recently admitted saving some 35,000 images from a full body scanner at a federal courthouse in Florida. Understandably many people do not want to have their picture taken without their clothing on (I mean, that's why we wear it, right?) with the possibility that their image could be saved for posterity so there is an alternative. The alternative is getting an enhanced pat-down including a groin check to move through security. John Tyner found this out the hard way when he shot this youtube video after opting for the pat-down. After the pat-down was explained to him he now famously stated, "Don't touch my junk" and had a conversation with the TSA supervisor before leaving the airport and deciding not to fly. He was later told he had to pay an $11,000 fine (referenced in the video) but that has since been rescinded.
Of course everyone wants to be safe while flying but the politically correct route of looking for bombs and not bombers is causing nuns and 3 year olds to be subjected to groin checks. I guess we should be lucky they drew the line at our crotch, the DHS reports a terrorist tried to hide a bomb in his anal cavity last year.
So what is the alternative in a time where a terrorist could very well have a bomb sewn into his underpants? The Israelis have been the target of terrorism since long before 9/11 and they don't pat down every person who gets on a plane. They have a few minutes of conversation with each passenger to determine who needs extra scrutiny and who does not. Critics of this policy believe that the screeners would target Muslim men at a higher rate than other races but as Mona Charen points out, some terrorists have been blond-haired, blue-eyed females so anyone who raises flags on the initial check should be pulled aside regardless of race.
We can make airline travel much less intrusive without trampling on the civil rights of any one group (or all groups, as it stands now) but the White House seems reluctant to even try the Israeli style security for fear of discrimination. In fact Janet Napolitano, head of DHS, says the scanners could be expanded for use on trains, boats and the subway system. All this makes me pine for the days when the closest the government came to impinging on my civil rights was tapping overseas phone calls. I guess the Left forgot their "passion" for civil rights the day they got elected.
An example of an actual body scan picture
Of course everyone wants to be safe while flying but the politically correct route of looking for bombs and not bombers is causing nuns and 3 year olds to be subjected to groin checks. I guess we should be lucky they drew the line at our crotch, the DHS reports a terrorist tried to hide a bomb in his anal cavity last year.
So what is the alternative in a time where a terrorist could very well have a bomb sewn into his underpants? The Israelis have been the target of terrorism since long before 9/11 and they don't pat down every person who gets on a plane. They have a few minutes of conversation with each passenger to determine who needs extra scrutiny and who does not. Critics of this policy believe that the screeners would target Muslim men at a higher rate than other races but as Mona Charen points out, some terrorists have been blond-haired, blue-eyed females so anyone who raises flags on the initial check should be pulled aside regardless of race.
We can make airline travel much less intrusive without trampling on the civil rights of any one group (or all groups, as it stands now) but the White House seems reluctant to even try the Israeli style security for fear of discrimination. In fact Janet Napolitano, head of DHS, says the scanners could be expanded for use on trains, boats and the subway system. All this makes me pine for the days when the closest the government came to impinging on my civil rights was tapping overseas phone calls. I guess the Left forgot their "passion" for civil rights the day they got elected.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Less We Can!
Meteoric, historic, a tidal wave, all of these terms have been used to describe the recent midterm elections. Most surprising of all, these words are actually pretty good descriptors of the events of November second. Pundits opined that the midterm could be a repeat of the '94 elections when Republicans gained 52 House seats and control of that chamber. Some conservative pundits shushed other conservative pundits, worried that such rosy optimism would suppress turnout and cause the Republicans to lose seats they would have gained otherwise. As of the current count right now Republicans have won 60 seats in the House, their largest sweep not since 1994 but since 1938. State legislatures broke big for Republicans as well, not only was the sweep a large one but now the total percentage of Republican state legislators is the largest it has been since 1956. With all these Republicans now in power, does that mean that we are headed towards fiscal sanity? Well, probably not.
Republican leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner have introduced legislation to end earmarks, the pet projects that Senators and Congressmen attach to bills with little to no oversight. Last year earmarks cost taxpayers $17 billion. Although that sounds like alot of money, that's less than one-half of one percent of the annual budget.
Republicans are also touting that they will cut government waste, fraud and abuse from the budget but if economics teaches us anything it is that government is inherently inefficient and rife with waste, fraud and abuse because government is a non-profit driven monopoly. With no incentive from either competition or profit, there is no incentive to be efficient. Although some Republicans have talked about privatizing various functions of the government, no broad based support exists to do this.
