Jun
15
Waves of Freedom
Filed Under Libertarianism | 10 Comments
This article at Reason discussed the efforts of Patri Friedman (Dad: David, Grandad: Milton) to establish anarcho-capitalist/libertarian societies at sea. The idea is to finally establish a place where libertarians and/or anarchists can live without the constrains of big government, without the hassle of political revolution or armed confrontation with standing armies over land already under government jurisdiction. The societies would most likely be made on platforms installed in international waters, and possibly mobile so as to allow competition among sea states. Friedman argues for “I’m taking my ball and going home” solutions to traditional political activism:
Libertarians, he says, expend precious time and energy on truly and self-evidently impossible paths toward political change. “Like the Ron Paul movement,” he says. “Lots of libertarians’ effort and millions and millions directed in a way that’s hopeless! For real change [electoral politics is] totally hopeless. Think how much more likely to succeed [libertarians would be] if that amount of resources were put into something that could actually work.” By which he means seasteading. And you have to admit: When you compare it to the likelihood of creating a libertarian world through American politics, seasteading starts to look more and more sensible.
The article listed a few examples of “Seasteading” that have been tried in the past, but with one glaring omission: The Principality of Sealand. I came upon Sealand’s wikipedia entry a while ago, and the whole idea seemed like something I would do when I finally achieve my goal of being a wealthy and eccentric old man. While hardly a libertarian endeavour (Sealand had a hereditary monarch and all laws were by decree), it did manage to coin its own currency and print some stamps. From the article, the most interesting part of Sealand’s colorful history is the 1978 ‘forcible takeover’:
In 1978, while Bates was away, Alexander Achenbach, who describes himself as the Prime Minister of Sealand, and several German and Dutch citizens staged a forcible takeover of Roughs Tower,[9] holding Bates’ son Michael captive, before releasing him several days later in the Netherlands.[citation needed] Bates thereupon enlisted armed assistance and, in a helicopter assault, retook the fort. He then held the invaders captive, claiming them as prisoners of war.[10] Most participants in the invasion were repatriatedat the cessation of the “war”, but Achenbach, a German lawyer who held a Sealand passport, was charged with treasonagainst Sealand,[9] and was held unless he paid DM 75,000 (more than US$ 35,000).[11] The governments of the Netherlands and Germany petitioned the British government for his release, but the United Kingdom disavowed all responsibility, citing the 1968 court decision.[citation needed]Germany then sent a diplomat from its London embassy to Roughs Tower to negotiate for Achenbach’s release. Roy Bates relented after several weeks of negotiations and subsequently claimed that the diplomat’s visit constituted de factorecognition of Sealand by Germany.[9]Following his repatriation, Achenbach established a “government in exile” in Germany,[9]in opposition to Roy Bates, assuming the name “Chairman of the Privy Council”. He handed the position to Johannes Seiger in 1989 because of illness. Seiger continues to claim—via his website—that he is Sealand’s legitimate ruling authority.[12]
The whole thing is kind of a mess, but I would love to meet the people who participated in all of this. Here is the nation in all its glory:
While the entire concept of seasteading is an interesting one, there are a few things that I would want to point out. First, I did not like how libertarianism and anarchism are used interchangeably in the Reason article. They are not synonymous, and I am not an anarchist, and not even a true-blue libertarian (I think of myself more as libertarian-leaning, a fellow traveller if you will). I also think that if such a colony were to be established to the extent that Friedman wishes, some government somewhere would find a way to oppress it sooner or later.
However, I have no doubt that the unrestrained innovation a marine colony would allow could overcome many of the logistical problems posed by such a venture. Also, I like the idea of a mobile citizenry, effectively able to “shop” for the government that best suits their needs.
Most importantly, the fact that advocates of freedom would be willing and able to move elsewhere to establish their type of society, I think, shows the moral authority inherent in libertarianism and capitalism over statism and socialism. Folks like myself are simply advocating for an order where individualism, commerce, and private property are not forcibly infringed on by government. If such a society were to exist, there would not be any obstacles for people to live communally and share property and resources if they wish. I have no doubt such places would develop. All we want is the abolition of force. A libertarian country could easily tolerate a socialist community within its borders. However, there is no room for a libertarian sect within socialism and communism. The state has implemented collective practices, like the Social Security Administration, and I am not able to opt out if that is my choice. I am forced to contribute my property to it. There is no choice. Any time a system is threatened by the availability of choice, it is morally deficient.
Jun
12
Freakonomicsis not the only place to find some interesting real-world applied economics. One needs only to scan the blogosphere, where Cafe Hayek points out this from Bryan Caplan:
Textbooks may say that economics is about “incentives” or “trade-offs.” But you can publish papers in econ journals about the effect of birth weight on educational attainment. I don’t see any incentives or trade-offs there. Or take Emily Oster’s early researcharguing that hepatitis, not infanticide or selective abortion, explained a lot of Asia’s gender imbalance. Some economists asked, “How is this economics?” But if some economists argue that the gender imbalance is driven by incentives, how can you object if other economists say that the real explanation is medical? Or consider happiness research. Economists like Justin Wolfers are in the vanguard; but the connection to incentives or trade-offs is unclear.
