Michael Kinsley Gets It

Michael Kinsely, as usual, gets libertarians more or less right- this time in Time. It's a rarity to see an article about libertarians that says something like the following- especially from someone on the left side of the political spectrum (and yes, I know that Kinsley is a bit different from other liberals):

Libertarians and communitarians (to continue this unjustified generalizing) are different character types. Communitarians tend to be bossy, boring and self-important, if they're not being oversweetened and touchy-feely. Libertarians, by contrast, are not the selfish monsters you might expect. They are earnest and impractical--eager to corner you with their plan for using old refrigerators to reverse global warming or solving the traffic mess by privatizing stoplights. And if you disagree, they're fine with that. It's a free country. [My emphasis]

Of course, Kinsley is slightly wrong in calling libertarians "isolationists," even if he is using the word in a non-judgmental way. Isolationism has two different definitions, depending on who you talk to or the dictionary you consult. It either means abstinence from international relations of any type or a policy of simply staying out of the affairs of other nations. Only the latter definition applies to most libertarians, who are obviously extremely firm believers in strong international trade without barriers.

Crack for Political Bloggers

Have fun.(It even has a fun animation that allows you to see the change in donations by region over time).

One thing that you may notice is that Obama beats the hell out of Hillary in most of the red states. Some other things: Mormons really, really like Mitt Romney. I didn't even think that many people lived in Utah! Also, Ron Paul is the only candidate below McCain who seems to have any national appeal whasoever.


(HT: Volokh Conspiracy).

Way to go, Dems!

So, you really had to pursue that entirely symbolic resolution these last few weeks, didn't you? Wasn't Bush doing a good enough job screwing up one of our most important alliances on his own? I guess not. Just when you think no one can be as bad at international relations than the Bush Administration, in swoop the congressional Dems....

Well, I hope you guys are happy with the results. And yes, the Turks' new best friend referenced in the article is the same Syrian President Bashar Assad that tried to prevent democracy in Lebanon and that we have (justifiably) labeled a supporter of terrorism. It's also the same Syria that Turkey almost went to war with less than 10 years ago. We can only hope that what Turkey is about to do doesn't completely screw up the one region of Iraq that actually understands what freedom and democracy are supposed to look like.

(Disclaimer: for the record, I'm not saying that the Turks are just going to enter Iraqi villages because of the Dems' resolution- frankly, the Turks have an independent right to do exactly what they're doing for their own protection, assuming of course their claims of cross-border attacks are accurate. However, they've been held at bay because of their historic relationship with the US and because of some weak assurances by the US and Iraq that they would pursue the PKK themselves. The timing of this news against the backdrop of the genocide resolution is in my mind a curious coincidence at best. I'm guessing that the resolution may have been a last straw).

**UPDATE, 9:47 AM: Ilya Somin at Volokh Conspiracy has an interesting thread on the use of the word "genocide."

Rudy Promises to Save the World

In a recent town hall meeting (aka, campaign speech where politician pretends to be one of "the People"), Rudy Giuliani assured a questioner that, under a Giuliani administration, the US will be prepared for responding to an invasion of space aliens.

Brian Doherty, one of those whacky libertarians at Reason Hit & Run, had this to say in response:

"Romney, worried that the invaders might be from Kolob, will be hesitant to strike quickly; of the GOP front-runners, it has to be Rudy if "will protect us from alien invaders" is your main political concern."

Heh.

I think we should demand to know where all the candidates stand on this critical issue. I'm guessing Ron Paul would handle any such threat by hiring mercenary space pirates under his letters of marque rationale. Heck, I'm sure he already has Bill Pullman (aka "Lone Star") on speed dial for just this purpose.

What about the other candidates?

Some more on health care

Tyler Cowen this morning asked if there is any further government intervention that libertarians would support as being necessary to help someone. Since I am not an absolute anarcho-capitalist, and since I like to think I have a heart, I got to thinking about this question.

As I said in my McCain post, the McCain proposal strikes me as a step in the right direction; but this doesn't really answer Cowen's question, since what is good about the McCain proposal is a recognition of where government intervention has screwed up our health care system. In other words, what is good about it is primarily that it eliminates or reduces the role of government in certain areas of the system.

So, turning to Cowen's actual question, I think there is some justifiable government intervention to help the neediest of the needy. One thing that maybe would be workable would be a government program under which government agrees to reimburse insurance costs over a certain percentage of household income- this is of course effectively a tax credit, but one that is more situation dependent than an outright flat credit of x dollars. To make things fairer, we could also make it a graduated system- so, the reimbusability threshold would be, say, 10% of a household's first $25,000, 20% of the next $25,000, 30% of the next $50,000, and so on. This would be fair because it would essentially be a self-limiting program- over a certain level of income, reimbursable coverage would be effectively impossible. Moreover, the lower your income, the more your insurance is reimbursable, and vice versa. So, a household making $100,000 would have to have $22,500 in necessary insurance costs to be eligible (almost $2000 a month). On the other hand, a household making $20,000 would only need $2000 of insurance premiums before reimbursability would kick in (about $170 a month).

I acknowledge some inherent initial problems with this scenario, not least of which is the question of how long it will take for government to reimburse beneficiaries of the program. Maybe we could create the equivalent of a reverse W-4 for insurance companies, which would allow the insurance companies to deduct your excess insurance costs from your monthly bill; if it turns out that you have more gross income at the end of the year than you report to the insurance company, then you owe the government for the unreimbursed amount when you file your tax return.

Another inherent problem with my hypothetical program is the question of preventing people from gaming the system by getting more expensive insurance than they actually need (which would then create an incentive for insurance companies to charge far more for insurance than the real value of the insurance). Perhaps you could get around this by requiring particular insurance plans to be certified as reimbursable, which admittedly has its own set of problems.

I'm sure there are plenty of other inherent problems, but conceptually, I think it is a proposal that is fair and is not overly offensive to libertarian or conservative principles (although administrability may be a fatal flaw). I'm sure there will be dissent, though, which I would be happy to hear.

McCain on Health Care

Every once in awhile, John McCain reminds you that he remembers what being a Republican used to mean. His plan isn't perfect by any stretch, but it's important because it actually is based on the question of "why are so many without insurance?" The answer of course is that: A. insurance (and healthcare more generally) is exceedingly expensive in this country; and
B. Some percentage of people just don't want insurance almost regardless of the cost.

As Michael Moore's precious World Health Organization study found, the US is tops in the world in quality of care; the reason our overall ranking in terms of quality of system is that: 1. the ranking is biased (by presupposing socialized medicine is better), and, more importantly, 2. the US has ridiculously high overall costs. McCain's plan focuses on those overly high costs; most other plans, including Hillary's and Romney's, focus solely on getting the uninsured insured- in other words, they treat one symptom as if it were the entire disease. Importantly, McCain seems to recognize that much of the cause of high costs in our system isn't too little regulation- it's too much.

In any event, here is what I like about the McCain proposal:
1. Shifting responsibility for some care to nurses (and away from doctors)- if you've ever talked to an experienced nurse at length, you will come to quickly realize that their experience makes them extremely knowledgeable about many medical procedures and diagnoses (often more so than even a doctor who's been around for a few years). Of course, we already have a nursing shortage, but increased workplace freedom for nurses would alleviate this a little bit; additionally, it would increase the amount hospitals are willing to pay their nurses (since they are saving more money on paying slightly fewer MDs).
2. Elimination/reduction of cross-state licensure requirements- this is just common sense (why should medicine be practiced differently in different states); it would only have a minimal effect on costs, probably, but cross-state licensure requirements are just silly to begin with. (I acknowledge there is a federalism concern here, though).
3. Permission for re-importation of drugs from Canada. I acknowledge that this creates problems of intellectual property protections; however, the effect of this will be to ultimately even out drug prices between the US and Canada to reflect a more accurate market value for both (right now, the US insurance market is effectively subsidizing Canadian prescription drugs, as well as prescription drugs in other countries with price controls and universal medicine).
4. Patent reform- I'd like to hear more specifics on this, but our current patent regime is way too restrictive
5. Shifting of tax credits from employers to individuals- I've long said that the employer-based tax credit system creates a perverse set of incentives that results in high overall costs and often inadequate coverage, which effectively pushes overall costs even higher.
6. Elimination of prohibitions against purchase of out of state insurance. Again, there are federalism concerns here, but the wide variations in state insurance coverage requirements are foolish and arbitrary and result in a significant reduction in competition; additionally, this is a legitimate interstate commerce issue.
7. A recognition that a properly functioning market would have competititon for people with pre-existing illnesses, rather than a generalized reluctance to cover such people.

Here is what I don't like:
1. Tort reform- I may just need more details on this, but usually "tort reform" isn't really reform in the proper sense- it usually means creating statutory or bureacratic protections against common law liability. On the other hand, if he means elimination of existing laws and regulations that artificially encourage lawsuits by creating false definitions of standards of care, then I can get on board with this proposal.
2. The one-size-fits all tax credit. I don't know how you can make this more flexible without creating a bureaucratic nightmare, but the size of the credit is massive. While I'm never opposed to significantly reducing the amount the government can take from people, a one size fits all tax credit may amount to a several hundred billion dollar entitlement program unless it is properly implemented.
Areas where I would like to see more details:
1. Encouragement of walk-in clinics at places like Wal-Mart- this is a promising area, but I am generally suspicious whenever the government talks of "encouragement."
2. His Health Savings Account plan- what is the interplay with his tax credit scheme? I am suspicious of his use of the phrase "tax-preferred."
3. Medicare reform- in principle, he is certainly correct about what Medicare should and should not be paying for; however, making this distinction in the real world may mean a choice between arbitrary lines and an even bigger bureacratic mess.