What about the deficit commission that recently released its report advising some tax raising measures like doing away with home mortgage interest deductions and some cost cutting measures such as reforming entitlement programs? Doing away with the home mortgage interest deduction might very well tank the real estate markets (again) and would effectively raise taxes on the middle class in the midst of a recession. Reforming entitlements is a great idea and the only one likely to put a dent in the budget. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense spending and interest on the debt add up to more than 80% of the annual budget. Any serious talk of cutting spending must include these sacred cows. Of course, how serious could the commission be on reforming entitlements when they made no suggestion of repealing the latest one, Obamacare? Also, Americans have no appetite for cutting entitlements. Among the signs at Tea Party rallies about cutting spending are also signs that say "Get The Government Out Of My Medicare!" When asked generally, Americans want the government to cut spending but when asked on specifics still consider 80% of the budget untouchable.
Entitlement reform is not coming anytime soon and it would be a miracle to even preemptively reform Obamacare, forget repeal. Republicans may slam the brake on this administration's big spending ways by virtue of gridlock but there's no sign that they want to turn the car around. Worse yet, there's no sign that Americans want them to. As Alexis de Tocqueville said, "In a democracy, we get the government we deserve."
Republican leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner have introduced legislation to end earmarks, the pet projects that Senators and Congressmen attach to bills with little to no oversight. Last year earmarks cost taxpayers $17 billion. Although that sounds like alot of money, that's less than one-half of one percent of the annual budget.
Republicans are also touting that they will cut government waste, fraud and abuse from the budget but if economics teaches us anything it is that government is inherently inefficient and rife with waste, fraud and abuse because government is a non-profit driven monopoly. With no incentive from either competition or profit, there is no incentive to be efficient. Although some Republicans have talked about privatizing various functions of the government, no broad based support exists to do this.
What about the deficit commission that recently released its report advising some tax raising measures like doing away with home mortgage interest deductions and some cost cutting measures such as reforming entitlement programs? Doing away with the home mortgage interest deduction might very well tank the real estate markets (again) and would effectively raise taxes on the middle class in the midst of a recession. Reforming entitlements is a great idea and the only one likely to put a dent in the budget. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense spending and interest on the debt add up to more than 80% of the annual budget. Any serious talk of cutting spending must include these sacred cows. Of course, how serious could the commission be on reforming entitlements when they made no suggestion of repealing the latest one, Obamacare? Also, Americans have no appetite for cutting entitlements. Among the signs at Tea Party rallies about cutting spending are also signs that say "Get The Government Out Of My Medicare!" When asked generally, Americans want the government to cut spending but when asked on specifics still consider 80% of the budget untouchable.
Entitlement reform is not coming anytime soon and it would be a miracle to even preemptively reform Obamacare, forget repeal. Republicans may slam the brake on this administration's big spending ways by virtue of gridlock but there's no sign that they want to turn the car around. Worse yet, there's no sign that Americans want them to. As Alexis de Tocqueville said, "In a democracy, we get the government we deserve."
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Funny Birthday Card
I've been celebrating my birthday over the weekend with my family and fell behind on my post schedule. This week's column will be up no later than Wednesday with next week's column going up no later than Sunday. In the meanwhile, I figured I would share a humorous birthday card I received from my parents.
Front of Card
Inside of Card
Friday, November 5, 2010
F.A Hayek and John Maynard Keynes Rap Battle For America's Future
Since Republicans have taken the House and are already talking about combating Obama's Keynesian economic model with their own (somewhat more) Hayekian one, I figured it might be time to dust off this gem. This video of two economists dressing up as Hayek and Keynes and rap-battling is too bizarre not to pass on:
For those who don't know, John Maynard Keynes was FDR's main economic advisor during the Great Depression and advocated big government solutions like the stimulus we are using today. F.A. Hayek was an Austrian economist who advocated free markets and laissez faire government.
The video is a bit buggy as an embedded object so you can also find the source video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
For those who don't know, John Maynard Keynes was FDR's main economic advisor during the Great Depression and advocated big government solutions like the stimulus we are using today. F.A. Hayek was an Austrian economist who advocated free markets and laissez faire government.
The video is a bit buggy as an embedded object so you can also find the source video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