You could deplore all this as a loss of focus. But I see massive progress. Economics has grown hard to define because we now focus primarily on real-world problems, not “literatures.” If we want to understand income determination, we don’t waste time with topological proofs. We still think about supply and demand, but we also think about policy, psychology, behavioral genetics, and much more. As a result, we come to understand the world, instead of solving unusually difficult homework problems.
Over at Coyoteblog, the following chart is featured, showing the end-of-regulation scores in the NBA, with an inordinate proclivity for ties:
It was found at Cheap Talk, with an explanation and videos. Warren found the link from The Sports Economist, where I found the post regarding the economics of sportsmanship interesting:
As an economist I’m intrigued by the widespread nature of sportsmanship standards. The exact threshold for good and bad sportsmanship differs across individuals and tends to be influenced by a variety of variables including the specific sport along with fan age, urban/rural, income, nationality, or ethnicity. Despite nuances across individuals, sportsmanship seems to be part of wider moral/ethical standards.
Finally, via Galley Slaves is this piece showing why Gotham City’s villians shouldn’t team up to kill Batman.
Exit question: Is the joker considered a negative externality?
Jun
11
Salaries, Caps, and Incentives
Filed Under Economics | Leave a Comment
Via Drudge, it appears Democrats both in the legislative and executive branches are eyeing government-imposed limits to executive pay, whether they are on the receiving end of government money or not. President Obama and many in his party hold to the fallacious notion that “excessive” executive compensation were a large component in the ongoing financial crisis.
Were there certain members of management in the financial sector that were rewarded lavishly for track records that were less than deserving? Of course. Then again, the same argument could be made for many a legislator…
But where such command-and-control policies such as executive pay caps go awry is their basis on the idea that the government can make decisions better than the people can regarding their own money. In this case, we’re talking about shareholders in the companies in question. In the end, CEO’s and their ilk are being paid with the shareholders’ money, and they decide (through elected boards of directors and more specifically compensation committees) how much their managers should be paid. To impose government controls on what management can be paid and how such matters should be decided is nothing less than the federal government telling the shareholders that they are too stupid to allocate their own money.
I am in no way advocating that those who drive their companies into financial ruin be rewarded. What I am advocating is that these people be shown the door by their employers, the shareholders who gained their equity and voting rights with their own hard-earned money, not the the Fed, the President, or Barney Frank.
An interesting spin on the issue is this story (also featured on the Drudge Report) of the suggestion of the feds capping union boss pay. Fat chance.
What I see as the more interesting undercurrent in this debate is the recognition by liberals that people do, in fact, alter their behavior when considering incentives. They realize that if CEO’s are rewarded for short-term results, they’ll get short-term plans. They follow the incentives. So how can the government crack down on pay for companies in financial trouble when the government was the one who rewarded bankrupt auto companies with huge taxpayer-financed takeovers?
If people respond to incentives, then what exactly are we rewarding with welfare?
If people will act in a way to gain money, will they not do the opposite when a behavior takes away money, as in taxation?
Cigarette taxes are meant to curtail smoking.
Carbon taxes are meant to curtail energy use and emissions.
Wouldn’t taxes on working, saving, investing, and employing have similar effects?
Perhaps the liberals believe government incentives somehow fall into another category. Perhaps raising taxes is good?
Then why wait to raise taxes? If its good, why not do it right away? If you’re not doing it now because its not good, are you promising that you will be doing something harmful to the economy in the future?
There seem to be a lot of inconsistencies with those currently in power as to whether people respond to incentives or not. But in the end, it is the American economy that will suffer for their ignorance.
Jun
10
Painting Pro-Lifers With Broad Strokes
Filed Under Uncategorized | 7 Comments
Many readers will be familiar with the May 31st murder of Dr. George Tiller, an abortion provider in Kansas. However reprehensible this man’s method of earning a living was, it was no excuse for murder. Killing someone in cold blood in a house of God cannot under any stretch of the imagination be construed as ‘pro-life’. There is a difference between ‘pro-life’ and ‘anti-abortion’, a difference made distinctly evident by the thug that committed this heinous crime.
My fellow pro-lifers echoed this sentiment in the blogosphere and the traditional media. Save the exception of a few nuts, pro-lifers soundly repudiated the notion that assassination is the way to stop what we view as murder. The Other McCain rounded up both news updates and reaction from all over, including this reaction from The Sundries Shack (emphasis mine):
He was a reprehensible human being whose arrogance at coming within 100 feet of a house of worship is staggering.
However, that does not excuse his killer. The person who shot Tiller is a cold-blooded murderer and is every bit as monstrous a killer as Tiller himself. I don’t care how the killer rationalized his killing (I’m using the generic “him” here). He had no right to take Tiller’s life. He assumed the power of judgment that didn’t belong to him and he should pay for that very dearly. It wouldn’t sadden me at all if he were given the death sentence (assuming they have that in
MissouriKansas). I am very sorry for Tiller’s family and friends, who have lost someone they loved.