On the whole, McCain's proposal is a logical step forward, and mostly makes sense because it actually begins with a question (to wit: what is wrong with our healthcare system) rather than an assumption (ie, we have too many uninsured people).

I continue to have a difficult time understanding why so many conservatives (especially neo-cons and theo-cons) continue to view McCain as a "RINO." Except for McCain-Feingold (which, by the way, conservative darlings Pres. Bush and Fred Thompson supported) and a couple other notable exceptions, McCain has been a reliable voice for historically conservative positions- maybe even the most reliable such voice in the campaign. For some reason, he is still viewed as being pro-choice (despite a profoundly pro-life record) because of one statement he made in the 2000 campaign that was taken completely out of context and then used by Karl Rove to destroy him in South Carolina.

***UPDATE, 11:59PM*** I foolishly and stupidly forgot to mention McCain's strong support of gun control. However, I don't see how Rudy is any more conservative in this regard. I'm sure there's other issues where he isn't particularly conservative. The immigration issue is one where conservatism has backed further and further away from old-fashioned conservatism, and therefore McCain. But compared to Giuliani or Romney, he's Ronald Reagan reincarnated.

On Hollywood Republicans

Kyle's comment the other day about Fred Thompson being representative of a number of Hollywood Republicans in elected office (Thompson, Eastwood, Schwarzenegger, Reagan, Sonny Bono) or running for elected office got me thinking a little bit. It is certainly fairly anomolous that there are so many (comparatively) Republican politicians with deep Hollywood backgrounds, and so few Democrat politicians with similar backgrounds (only Al Franken comes to mind).

One possible explanation for this, I think, is that Democrats are able to take most of Hollywood's substantial financial support for granted. Republicans, on the other hand, cannot. Since Hollywood has a huge amount of potential campaign money, as well as a lot of ability to create more subtle influences on politics (through movies, tv shows, high-profile endorsements, etc.), Hollywood is a valuable resource that cannot be ignored by either party. Since Republicans have a rather small overall presence in this community, it makes sense for them to put forward candidates with Hollywood backgrounds in order to get at least a little bit of the Hollywood pie. Otherwise, you could argue that Republicans would be almost entirely shut out of that pie.

It occurs to me that the Democrats may face a similar dilemma (historically) with the wealthier business interests (and the obviously massive pie they represent). As a result, do they tend to run more corporate businesspeople? I don't know if there's a good way of putting together reliable data on this, but an extremely quick and cursory perusal of prior careers of Members of Congress seems to argue in favor of my completely speculative theory. At the very least, there are far more Dems with big business backgrounds than you would expect if you looked solely at voting and contribution habits.

On Jurisprudence and the New Deal

A question I've had on mind lately that I would love a response to:

Why is it that most New Deal-era jurisprudence (1937 and later) was ever regarded as Constitutionally sound precedent. Moreover, why is it that this jurisprudence, particularly regarding the powers of the federal government, continues to be viewed as binding precedent?

The basis for my question is that this jurisprudence primarily resulted as a direct or indirect result of Roosevelt's various court-packing schemes. Wasn't this an interference with the independence of the federal judiciary that should be a cause for considerable skepticism of any post-1937 decision pertaining to the powers of the federal government?

I know that there is a certain general need for certainty in the law-hence the generalized respect for precedent. However, these decisions (and their progeny) in my mind create uncertainty by almost completely ignoring or rewriting the text of the Constitution. Is the problem just one of being unable to put the toothpaste back in the tube? Or do judges now view this decisions as having a perfectly legitimate basis despite FDR's illegitimate influence on them? Or is the problem really just one of lack of courage on the part of the judiciary branch, Con Law professors, and members of the SCOTUS Bar?

Did the Domestic Wiretapping Program Start Before 9/11?

A commenter at Obsidian Wings brought my attention to this article. In case you want to skip the link, some background: the former CEO of Qwest was recently convicted of insider trading after a trial in which he was blocked from presenting a defense that his prosecution was really just the result of retaliation for Qwest's refusal to comply with the government's wiretapping program. He is currently appealing the verdict (in part, it seems, on grounds that he was prevented from raising this defense). Some of the documents in the trial have now been released in a partially redacted form.

Money quote:

Nacchio planned to demonstrate at trial that he had a meeting on Feb. 27, 2001, at NSA headquarters at Fort Meade, Md., to discuss a $100 million project. According to the documents, another topic also was discussed at that meeting, one with which Nacchio refused to comply.
The topic itself is redacted each time it appears in the hundreds of pages of documents, but there is mention of Nacchio believing the request was both inappropriate and illegal, and repeatedly refusing to go along with it.
The NSA contract was awarded in July 2001 to companies other than Qwest.
USA Today reported in May 2006 that Qwest, unlike AT&T and Verizon, balked at helping the NSA track phone calling patterns that may have indicated terrorist organizational activities. Nacchio's attorney, Herbert Stern, confirmed that Nacchio refused to turn over customer telephone records because he didn't think the NSA program had legal standing.

I don't know how reliable all this is, since Nacchio certainly has incentive to lie, and since the article doesn't specify what type of documents these are. But if it's true, it holds a ton of meaning, not least of which is that the Bush/Cheney view of the Constitution didn't exactly change because of 9/11.

Fred Thompson=Wesley Clark 2008?

After the debates last night, I can't help thinking Fred Thompson is this year's Wesley Clark. Think about it:
1. A "Draft Fred" movement, just like the Draft Wes Clark movement.
2. A wll-known career in a sector usually pre-disposed against the relevant party (ie, Hollywood vs. Republicans, the military at the time vs. Democrats)
3. A late, mid-September entry after months of speculation
4. A complete lack of presence at debates and on camera
5. A completely unfounded belief amongst supporters that getting the candidate into the race is the party's only hope to win in the general
6. A position in the top two in polling shortly after entering the race.

....Of course, we all know how Clark's campaign turned out, and there's really no reason to think Thompson will do any better.

Getting to the Bottom of the "Phony Soldiers" mess

I decided to cut through the crap that is the spin of both sides on this issue (I just do NOT trust Media Matters after the Imus garbage), and I actually read the transcript from Rush's own site with an eye to giving Rush the benefit of the doubt. (Rush famously edited this transcript to remove a minute and a half- so it's even more biased in his favor). I figured I would find that it was much ado about nothing, and certainly no worse than the silliness over the General Betray-Us incident.

What I found was that the entire segment was far worse than anything I could have imagined- talk about poisoning the well of free speech and civil dialogue! He was not, as some of his defenders claim, talking about one soldier who "washed out" of the military- if he was, then he misspoke in a glaring fashion. The comment he was responding to was saying that NONE, ZERO, NADA, of the soldiers whose anti-war comments have appeared in the media are "real soldiers." He proceeded to talk about the case of Cpl. MacBeth, to suggest that MacBeth was an example of what he was talking about- but in no way could you interpret what he was saying as being limited to Cpl. MacBeth.
Also, a few other notes from the segment:
1. Before the phone call that gave rise to this whole mess, Rush took a call from an anti-war Republican (actually, a pro-pullout Republican, which is slightly different). He repeatedly refused to accept that this guy was a Republican. He repeatedly accuses the guy of lying, saying that no Republican could POSSIBLY support a withdrawal. So, in essence, there is a conspiracy of people who want to call his show and lie about being a Republican so they can talk against the war
2. I haven't seen this reported anywhere, but apparently Limbaugh is still convinced that on the WMD issue, "We all know they (the WMD's) were there..." He actually agrees with his caller that the WMD's not only WERE there, but that they still ARE there, and are being used against our troops! The apparent source for the claim is this Fox News article from 2004 which talks about two incidents where old WMD containers were apparently used in the IED- this was the only article I could find on the subject, and it does not appear that anyone ever actually verified that there were live gases in the explosives.

So, to sum up- Rush thinks any soldier opposing the war is a "phony soldier", any Republican opposing the war is lying for political purposes about their party affiliation, and there not only were, but continue to be, WMDs in Iraq....But Ron Paul is the delusional one?

The fundamentally positive view of libertarians

Watching the debate tonight, it struck me (as it has many other libertarians over the years) how fundamentally pessimistic a view both Progressives and Conservatives take of human nature. Libertarians, on the other hand, seem to have a fundementally optimistic view of human nature.

Put simply, the reason why libertarians have such faith in markets (both in the sense of traditionally defined markets, and the analogous markets that arise with liberal personal freedoms) is that they trust individual people to do the right thing more often than not.

Progressives and Conservatives on the other hand often claim to have trust in people to do the right thing. In practice, however, they don't trust people to do what is right, since they fundamentally believe people should be required to act in a way that the leading Progressive or Conservative of the moment thinks is right.

The knock on libertarians, of course, is usually that libertarianism amounts to nothing more than selfish arrogance. To an extent, of course, it is true that libertarianism justifies selfishness;however, the libertarian definition of selfishness is very different from the more popular understanding of the word, since libertarianism rests on the premise of doing no harm to others. There is of course, nothing arrogant about permitting other people to live their lives as they wish. Moreover, libertarianism fundamentally trusts that individuals will frequently act in a selfless manner on their own; the areas in which they act selflessly will, according to market principles, be the areas in which the greatest demand for selfless action exists.

If you ask me, then, it is far more arrogant and selfish to attempt to impose one set of priorities for selfless action on the rest of the population, believing that your one set of priorities should take precedence over any other possible set of priorities a taxpayer may have.

The hypothetical I like to use is that of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. In this hypothetical, Bill and Melinda earn $10 billion one year, pre-tax. They then give $9.99 billion to the Foundation, which promptly disburses the money to various worthwhile causes and individuals throughout the world, and particularly in the Third World. As a result of this donation, the Gates' owe far more money in taxes than they actually kept after their donations. My question to both Progressives and Conservatives then becomes: is the government in this situation justified in throwing them into prison for tax evasion? Why or why not?

I know the above hypothetical is rather unrealistic; however, it is theoretically possible, and it is intended to be extreme so as to drive my point home more clearly.

Candidate Thought Bubbles

A brief summary of what each candidate was thinking during the debate:

Giuliani: Ron Paul annoys me, but at least I hate the Constitution less than Ken-Doll over there...There are good unions and bad unions... the UAW is a good union- even if McCain says their demands for pensions and retiree health care add $1700 to every car they make. I understand economics and free markets but dammit I don't like them. If only I could make economics consistent with what I want....wait, a second, I've got it! Doublethink, doublethink, doublethink! 2+2=5!

McCain: How the hell am I losing to these bozos? I'm a decent and good person, I understand markets, I understand foreign relations, I understand military strategy, I understand torture from first-hand experience, and dammit I ACTUALLY KNEW BARRY GOLDWATER! Am I just paying the price for my ill-advised campaign finance reform crusade? That's not fair- I meant well, really I did! Or is my problem just that I'm trying to get the votes of a bunch of people who still believe the crap Karl Rove slung at me 8 years ago?

Romney: I'm a businessman, but not like James Taggart and Orrin Boyle, ok, maybe a little like James Taggart and Orrin Boyle...oh fine, a lot like James Taggart and Orrin Boyle. I hate subsidies....except all the good ones, like agriculture and energy. I hate unions....except all the good ones, like, well, all of them. I like the Constitution even less than Rudy Giuliani. But, hey, my health plan is kinda sorta market-based...that has to count for something, right?

Thompson: What's the big, I say what's the big idea? Man, I'm sleepy. I like free trade- I just wish I understood all those fancy words like "subsidy". Well Huck's a friendly fellow- he must know what he's talking about, so if he says subsidies are good, well, then who am I to argue? Wait, my buddy John says they're bad? Aww, shucks! Well, he still owes me for that campaign finance bill I helped him with a few years back. Hey, why isn't anyone hearing my jokes?

Paul: Lightning round? I get 30 seconds to answer a question? Sweet- that's more than I've had all day...oh, crap, they just want to know if I'll support Lord Combover over there- are they serious? At least I got to talk about the gold standard today, though. I like gold- it's shiny and stable....Am I the only one who wants to talk about monetary policy up here? Is Lord Combover suggesting that the Taliban had an advanced nuclear program that led to 9/11- ok, maybe not, but it sure as hell sounds that way!

Huckabee: I don't get all this talk about markets. Hey, can we talk about the FAIR tax some more? No? Ok, then. I like ethanol- if we subsidize it, it will magically become more efficient very quickly; it's obviously better than any other possible source of alternative energy like fuel cells, solar power, or nuclear power. So what if it costs more energy to produce than it can actually produce itself!

Tancredo: I don't like immigrants. I like free trade, but I don't like what Dubya does to it; he duped me into supporting fast track- I feel violated. But at least I'm an honest person, and I won't support just any asshole for President. That counts for something right?

Brownback: Can we talk about family values? I know this is about the economy, and I know I kinda sorta understand economics, but those subjects are icky to me. Still, I somehow know that having a third of the world's military spending is a good thing! Talking about this economics stuff makes me feel the same way I feel when I see Larry Craig in the Dirksen Building Men's Room. Iraq had something to do with 9/11 didn't it?

Hunter: "Deutscheland, Deutscheland, uber alles!" Screw Congress, screw economics. If I am President, my motto will be "L'Etat, c'est moi!"

Quick hits on the debate...

1. Analysis: This was the most boring piece of crap yet. For a good chunk of the candidates, their positions could be explained as: Free trade is the cornerstone of our economy...free trade means subsidies and tariffs, right?

Romney gave his least automoton-ish performance yet (a low bar, admittedly), and actually scored some points with me on health care- but otherwise, he continued to show that he is willing to support whatever is most politically convenient; he also had one of the only amusing lines of the debate (the "Law and Order" bit).

Of the "top-tier" candidates, only McCain showed both economic literacy and a willingness to respect his economic literacy- too bad most Republicans have an irrational hatred of him second only to their irrational hatred of a certain congressman from Texas.

Ron Paul had his weakest performance to date, though he was still obviously the most economically literate man on the stage; he also seemed rattled by the decision of the moderators to give him less time than just about anyone; the question about support for the ultimate nominee was outright demeaning, especially after the Q3 fundraising.

Thompson...ugh.....Well, he's an honest enough guy, and he has a modicum of economic literacy, but he just looks like a deer in the headlights half the time (he may have been the only person Nixon was ever right about). His "me too" on Huck's defense of ethanol subsidies was mind-numbingly stupid.

Tancredo actually sounded coherent about issues other than immigration for once, and even though I think he's dead wrong on immigration, you have to give the guy points for intellectual honesty.

Duncan Hunter....this guy passes for a conservative these days....how, exactly? Every word that came out of his mouth was the antithesis of limited government.

Giuliani probably came off as the most likable candidate today. Unfortunately, this may have obscured the complete lack of consistency in any of his positions.

Huckabee showed even more economic illiteracy than Hunter, although his talk about the FAIR tax always gives me a fleeting hope that maybe he has a clue.

Brownback put me to sleep as usual, though he clearly has a clue when it comes to economic issues- too bad he's running on a "family values" platform. I was pleasantly surprised to hear that he's been working with Biden on the Three State Solution, which means that somewhere in that orthodoxy-filled head of his there is some capacity for intellectual rigor.

Rothbard, Bush, and National Security

An article in today's Washington Post suggests that the latest al Qaeda videotape was released earlier than it should have been by our Executive Branch to score some political points. In the process, they compromised a useful intelligence source that had been monitoring al Qaeda for years. The source: a private organization that, in this case, decided to turn their findings over to the government- on the condition the tape not be released before al Qaeda had officially made it publicly available, a condition that was not honored.

More than a little disturbing. The libertarian in me marvels at the ability of a privately run organization to do a better job of intelligence gathering on its own (read: no government contract) than the government's own intelligence agencies who have the advantage of being legally "authorized" to use torture with impunity, tap phonelines without warrants, etc. The libertarian in me also marvels at the ability of the government to completely and utterly destroy the advantage given to them by the hard work of this privately run organization.
I'm not a Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist, but somewhere, Murray Rothbard is having a great big chuckle.
(HT: Comments from Left Field, Will Bunch at attytood.com)

A few guidelines for Ron Paul supporters

Since I threw a bone to other Ron Paul supporters earlier this evening, it's time to stir the pot a little bit with a post I meant to make a few days ago:

Now that Ron Paul is getting his moment in the sun thanks to his Q3 fundraising, his campaign has an opportunity to start making an impact on the nomination race. However, that impact will be limited if a large number of outsiders continue to perceive him and his supporters as "kooks."


A couple of recent articles and discussions on other sites have discussed the need for Ron Paul supporters to be less agressive or risk losing coverage entirely. These discussions were not the result of some hatchet-job on Ron Paul, but were instead moderated by sites that have gone out of their way to be fair to him; their reward has been personal attacks, incoherent rants, spamming on unrelated topics, and more. Plenty of mainstream Republican sites have obviously been less friendly to Ron Paul; however, the treatment of these sites by some Ron Paul supporters has been responsible for a hardening of attitudes against Ron Paul and all of his supporters. Indeed, there are plenty of people on those sites who would have been potential supporters who were permanently turned off by the invective, spamming, and ranting. Part of me wonders if the silliness over the fundraising letter wasn't the end result of rants by supporters. In other words, the incoherence and nuisance factor of the ranting led to a perception that only incoherent crackpots would possibly support Ron Paul.

So, with that in mind, I would like to propose some guidelines for Ron Paul supporters to follow. I believe these guidelines, if followed, improve perceptions of Ron Paul and his supporters and stop the process of making enemies out of potential allies.