As definitive as the collective condemnation of the killing was from the pro-life community was, many feared that this action would be used to paint the entire pro-life movement as based on violence.
Enter my favorite (sarcasm) liberal radio program, which I affectionately call Communism Now! While covering the Tiller murder, host Amy Goodman interviewed another abortion provider, Dr. Warren Hern. From today’s transcript:
But I think that it’s—the glee expressed by the anti-abortion fanatics is just grotesque. It’s ghoulish. These people—this is a violent terrorist movement in this country, and the American people need to understand that there’s a great deal more at stake here than the activities of one doctor, of the services of one doctor. Of course, this is a great loss for women, but this means that we have a very highly organized, active, well-armed and well-funded terrorist movement in the country that opposes the basic premises of American society. These people are opposed to constitutional democracy. They’re opposed to the rule of law. They’re opposed to a democratic government, representative government. They’re opposed to basic personal freedom. They’re opposed to thought. And this is a tremendous step backwards.
Throughout the course of the interview, Hern does not distinguish between a fringe terrorist and the movement at large. Nor does host Amy Goodman press him to ask whether he sees a distinction or not.
Another gem from Dr. Hern:
You know, if they don’t like abortion, don’t have one. I mean, it’s just outrageous. This is a witch hunt atmosphere. This is an era of persecution. This is just intolerable.
If only the babies being murdered had the choice not to have one….
But back to the issue of the perception of pro-lifers (emphasis mine):
You know, the Mafia is a decent, upstanding, respectable civic organization compared to the anti-abortion movement in this country. The anti-abortion movement in this country is the face of fascism in America.
…
I have nothing—I have no time to talk to these people. They have been trying to get us killed for decades. Their statements that they’re dismayed about Dr. Tiller’s assassination is hypocritical nonsense. These people got exactly what they wanted. They wanted Dr. Tiller dead. They wanted Dr. Tiller’s clinic closed. And they want the rest of us killed. They have made that very clear. So when they make a statement about this—you know, they have gone around demonizing doctors, vilifying doctors, all of us, in the newspapers and speeches and bloody posters, you know, calling us murderers and baby killers and so forth.
And when all else fails, blame Bush (and the Republicans):
Ronald Reagan tried to make abortion a political crime against the state. And it was staggering. He was brought into office with the active and fervent support of anti-abortion fanatics. And the Republican Party has exploited that movement for thirty-five years to get power. And unfortunately, one of the incredibly terrible results of that was visited upon us, was the administration of George W. Bush, who was the emissary to the anti-abortion groups for his father, when he was president.
Just because a murderer commits his act under the pro-life banner does not mean that abortionists have the right to slander our cause unchallenged. Unfortunately, slander is par for the course for Communism Now! and many in the American left.
Jun
10
I Second That
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Reason: Why the GOP should be the party of liberty.
Jun
2
GM Bankruptcy: Mission Accomplished
Filed Under Economics | 6 Comments
General Motors declared bankruptcy.
Let that sink in a little bit.
Words that would be considered ludicrous a decade or so ago yesterday became a reality, as GM filed for chapter 11. Congratulations to all of my American readers, who share ownership in a 60% stake in the automaker:
Monday, U.S. President Barack Obama defended government intervention in GM as the auto maker enters Chapter 11 bankruptcy, saying the actions are part of a “viable, achievable plan that will give this iconic company a chance to rise again.”
Under the plan, the government would own 60% of the new GM, but Mr. Obama said auto executives “will call the shots and make the decisions about turning this company around.” He said the government would refrain from playing a management role in all but the most critical areas. “Our goal is to help GM get back on its feet…and get out quickly,” he said.
Obama also described the government ownership, and therefore control, of the company as “unwelcome.”
But is this recession-era takeover really “unwelcome”? Or is Obama just refusing to let a good crisis go to waste?
When looked at critically, the GM bankruptcy and government takeover accomplishes many goals that make up the Obama agenda:
- Being able to dictate priorities in auto manufacturing will allow Obama to enforce his CAFE standards and help keep the “green” lobby
- As Rush pointed out (via The Other McCain), the restructuring deal put together by the Obamunists will put through plenty of protectionist measures that will do great economic harm, but keep in line with Obama’s positions on trade. RSM states later, “The sharp rise in long-term bond rates is only “puzzling” to people who know less about market economics than I do, and I’m a liberal arts major. But the list of people who know less than me, however, unfortunately includes the man Obama insisted must be in charge of the Treasury.”
- How does the UAW taking disproportionate ownership in GM play to the Obama agenda? Hmmm: “We’re ready to play offense for organized labor. It’s time we had a president who didn’t choke saying the word ‘union.’ A president who strengthens our unions by letting them do what they do best: organize our workers,” - Barack Obama, April 2nd, 2008
I’m sure there could be nothing more musical to the collective ears of Toyota, Honda, and Nissan than the fact that their largest American competitor is being run by a labor union and the federal government. But for what its worth, Moonbattery has a good idea for the next GM ad.
Update: Thanks to The Other McCain for featuring this post in the “headlines” section on their right-hand sidebar. Readers: Welcome to Zoominac!