Don't:
1. Spamming: If you are posting a bunch of slogans without any substantive, logical arguments, then you are spamming. If you are cutting and pasting the same comment to multiple sites, you are spamming. If the article/post in question is not about Ron Paul and your post does not draw a logical connection to the subject of the article/post, you are spamming. This type of advocacy does not provide people with a logical reason to support Ron Paul, and creates the impression that Ron Paul supporters are automatons unable to make a logical argument of their own. If you don't agree with this definition of "spamming", then insert the word "trespassing" for "spamming" - the effect is the same: you are hurting Ron Paul's image and the image of other supporters.

2. Invective: Calling writers, columnists, bloggers, and commenters names, using terms like "fascist", "Brownshirt Republic," or accusing them of having a vendetta against Ron Paul for even the smallest perceived slight does nothing to advance the cause, and is a huge factor in discouraging additional coverage of Rep. Paul. The fact is that reasonable people can disagree with Rep. Paul on just about any issue; additionally, a reasonable person can discuss the nomination race without mentioning Ron Paul in every single article. When someone gets personally attacked for simply disagreeing with Ron Paul or not thinking Ron Paul is likely to be the nominee, they aren't going to be inclined to mention Ron Paul in a positive light (if at all) in the future.

3. Conspiracy theories: Whenever you make an argument about Ron Paul, you are associating the substance of that argument with Ron Paul- even if it is not his actual position. Worse, conspiracy theories come off as kookiness- if you really believe there is a conspiracy, the burden is on you to prove it, not on everyone else to disprove it. Examples of frequently stated conspiracy theories that are now being associated with Rep. Paul:

a. "9/11 was an inside job": the use of this theory by some supporters forces Rep. Paul to constantly waste valuable camera and press time on distancing himself from it. I also wish I didn't have to explain why this is one of the most ridiculous conspiracy theories in history.

b. "the polls are being manipulated to make Ron Paul's support seem smaller than it is": at most, there may be some unintentional undersampling. Yes, I'm aware that Rasmussen doesn't include Ron in its surveys- but no one of importance relies on Rasmussen.

c. "the media is trying to ignore Ron Paul": the media, like any other business, has finite resources. They will therefore only cover that which they think will be appealing to a large audience, and until Rep. Paul can show by traditional means that he has a deep level of support, the media is being rational by covering him less than others. The Q3 fundraising was a big step in the right direction, and has resulted in a lot of coverage from most outlets (with one obvious and notable exception).


4. Emotional responses to accusations. When someone actually does make a personal attack on Ron Paul, responding with a personal attack of your own does no one any good. Ron Paul is supposed to be the "peace candidate"- I don't see how you can advocate for peace while adopting a militant mentality; the two are a little contradictory. Emotional responses do nothing to persuade people. Think about it this way: if the original accusation against Ron Paul just made you angry and more passionate about Ron Paul, then what makes you think that a similar accusation by you will have a different effect? As for the argument personal attacks are justified as a response to personal attacks, and are really just self-defense: this is the same type of logic the President uses to justify torture- in other words, we're allowed to torture them because they have no qualms about torturing us. The problem with this logic, of course, is that it undermines your claim of moral superiority- you can't claim to be more morally just than your opponent while also claiming that your moral justness entitles you to act in the same way as your morally unjust opponent. This is what you would call doublethink.

Do:

1. Relevance: If you wish to talk about Ron Paul, then keep your comments relevant to the topic at hand. If the discussion only has to do with policy, then keep your comments limited to the policy at issue.

2. Grammar: If you want respect for your comments, then write in grammatically correct English. Writing in some bastardized pidgeon English with no capitals, no punctuation, and misspellings all over the place doesn't exactly give the impression you are worth listening to. If you have never learned proper writing skills due to the dumbing down of the English language through informal e-mail and text messaging.....then get a book on grammar.

3. Logic: If you want to write persuasively, then you must make a logical connection between your solution and the problem. For instance, simply shouting "Abolish the Fed, Restore the Republic, Vote 4 Ron Paul!" gives the reader no reason to vote for Ron Paul, and gives no explanation as to why the Fed should be abolished, why freedom must be restored, or how Ron Paul will accomplish either end. If you cannot fully explain the connection between the problem and the solution, then don't bother entering the discussion- you will just sound like an idiot. As a minimum baseline for commenting on policy questions generally, I would strongly recommend you take the American Civic Literacy Test. If you cannot score above 70% (and I'm being generous here), then you should not be discussing Constitutional issues or the free market economy with anyone- believe me, you will sound like an idiot if you do. For the record, I scored a 97%, so I'm not being remotely hypocritical here.

4. Calmness: Address arguments, not people. This makes what you have to say relevant to a much wider audience than just getting into a war of words with one or two people. It has the added benefit of making you sound like a rational human being.

In conclusion, there are plenty of rational Ron Paul supporters out there. Hopefully, some of the people who have frequently appeared irrational are even rational and just needed a little bit of guidance. But if you don't want to be labeled as crazy then don't give people a reason to think you're crazy.

Bush on Baseball

From ESPN.com, via Andrew Sullivan:
"I made my arguments and went down in flames. History will prove me right," - Texas Rangers owner George W. Bush after voting against realignment and a new wild-card system during a Major League Baseball owners meeting in September 1993. Bush was the lone dissenter in a 27-1 vote.

Sully posted a reader's argument in defense of Bush on this today. Of course, Sully acknowledges knowing nothing about baseball, so I figured I'd counter the dissent. First of all, being a political scientist and a "pretty serious fan of baseball" does not make someone an authority on baseball. Being a political scientist is hardly relevant and being a serious fan of baseball isn't what you would call uncommon. Anyways, suffice it to say that the wild-card playoff system (combined with the 'roid fueled homer binge of the late '90s) was responsible for bringing baseball back from the dead after the 1994 strike. The system has made the season far more interesting, and this season it led to one of the most interesting final weeks you could possibly imagine.

Baseball now has its highest attendance figures in history- despite the trend towards building smaller parks. Revenues have quadrupled, as well. Now, of course I object to the subsidies that have helped fuel this, but the turnaround has been fun to watch as a whole. Now if they would only introduce a European-type relegation system with the minor leagues, baseball would be unstoppable.

Re: Ron Paul's Infamous Fundraising Letter

Certain elements of the blogosphere have been in stitches the last few days over this Ron Paul fundraising letter, including my friends over at Comments from Left Field. The general point of amusement has been the apparent nuttiness of this faux-handwritten letter, specifically its somewhat conspiratorial tone about the United Nations. While I can see why someone who is not a Ron Paul supporter would be amused, the letter really is no less extreme than fundraising letters I have seen from all sorts of political causes, both left and right. Below is a helpful explanation of why this ridicule is just making a mountain out of a molehill.

1. It's a fundraising letter sent to supporters, not much different in tone from most fundraising letters. Over the years, I have seen many fundraising letters from various political causes and campaigns, both right and left. My observations have been the result of experiences on Capitol Hill and on the fringes of the lobbying industry, as well as my wife's extensive experience in direct-mail fundraising. One of the keys to successful direct-mail fundraising campaigns is to make the recipient feel a sense of urgency to donate. In the political realm, this typically means making the reader believe that everything they believe in is under attack; this is especially true when the letter is targeted at people who have previously donated and are thus more likely to be concerned about the issues addressed in the letter. Compare, say, a NARAL letter with a Family Research Council letter, or a Brady Campaign letter with an NRA letter, and you will usually find a similar theme of, in essence, "they're out to get us." So, yes, the Ron Paul letter may take a tone reminiscent of black helicopters and conspiracy theories- but then again, so do fundraising letters for most political causes.

2. The faux handwriting has also attracted attention as creating something of a "Unabomber effect" in the words of Brendan Nyhan. But this is another important element of successful direct mail fundraising- making the recipient feel personally invested. Oftentimes, this element is achieved by making the letter a personal story that will pull at the heartstrings; in this case, though, the campaign decided to make the letter handwritten to achieve the recipient's personal investment. My understanding is that the apparently handwritten fundraising letter is one of the "tricks of the trade" when it comes to direct-mail fundraising; even the appearance of being on lined paper is something that "has been done before", according to my reliable source.

3. The substantive element that has achieved the most attention from the more "Progressive" critics (this blog reserves the word "liberal" for classical liberalism, which has little relationship to Progressivism) has been the portion that states the "American way of life is under attack," the "global elites are busy forming a North American Union", and "the UN also wants to confiscate our firearms and impose a global tax." Now, as I said above, there is a certain amount of hyperbole in these claims- but it is a type of hyperbole that runs through most political direct mail fundraising. I should also mention that I personally cringe whenever a politician assails "elites"- but I don't know many politicians who haven't used that line of attack before. As for the substantive points he raises:

a. "American way of life is under attack." It surprises me that Progressives would find this statement amusing, as it taps into essentially the same feelings that Progressives have about Bush thanks to things like Bush v. Gore, the torture memoranda, the wiretapping programs and bypassing of FISA, etc. Yes, I know that the letter does not specifically address those issues; however, the sentiment is pretty much the same.
b. "Global elites are busy forming a North American Union." This is obviously a reference to NAFTA and various agreements that Bush has entered into. Now, I happen to be a supporter of NAFTA and free trade agreements more generally, so this is a bit tougher for me to justify since I actually disagree with him here (full disclosure: Ron Paul is entirely in favor of free trade; he just thinks, with some reason, that NAFTA and other agreements don't actually achieve free trade) However, I understand where the sentiment comes from. Indeed, as this article shows, the Bush policy with respect to Mexico and Canada is to increase cross-border traffic and ultimately have a common tariff system. Again, I'm not necessarily opposed to this type of setup; however, there is little doubt that it would decrease American sovereignty, so Paul's claim isn't really all that insane.
c. "The UN also wants to confiscate our firearms and impose a global tax." The fact is, the firearms claim is pretty much true (see portion of report where they discuss concerns over increased manufacturing of "small arms", which means firearms; I've also had some personal work-related experiences with the issue). That said, it's not something the UN is likely to be successful on as long as the 2nd Amendment remains an individual, rather than a collective, right- still it is a goal of much of the UN. As for the concept of global taxes, it appears that the US is almost alone in its opposition of such a tax- without US opposition, there's a good chance a global tax would be a reality.

Hopefully, this post demonstrates why this whole thing is really much ado about nothing. People are certainly free to disagree with the implicit policy positions the fundraising letter takes (as I said, I personally disagree with him on NAFTA and the concept of a "North American Union", which would at least be a union of relatively liberalized countries as opposed to the UN, which has plenty of thug nations in it). Factually, however, his letter is correct, and the "state of emergency" tone of it is extremely common. In fact, there are many people in all parts of the political spectrum who actually believe we are in a state of emergency- they just tend to disagree about what the emergency is: Christian Conservatives believe gay marriage is going to destroy the family; disillusioned Republicans think that Bush (and, if elected, Hillary or Giuliani) is destroying the Constitution; Progressives think that Bush (and, if elected, any Republican) is destroying everything that made America good; anti-gun people think that pro-gun people want to see our cities destroyed by gun violence; and pro-gun people think that anti-gun people want to destroy their rights to own a gun; etc.

On the effectiveness of torture

I watched Bush's Homeland Security advisor Frances Townsend on Wolf Blitzer tonight getting grilled about the NYT report on torture. One of the most frustrating interviews I've ever seen; the number of non-denial denials was astounding, as was the self-righteousness. I couldn't help wondering about how a party founded on concepts of individual liberty and strict constitutionalism could have strayed so far.

Perhaps the most incredulous thing she said, though, was that only 30 or so of the "most dangerous" detainees have been subjected to the "harshest" interrogation methods. Despite this, she claimed that those same 30 prisoners had yielded 8500 intelligence reports. This means that on average each of these 30 prisoners gabbed about nearly 300 separate topics of interest to the GWOT, presumably under several months of "harsh" interrogation (and she did suggest that these interrogations got progressively worse over the course of a fairly lengthy period of time). For one person to have and provide that much information on that many closely related topics over that length of time, and be honest about it, seems to me a bit...implausible, and suggests something short of truthfulness on the detainee's part.

Not surprisingly, she did not give any figures as to how many of these reports were eventually corroborated, much less led to further detentions or convictions. I think it's safe to say, though, that her silence on that issue means that the number of corroborated reports is insignificant. To me, a lack of corroborated reports means that either: 1. The detainees were simply saying whatever they thought their interrogators wanted to hear in order to put an end to the "harsh" interrogation/torture; 2. The detainees had no intention of telling their interrogators what they actually knew - no matter what the consequences - out of hatred for their interrogators; or 3. Both 1 and 2.

Either way, the point is that not only does torture betray everything that this country is supposed to stand for, but that it is also completely ineffective. Indeed, it is actually counterproductive because it shifts valuable resources into pursuing false leads when those resources could be used on pursuing more reliable leads. Maybe the best way to think about it is to ask yourself how you would respond to torture in a situation where you: 1. Had already decided your cause was worth dying for; 2. Were held captive by the very group of people whose destruction you view as worth dying for; and 3. Were placed in a situation where every horrible thing you ever believed about those people appeared to be true.

Something in the tea leaves

The latest Newsweek poll in Iowa has some interesting information buried in it.
Support for HRC drops by about 25% when you factor in whether a respondent says they are a likely voter. Meanwhile, support for Obama and Richardson increases significantly when you factor this in, to the point that Obama goes from 6 point underdog to 4 point favorite.
On the Republican side, support for Huckabee and Ron Paul doubles or more when you factor in the likelihood of voting.
What this shows is that Hillary's support is disproportionately amongst people who don't really care too much about the primaries (and presumably aren't following politics closely). Similarly, support for Obama, Richardson, and especially Huckabee and Paul is disproportionately from people who do care about the primaries (and presumably are following politics closely).

What happened to the Republican Party?

Excerpt from a post I made a few minutes ago at Volkh (but which is more relevant here):

"When I worked on the Hill briefly in the 90's, Ron Paul was regarded by many Republicans as almost a folk hero who they wished they could emulate without paying at the ballot box. There was even loose talk amongst some staffers wondering why the LP didn't just fold into the Republican Party. Things have changed so much now, though, that people like Bob Barr and Dick Armey (both poster children for 1990s social conservatism) have joined the libertarian movement, and are now regarded by the Right as whacky leftists. The number of disaffected Republicans who were considered the "establishment" 7 years ago is staggering: Barr, Armey, Christine Whitman, Colin Powell, William Buckley, Bruce Fein, Richard Viguerie, the Chafee family, Bob Smith, Paul O'Neill, Chuck Hagel, Sen. Webb, and dozens more."

While we're at it, we may as well give credit to the original defector, Jim Jeffords, even if he wasn't exactly an "establishment" type at the time. Some others worth adding: George Will (can't believe I left him off the original list) Bruce Bartlett, David Kuo, Andrew Sullivan, Gen. Abizaid, John Dean, Alan Greenspan, Paul Kagan, Matthew Dowd. I would also consider adding Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough, and Tucker Carlson. Admittedly, some of these were never necessarily establishment Republicans, but they show the broad spectrum of conservatives, libertarians, and "moderate Republicans" who have suddenly found themselves abandoned by the Republican Party. I would love any additions to this list.

Ultimately, one has to wonder just how many prominent defectors it will take before the remaining Republicans get out of their denial and: 1. stop claiming that the defectors are just "wimps" or "RINOs"; and 2. realize that they've changed the character of the Republican Party from a collection of various types of conservatives and constitutionalists to a group that exists for the sole purpose of expanding the power of the federal government. The good news is that if the remaining establishment doesn't wake up to these facts, a continuing stream of defections will cause the Party to collapse and a new major party to arise from the ashes, much as the Republican Party rose from the ashes of the Whigs.

A better approach to global warming?

It occurs that perhaps libertarians and free market conservatives have taken the wrong approach to global warming. It seems libertarians and conservatives have decided that opposition to government environmental intervention requires a belief that global warming is a myth.

The problem with this, of course, is that it requires people who are essentially focused on economics and classical liberal political thought to debate on issues of natural science. This is turf that most libertarians are ill-suited to fight on. It may be that there is legitimate debate within the scientific community as to whether global warming is real; however, this debate is one best left to the professionals whose job it is to debate it. The fact is that, to the extent libertarians wish to engage "Progressives" (many of whom, by the way, are no better educated on the topic than the average libertarian) on issues of whether global warming is real, that debate can only result in a battle of statistics. This battle of statistics is not one that libertarians can win, if only because "Progressives" have more scientists to cite, and, frankly, have more invested in the debate. In fact, arguing with a Progressive about the existence of global warming is similar to arguing with a member of the religious right about whether the Bible prohibits homosexuality - whether you're right or not, they just know more statistics about the topic than you. This is especially true when you consider that statistics can often be used to prove or disprove just about anything (my all-time favorite example being the correlation between the rate of crime in Central Park and ice cream cone sales in Central Park).

Now, this is not to say that libertarians should completely abandon the global warming debate - quite the opposite, in fact. The fact is that while scientists have (and even deserve) more respect on things like climate models, global temperatures, etc., they aren't particularly well-trained in the disciplines of economics, policy, and law (similarly, your average fundamentalist preacher deserves more respect on issues of what the Bible says or doesn't say, but is completely out of his element when discussing the civil law and economics) . These disciplines, of course, are areas that libertarians know quite well, but others do not (see the now-infamous Civic Literacy Test for proof; I got a 58 out of 60, by the way). Indeed, rather than get bogged down in debating the science of global warming, libertarians can use the global warming debate as an opportunity to advance understanding of how and why free markets work. Specifically, libertarians would be best served to be officially agnostic on the issue of global warming, while explaining why free markets are better suited to solve the problem - if it is real - than big government and international treaties. Perhaps we could even demonstrate how, to the extent global warming is real, it is the result of (or at least exacerbated by) excessive government interventionism.

For instance, most of the world's most polluted cities, according to a recent report by an environmental group, are in states that until very recently (if at all) had very little respect for private property rights. We might also try to explain how stricter environmental controls in technologically advanced nations will only push manufacturing even further to nations with not only no environmental controls, but also far less pollution-reducing technology. We might also explain how minimum wage laws and labor unions exacerbate the problem by further pushing manufacturing jobs to countries with less ability to control carbon emissions. Better still, we should demonstrate how private industry will be far more likely to come up with solutions to environmental problems than will the government and how government's "occupying the field" in this respect actually discourages innovative solutions. Importantly, when government makes environmental policy, it does so in ways that must have a negative effect on the rest of their economy; but when private industry is allowed to create ecological innovation, the effect on the rest of the economy is entirely positive - more, higher paying jobs, and ultimately, production of eco-friendly energy that is cheaper than our current energy supply. Finally, if global warming is real, then consumers will have a high demand for eco-friendly products (see, e.g., the huge demand for hybrid cars); high demand for a product is the best incentive for private entrepreneurs to search for ways of creating that product.

Indeed, one could only imagine how far along the world would be on a technological solution if so many government-funded scientists weren't being paid to conduct additional studies to reinforce the belief in global warming, but were instead funded by private industry seeking to find ways of profiting on ecologically friendly technology.

Update on China Import "Scandal"

In light of today's news that Mattel has taken responsibility for the majority of the toy recalls as being design flaws, I wonder if Lou Dobbs will take back his comments that this case shows why intense government regulation of imports is necessary (and that free marketers and libertarians are thus "idiotic"). For some reason, I'm not holding my breath.

Key quote:

On Friday, Debrowski acknowledged that "vast majority of those products that were recalled were the result of a design flaw in Mattel's design, not through a manufacturing flaw in China's manufacturers."
Lead-tainted toys accounted for only a small percentage of all toys recalled, he said, adding that: "We understand and appreciate deeply the issues that this has caused for the reputation of Chinese manufacturers."
In a statement issued by the company, Mattel said its lead-related recalls were "overly inclusive, including toys that may not have had lead in paint in excess of the U.S. standards.
"The follow-up inspections also confirmed that part of the recalled toys complied with the U.S. standards," the statement said.

In other words, this was not a case where free international trade resulted in harm to US consumers. Instead, it was a case where a manufacturer had a poor product design that resulted in a marginally higher risk of injury from the product's use. As a result, Mattel pulled products with the potential for such a marginally higher risk off of the shelves. To the extent any injuries were caused as a result, Mattel will almost certainly be sued under the common law; as long as government regulations and protectionist laws don't get in the way, Mattel will then be forced to make the injured parties whole (to the extent possible of course). In other words, this is probably going to be a case that shows how the free market works - not how it failed.
Finally, it's worth pointing out that, had Mattel chosen to manufacture these toys in the US, the potential problems would have been even worse because of the higher labor costs. Higher labor costs would mean that Mattel would have to cut the cost of its raw materials in order to meet its price point- this means smaller parts made with more dangerous materials. Even if Mattel did not use smaller parts and more dangerous materials, it would have had less incentive to conduct the recall operation since the lower profit margins would increase the marginal cost of the recall.

What could Iraq look like if we all just left?

Oddly enough, the story of Somalia after the UN withdrew (but before it returned in recent years) shows that power vacuums aren't always to the detriment of society. Of course, the situation in Iraq has significant differences from Somalia- most importantly that a Shiite-dominated centralized government (backed by powerful militias) would at least nominally exist if everyone left. As a result, we would not be leaving behind a true power vacuum, meaning that the group with control of the government apparatus would hold an important advantage over the other groups. This advantage would be enough that the other groups, especially the Sunnis, would have a huge incentive to undermine the government as much as possible, effectively resulting in a civil war.

On the other hand, if we were to combine our withdrawal of forces with an end to most or all international aid to the Maliki government, we would minimize the initial advantage to the Shiites of maintaining a violent grasp on power - in other words, they'd be a government with no money other than what they could get from Iran. As Hamas found out, controlling a government with no money is about as worthwhile as being President of your middle school student council. Indeed, you can't even pay goons to go out and extract money for taxes since they would have no incentive to actually give the money they extract to you.

The only way to make holding on to power worthwhile would be to attract private investors. Even though private investors would love to tap into Iraq's oil, the instability created by a government with no ability to enforce property rights would make access to the oil worthless. Thus, the Shiite government would have no choice but to make peace with the Sunnis, who would find themselves with a surprising amount of leverage to work out a fair deal.

If the government and Sunnis failed to reach an agreement, you would have a state of anarchy - but one very similar to the Somalia example. Of course, the key to all this is that the withdrawal be combined with a complete end to international aid; unfortunately, this is something that most liberals would be completely opposed to on a false belief that the aid would be necessary to prevent a long-term humanitarian crisis.

"Green" Energy policy starves the poor

It seems I am about 3 months late on this topic, but it is one of the greatest ever examples of how government intervention has horrible unintended consequences. One of the more successful purportedly "Green" campaigns in recent years has been the campaign to mandate use of biofuels. As a result of this campaign, governments all over the world have begun to subsidize biofuel production and/or mandate the use of a specific percentage of biofuels in various energy products. Unfortunately, the laws of economics turn out to be more ironclad than the politicians expected.
Importantly, the agricultural products that form the basis for biofuels are all what we might call staples: sugar cane, corn, maize (used mostly for livestock feed), and wheat. What politicians seem to have forgotten (or maybe they just flunked Econ 101 in college) is that you can't artificially increase demand for a scarce resource without an inevitable price increase for that product. In this case, it's even worse, though, because you also have subsidies for particular varieties of agricultural products - but only to the extent the product is used for biofuels. So, farmers suddenly have an incentive to only sell their crops for biofuel uses, resulting in not only increased overall demand, but also a decreased supply in the food market.
Not surprisingly, the subsidies and mandates have resulted in increased global prices for these crops. The price of maize more than doubled between Jan. 2006 and May 2007. Maize is considered the world's most important staple crop since it is an essential ingredient in hundreds of foods, and is a primary source of livestock feed. The price doubling came despite the fact that the biofuel maize production amounted to only 15% of the US maize crop. In addition, the government subsidy not surprisingly resulted in less planting of other staple crops, resulting in higher prices for those crops.
A doubling of maize prices was directly responsible for a sizable increase in the overall price of US food in early 2007. But the effects on Second and Third World countries have been huge. For example, in 2006, according to Foreign Affairs, tortilla prices in Mexico more than doubled. Corn prices and wheat prices increased by at least 50% between June 2006 and 2007.
A 30% global increase in the price of wheat this year alone - due largely to biofuel production - has resulted in Italians going on strike today against eating pasta, which has seen its price rise accordingly.
Sugarcane, soybeans, and other staples have seen their prices rise accordingly- all as a direct result of biofuels production. Since these foods are all staple foods, the most affected by the price increase are the world's poorest countries. The problem has gotten so bad that within 20 years, some estimates suggest biofuel production will result in twice as many individuals who are "chronically hungry" worldwide as would otherwise be so classified. This increase amounts to 600 million additional starving people - but at least we'll be able to feel a little more smug that we helped the environment in a marginal way.

Lou Dobbs, China, and "Idiot Libertarians"

So, I accidentally turned Lou Dobbs on for exactly one minute this afternoon. He was talking about the Chinese toy and food import "scandals" that were in the news over the summer. After ranting about Mattel's corporate greed, he then went into a diatribe against free marketers, asking where are the "free marketers and libertarians now?" regarding this whole Chinese import debate. Continuing his rant, he stated that the whole scandal should prove to "idiot libertarians" that government regulation of trade is necessary to protect the safety of the American people. Finally, he drew the connection - as usual - between corporations and their ability to influence government in order to screw the consumer.

I did some research and found that, indeed, the libertarian movement has been less than concerned about the China toy recalls. Most libertarian commentary on the issue has discussed it only tangentially discussing other issues of China trade policy. Of course, the reason for this silence is mostly because libertarians aren't overly concerned with toy "defects" that have apparently caused little or no actual harm to US consumers (so far as I can tell).
Nonetheless, I figured that I will answer Mr. Dobbs' challenge (since I'm sure he's a regular reader of Publius Endures).
So, here are 6 reasons why the Chinese toy recalls do not represent a failure of the free market:
1. As far as I have been able to tell, the tens of millions of recalled toys that Dobbs complained about have resulted in exactly zero reported injuries. Indeed, the Consumer Products Safety Commission, in the most recent round of recalls, indicated that no injuries have occurred as a result of the allegedly defective products. So, I can't see how the market has created an unacceptable danger to the consumer if tens of millions of the toys subject to the recalls have caused exactly zero harm, or at least such a low level of harm as to be statistically irrelevant.
2. The fact that US government rules have apparently been violated in terms of the materials contained in the products is not in itself proof of a market failure and of the need for stronger government rules. If rules had been followed, and a statistically significant number of injuries had resulted nonetheless, then one could say there was a market failure and new rules could be justified. But the fact that rules have been broken does not justify stricter rules.
3. In fact, since many millions of products were imported and sold in violation of the government's rules and few if any injuries resulted over a substantial period of time, the evidence would suggest that the government regulation is either far more strict than necessary or is totally without value. This means that the only possible reasons for the rules are either to act as a means of protectionism for US manufacturers or they are completely arbitrary since the government lacks the ability to precisely set its standards at the most economically efficient point.
4. Dobbs' ad hominem attack on libertarians clearly shows his absolute ignorance of fundamental libertarian and free market principals. Most importantly, it ignores the fact that a true free market approach opposes corporate welfare just as vehemently as it opposes social welfare programs. Corporate welfare such as government subsidies, special tax breaks, and - most importantly for these purposes - limitations on liability are completely anti-free market. Obviously, corporate welfare significantly reduces the economic incentives to provide a safe product for the consumer since the government policies artificially reduce the corporation's marginal costs for defective products. Corporate legal protections and subsidies diffuse liability costs amongst the entire company rather than on a handful of individuals with a personal stake in the company. As a result, a corporate decisionmaker will only see his earnings reduced by a comparatively small amount if the company is found liable for defective products; without corporate welfare, that individual might be personally liable for all legal damages.
5. The fact that the products in these cases were recalled despite a lack of any significant injuries actually suggests a market success rather than a market failure. Even in the case of the dog food recall fiasco, only a few dozen of the millions upon millions of dogs that had eaten the "tainted" food wound up dying or with permanent health problems- the risk of serious injury was statistically only slightly higher than the chances of winning the lottery. Most -if not all- of the relevant toy and food recalls were voluntary, despite absurdly high costs to the companies. This means that the companies involved were concerned about permanent or long term damage to their consumer image in the unlikely event of injuries occuring. The recalls, by and large, were not the result of government enforcement, then, but of the profit motive.
6. Tariffs. I don't know what, if any, tariffs were involved in the questioned imports. However, the existence of the tariffs has a perverse effect on market incentives. A realistic hypothetical can demonstrate how this is relevant: ABC Co. currently makes a particular product in the US; however, the cost of producing the product in the US is increasing, but demand for the product will not support a correspondingly higher retail price. ABC Co. also knows that, for a variety of reasons, it can produce this product for much less in China and keep its price at current levels or even less. Therefore, it agrees with a Chinese company to produce the product in China at a particular price. Suddenly, however, a tariff is put in place or an existing tariff increases. This creates an increase in production cost to ABC Co. However, it still must keep its retail price point the same. As a result, ABC Co. must choose between either discontinuing the product or obtaining a lower price from the Chinese manufacturer. If ABC Co. chooses to pursue a lower price from the Chinese manufacturer, that manufacturer will almost certainly have to choose between ending its production of the product or finding a cheaper way of producing the product - including, perhaps, lower quality materials.

Having proven that the "unsafe" Chinese imports are not a market failure but a failure of too much regulation, I would like to suggest that Mr. Dobbs take a refresher course on free-market economics. Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" should do the trick.

Romney Didn't Say That, Did He?

From the debate tonight:

"And I hear from time to time people say, hey, wait a second. We have civil liberties we have to worry about. But don't forget, the most important civil liberty I expect from my government is my right to be kept alive, and that's what we're going to have to do." - Mitt "Battlefield Earth" Romney

I know this sounds great to those who call themselves conservatives nowadays, but really this is a blatant justification of authoritarianism/totalitarianism. Indeed, it was the underlying (if sometimes unspoken) justification for every authoritarian or totalitarian government action in history.

If the right to be kept alive by the government is the single most important civil liberty, then there are no other civil liberties. If the government's primary job is keeping people alive, then anything which can be potentially perceived as dangerous to life can be prohibited: "dangerous" speech, "dangerous" press coverage, the habeas corpus rights of "dangerous prisoners" held without trial, "dangerous" property rights like the right to buy or sell "dangerous" products (ie, guns, drugs, cigarettes, McDonald's, etc.). And this says nothing of the socialist implications of Romney's statement, since the "right to be kept alive" by the government necessarily implies that the government must provide its citizens free healthcare, free food, free water, and free anything that would tend to lengthen an individual's life.

Freedom IS Free

After 9/11, self-titled "conservatives" frequently liked to use the phrase "freedom isn't free," or talk about the "Cost of Freedom" as justification for sacrificing civil liberties in the name of so-called national security. It's time that this silly, self-contradictory exercise in Orwellian doublethink was put to rest.

The fact is that freedom IS free - it is the restriction of freedom that costs money and lives. For instance - freedom of speech and freedom of the press cost not a penny in a truly free society; the only cost of these freedoms is that of burnt calories from exercising one's mouth and mind, or that of the printing press. But when government regulates those freedoms, the cost is very real, not just because of the marginal loss of freedom but also because someone has to pay to enforce the regulation of those freedoms by the FCC, Secret Service, etc. We call those costs taxes. When we restrict guns and declare war on drugs, those restrictions cost money to enforce, not to mention lost freedoms in terms of civil liberties, lost production due to an excessive prison population, increased costs of imprisonment, shifted resources from more pressing priorities, etc.

Of course the foundation of the claim that "freedom isn't free" is that freedom must be protected by a strong national defense, characterized by a strong military, heightened surveillance by law enforcement, and "dirty" tactics by our intelligence agencies, and restricted due process rights. I will deal with the military question last, but the biggest problem is the assumption that these three things actually protect freedom. This assumption is faulty because all of these (particularly the last three) actually restrict freedom quite severely. The assumption thus becomes, in effect, that we must kill freedom in order to save it- a horrible case of doublethink. And this says nothing of the monetary and unintended consequences of these increased government powers.

As for the need for a strong military, it is difficult to argue that some form of national defense/public law enforcement is unnecessary. Legendary anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard famously made an attempt at such an argument, but I think he falls short because I am unconvinced that private security firms would have adequate incentive to avoid war with each other; a constant turf war amongst private security firms would be, in effect, the current state of Iraq or 1990-present Somalia. Thus, a publicly-funded military with constitutional restrictions is by far the lesser of two evils. Even if necessary, though, the existence of a taxpayer-funded military still requires coerced tax payments by the government and is thus a restriction on freedom. If it is a restriction on freedom, then by definition it cannot be a protection of freedom, and thus it is not a cost of freedom but a cost of regulation.


Even if the coercive payment of taxes for national defense is not a restriction of freedom, a national military offensive or occupation of a foreign country is most certainly not an actual cost of freedom. To engage in an offensive or to occupy a sovereign country is inherently to act to restrict freedom in that country because offensive military force is the most violently coervice action in which one can engage. Some would say that it is the freedom of the other country that we are restricting, rather than our own. This is true as far as it goes, but ignores other consequences:

1. "Blowback"- restriction of other people's freedom by coercive aggression creates an understandable justification for the victims of that aggression to act aggressively towards us (resulting in increased needs for law enforcement and defensive military posturing on our part).

2. It is impossible to be simultaneously free and justify the restriction of other people's freedom. To do so ultimately requires doublethink or an acceptance of restrictions on one's own freedoms (or at least that of their countrymen).

3. Most importantly, it implicitly assumes that freedom is not a human birthright, but is instead a birthright only of those fortunate enough to be born in a particular nation.


To the extent that governments are necessary (and they unfortunately are), we are deluding ourselves in thinking that even necessary government functions actually protect freedom when those functions still rely on coercive tax payment or regulation of individual behavior. The fact of the matter is that if (and only if) government did not exist at all, humans would be completely free- freedom does not need protection, and thus does not have a cost as defined by the Fox News Republicans.

Ultimately, when someone claims that freedom isn't free, they are really making the self-evident claim that the American system of government isn't free. But just because American-style government allows for more freedoms than most doesn't make it synonymous with freedom.

Not since Reagan and Thatcher...

In the last 20 years, has there been a nationally elected leader in any country who has been willing to say something like this (from the President of Georgia, per an article in the WSJ):

"A day or two later, at a dinner for Georgian businessmen, the president delivers a speech hammering home his well-honed message of self-help. "The government is going to help you in the best way possible, by doing nothing for you, by getting out of your way. Well, I exaggerate but you understand. Of course we will provide you with infrastructure, and help by getting rid of corruption, but you have all succeeded by your own initiative and enterprise, so you should congratulate yourselves."Mr. Saakashvili's style of leadership feels like a permanent political campaign -- which it is, in a way. He seems determined to show citizens how it's being done, visibly to demonstrate accountability, transparency and political process, so they grow accustomed to the sight of politicians answering to them -- in short, to Western political habits. All the while, he's exhorting and explaining, striving to change attitudes ingrained through decades of Soviet rule and 15 years of stagnation, strife and corruption. "I keep telling people that this is not a process like some silver-backed gorilla leading them to new pastures. They must do it themselves, and they are."" (emphasis added).

Junk Science and Global Warming?

First, let me say that I am still waiting to be convinced by either side in the global warming debate. However, there were two stories that (shockingly!) were ignored or downplayed in the MSM that cast serious doubt on the validity of much global warming science. First, NASA was forced to revise all of its data on US temperature (which goes back to 1880) due to the fact that a blogger exposed a Y2K glitch in the data; there are apparently several other possible flaws that could result in further revisions. The newly revised data are here; more context is here. You will be interested to know that as a result of this first revision, 1998 is now only the second warmest year in the last century. Of the top 10 warmest years, 4 are in the 1930s, and 3 between 1998 and today.

It is my understanding that the NASA data are about the most widely used in terms of providing a basis for the argument that the globe is in fact warming in an unusual manner. If, in fact, the 1930s were warmer than the last decade, though, then the temperatures during the last decade could not possibly be conclusive or even particularly useful evidence of global warming.

The second story that has been pretty much ignored is that British government scientists have acknowledged that they overestimated the effects of global warming in recent years, and probably through 2008 as well. BUT, they claim, it will begin in earnest in 2009. Apparently, the previous climate models "underestimate the effects of natural forces on climate change." (That's right, the models of natural forces were inaccurate because they failed to account for natural forces!). As a result of these unanticipated "natural forces" the scientists simply changed their climate model slightly instead of first checking their premises; now, supposedly, the forecast is iron-clad. (A spin-doctored version of this story is also available from Reuters- without all that messy stuff about the previous version being wrong - or even existing - of course.)

Like I said, though - I'm still on the fence about this whole business...but it becomes very difficult to accept the arguments that man-made global warming is an indisputable fact when the data behind those arguments suffer from Y2K flaws and failures to account for the effects of natural forces when trying to make a model of natural forces.

Phrase of the Moment Feature

Not that anyone cares but me, but I've added a little section I am calling the "Moment's Statement of Freedom." The idea is that true libertarianism can be boiled down to one short sentence - it's just that there are a nearly infinite number of ways to express that sentence. Whenever I update I'm hoping to change the statement. For the first statement, I decided to use an old familiar standby.

Med-Mal/Healthcare

Of course the culture of medical malpractice suits plays a role in all of this. However, I would argue that the sizable presence of med-mal is itself a result of the increased regulation of the healthcare industry. Also, as NL pointed out, Med-Mal suits have pretty much declined slightly or leveled off in the last 10 years or so (although that is at least partly the result of “reforms” on the state level):

1. The increased regulation makes it relatively easy for a plaintiff to find a cause of action whenever they are dissatisfied with their care- there are so many regulations that a crafty plaintiff's lawyer can probably find an argument for a regulatory violation in just about any instance. The AMA's own standards and regulations also probably play a big role here.
2. The increased regulation has left the insurance companies in charge of whether a claim (whether for malpractice or additional treatment) is accepted. Since the insurance companies in turn have thousands of their own regulations, they are able to deny many claims at an early stage, creating an incentive to sue rather than just settle right away.
3. I don't know that punitive damages are usually allowed in med-mal cases. However, to the extent they are permitted, they are most often creatures of statute or at least outside the realm of traditional common law. Punitive damages destroy the economic calculus, have no connection to the actual harm caused by a defendant, and when aggregated have a significant negative effect on markets.
4. Most importantly, though (and contrary to popular opinion), increased rules and regulations create a diffusion of responsibility in medical practitioners. In other words, the more “one size fits all” rules the profession has to follow, the more the doctors will blindly obey those rules (since failure to do so means automatic liability and possibly loss of license even if no harm is done), and the less they will obey their own sense of reason (since failure to do so only results in payment by the med-mal insurance, and that is only if the patient actually suffers harm as a result; in either event, the doctor keeps his license since it is only a finding of negligence, not a violation of an arbitrary rule). This sort of phenomenon has been discussed not only by libertarians like Rand, but also by all sorts of social psychologists – from Milgram’s electroshock studies to Zimbardo’s Lucifer Effect/Stanford Prison Experiment.

That said, I'm actually opposed to most of the supposed "med-mal" reforms being attempted – for many of the reasons discussed by NL. By placing caps on damages, the government is adopting a "one size fits all" approach. Additionally, in calculating the amount of the caps, the legislature must either engage in socialist-style economic planning and forecasting (something that is either impossible or so prohibitively expensive as to negate the value of the forecast), or simply set an arbitrary figure based on political pull (which is effectively the California Rule). The result in any event is that some, maybe many, legitimate plaintiffs will not be made whole, which will marginally increase burdens in other (less efficient) areas of the healthcare system.

Additionally, legislative attempts to have med-mal cases at least initially removed from the courts to be vetted by a hearing board will also only make matters worse- you can’t fix a problem caused by too much bureaucracy by adding more bureaucracy. In this case, though, you are building higher costs into the system right off the bat; you are often staffing these review boards with other doctors (again introducing “pull” into the system similar to Rand’s “Unification Board”), you still have some form of discovery process, etc. And once the board has made their decision, a losing plaintiff is going to use whatever means they have at their disposal to appeal (more bureaucracy and expense), while a winning plaintiff simply gets the right to go to court and start all over again (meaning that those cases now cost substantially more to try than prior to the reform).

Ultimately, though, attempts at medical malpractice reform are doomed to backfire because they take us even further away from the common law and the judgments of people actually in possession of the facts in any given case. Just as importantly, they are an attempt to solve a problem of over-regulation by over-regulating even more.

As an aside, I actually liked Nolan’s example of the NYC hospital. But the reason I like it is that it was a rational decision made by the individuals who would actually be directly liable in any malpractice suit. Instead of looking to the government for a shield against liability, they chose to do something they probably would have done in a truly free market years ago – take flexible measures aimed solely at increasing factual knowledge of their own business in order to diagnose and correct internal problems. This of course results in fewer claims and increased profits. The problem is that implementing this on a national level takes away the profit incentive because then the program is being run by the government, which will then implement one-size-fits-all approaches to apparent inefficiencies.

Finally, the problem with “Loser Pays” reforms is that they not only make the loser pay for court costs (which are already paid mostly by the Plaintiff), they also make the loser pay the winner’s legal fees. This will destroy the economic calculus since: 1. Hospitals have far more expensive lawyers, whose fees could be up to 50% of the original claim, depending on the claim’s size; and 2. It artificially increases incentives for the Plaintiff to settle for far less than their actual harm since it automatically reduces the value of their claim by making payment of legal fees inevitable. This would be fine if, in fact, every losing Plaintiff were filing frivolously; the problem is that truly frivolous suits almost always get tossed out by the summary judgment phase. A case that actually goes to trial is usually going to be a closely decided case that could come down to any number of different things.

The Health Care "Crisis"

So now that I've fought my way through "Atlas Shrugged" and have grown to understand the extent to which I really am a libertarian (thereby making the title of this blog kind of ironic), I'm starting to see just how far socialism has infected the American experiment. Certainly the worst example of this - with one exception that I dare not name - is health care.
The ongoing debate over healthcare has gotten so infected by socialism that it has become a real-life parody of Atlas Shrugged: the more health care has been regulated, the worse it has gotten, which has resulted in more and more cries for further regulating healthcare until we finally arrive at Michael Moore's socialist utopia of a system (which I think would ultimately result in the complete destruction of medicine). Strangely, I found it very difficult to find a timeline or history of healthcare and healthcare reform in the US., but I finally came across this timeline from PBS' "Healthcare Crisis" program website:
http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/history.htm

Of course, any timeline for a program based on the concept of a "healthcare crisis" is likely to have a very pro- "reform" agenda. Nonetheless, if you ignore contradictory allegations like:

"Healthcare costs are escalating rapidly, partially due to ...expansion of hospital expenses and profits, (emphasis added)"

you will notice a clear trend emerging.

Specifically, you will notice that the chief complaints about the American heathcare system are: 1. Lack of coverage for many Americans; and more frequently 2. Steadily rising health care costs. According to the timeline, these two problems have only gotten worse as time has gone on, to the point where they are now apparently a "crisis." The timeline appears to suggest that the increase in these problems is a result of insufficient government intervention in the market. This suggestion, however, ignores the fact that the timeline also shows a corresponding increase in healthcare regulation for every increase in healthcare costs and decrease in affordable medical coverage.

For instance, the timeline states that in the 1950s "federal responsibility for the sick poor is firmly established." It then states - without drawing a connection - that during that same time period, the cost of hospital care "doubled," and insurance became unaffordable for those without jobs. Similarly, in the 1960s, the government adopted measure to expand education in the healthcare professions. The timeline then complains - again without drawing a connection - that the percentage of specialists during that decade grew by 14 points.

Prior to the 1950s, the timeline fails to identify a single fact-based problem with the US healthcare system. Indeed, the only problems identified are the allegation that "Rural health facilities are clearly inadequate" (unsupported, but if true it was most likely a result of urbanization), and that "America lags behind Europe in finding value in insuring against the costs of sickness" (a blanket assertion that assumes there is value in making health insurance a government issue). Beginning in the 1950s, the only decade in which the timeline does not raise an issue of dramatically increased costs or decreased access is the decade in which regulation of the industry decreased (ie, the 1980s). What is interesting here, though, is that the timeline would seem to suggest (inadvertently, of course) that the quality of healthcare has decreased in the United States not because of too little government intervention, but because of too much government intervention.

In essence, the more government intervenes in the healthcare market, the worse things become - not just for those able to afford the best medicine, but also for the very people supposed to benefit from the intervention. But rather than blaming the problems on the actual changes in the system, and then revoking those changes, the response has been to say that "well, we just didn't go far enough - doctors and drug companies and hospitals are still making too much money."

Another thing worth noting - a list of medical advances from infoplease.com shows that virtually every single important medical advance in the 20th century arose from doctors in either the United States or Great Britain - and most in the US. It does not appear that the great socialist nations like France or Communist nations were responsible for many - if any - advances in medicine during the 20th century.