Category: Politics – Politicians – Government in Action

Senator Specter Abuses the Constitution

According to an article at The American Spectator (referring to a post at Mirror of Justice), Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania (chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee) asked this of Judge John Roberts:

When you talk about your personal views and, as they may relate to your own faith, would you say that your views are the same as those expressed by John Kennedy when he was a candidate, when he spoke to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in September of 1960, quote, do not speak for my church on public matters and the church does not speak for me, close quote?

I believe that Senator Specter violated Article VI, Clause 3, of the U.S. Constitution, which states in part that

no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

What was the senator’s question, if not a religious test?

Will Congress Buy It?

Bush rules out a tax hike to cover the cost of rebuilding after Katrina:

The president said in a nationally televised speech Thursday night that the federal government will pick up most of the tab. Congress has already approved $62 billion in aid, and reconstruction costs are estimated to be at least $200 billion. . . .

Speaking at the White House Friday afternoon, Bush said that although rebuilding the Gulf Coast would be expensive, he was “confident we can handle it and our other priorities.” He said the government will “have to cut unnecessary spending” and should not raise taxes.

That raises a few questions:

  • If the feds are going to pick up the tab for Katrina (presumably the uninsured damage), why not pay for everyone’s uninsured damage? Why don’t we all cancel our auto, homeowners, and umbrella liability policies and let the rest of the nation insure us through taxes? In fact, why not cancel all health insurance and let the federal government run the health-care system. Oops, sorry, I got carried away there.
  • If the federal budget includes $200 billion in unnecessary spending (a mighty low estimate, in my opinion), why is it in the budget in the first place? I know, I know, pork and bureuacratic empire-building. All essential, of course — until it’s unnecessary.
  • And will members of Congress from the States that were largely unaffected by Katrina stand by while Bush moves their pork to Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and a few others? Do you believe in the tooth fairy?

Stand by for some kind of tax increase. Read my lips.

Enough of Amateur Critics

UPDATED TWICE, BELOW

It’s ludicrous that hundreds of pundits, thousands of politicians, and millions of citizens with little or no experience in the planning and direction of complex operations are judging the performance of various governments in the preparation for and aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. All that these uninformed pundits, politicians, and citizens could know for a fact is that a major hurricane hit an area that hadn’t been hit by a stronger hurricane in 36 years. They could also know that Louisiana has been struck by lesser hurricanes about once every three years. And, finally, they could know (if they had been paying close attention to federal, state, and local machinations over many decades) that New Orleans was nevertheless ill-prepared for a major hurricane for many reasons that long predate the ascension of the current federal, state, and city administrations. Knowing only those facts (if they indeed know them), these “experts” nevertheless leap to the conclusion that “someone” must be to blame for this, that, and the other aspect of the disaster in New Orleans because, well, “someone” must be to blame.

I daresay that I know a lot more than most of the armchair critics about the planning and direction of complex operations. I have been immersed, at various times, in the planning and construction of a house, the planning and construction of major renovations and additions to a house, and — of most relevance — the design of and negotiation of a lease for a 200,000 square-foot office building. The office building was not just a partitioned shell, but one designed to incorporate state-of-the art modular furniture (not in cubicles, but in private offices), a variety of computing and telecommunications facilities, many special security features, conference facilities, food-preparation areas, libraries, and on and on. But that’s not all. At the company for which I planned the office building, I also had a broader portfolio of responsibilities, including the provision of physical and information security, financial and contractual management, the operation of central and distributed computing services, and the administration of personnel services in compliance with an array of federal, state, and local laws and regulations.

Now, one of the main lessons that I learned from my years of planning and directing complex operations is the following: Success has many parents; failures and setbacks have but one, the person on the spot. Yet, the person on the spot almost never starts with a clean slate or gets to run in a clear field. The person on the spot always operates within many constraints (e.g., budgets, traditions, and expectations). The person on the spot can never anticipate every contingency (especially the contingency that disrupts a plan). And, no matter the competence of the person on the spot, it takes time, effort, and (often) additional resources to regroup when a plan has been disrupted by reality.

There may be obvious instances of incompetent performance in the aftermath of Katrina; Mayor Nagin, Governor Blanco, and former FEMA director Mike Brown are obvious candidates for Bumbler of the Year. But the armchair critics on the sidelines are looking beyond the obvious bumblers and second-guessing the performance of various government entities from nothing more than pure, unadulterated ignorance: ignorance of the long and complex history of political and budgetary bargains that led to the state of New Orleans’s defenses against Katrina; ignorance of the political and budgetary bargains that led to the state of readiness on the part of various responders; ignorance of the difficulty of developing complex plans for events that will never unfold according to plan; ignorance of the hard fact that no plan survives “first contact with the enemy” (Katrina, in this case); ignorance of the amount of time, effort, and resources it takes to recover from the kinds of setbacks that are inevitable in a complex and chaotic operation; and, finally, ignorance of what was possible in the first place, given all of the foregoing complexities. Just to say that the preparations for and response to Katrina were inadequate — which is about all that most of the second-guessers really have to say — is, in a word, inadequate.

Well, I’ve had more than enough of second-guessers in my career. I got the job done in spite of them, but I long ago grew sick and tired of listening to them. So, I’ll not waste any more of my time reading what the second-guessers have to say about Katrina. And, as qualified as I might be to second-guess the second-guessers, there’ll be no more second-guessing from me, on this subject.

P.S. But, Columbo-like, I must add something on my way out. You’ve probably noticed that most of the armchair critics are animated by Bush-hate. That’s a fact which trumps their laughable “expertise,” which is on a par with William Jennings Bryan’s expertise in evolution.

As for Bush, he is now apologizing for failures on the part of the feds, which is fair enough to the extent that there were actual failures to do the right thing when confronted with actual events and armed with the proper tools with which to respond to those events. But what’s really going on, in my view, is that Bush is throwing his critics a crumb. He has nothing to lose by doing so (the haters will still hate him), and much to gain from those in the middle who will credit him for “taking responsibility” — whatever that Clintonesque term means when one cannot be fired, fined, or jailed for one’s actions.

P.P.S. Let me make it perfectly clear that I am not apologizing for the Bush administration, or any other government entity. I’m just explaining how it is that few — if any — of those who are bashing government’s response to Katrina have any basis for doing so, other than a desire to seem appropriately wise and/or indignant. Moreover, though it might be possible for government to have done better than it has done, it could not have done as well as private citizens and business owners, had they been allowed to keep their tax dollars and use them to prepare for and recover from Katrina. For more on that score, see these posts:

Katrina’s Aftermath: Who’s to Blame? (09/01/05)
“The Private Sector Isn’t Perfect” (09/02/05)
A Modest Proposal for Disaster Preparedness (09/07/05)
No Mention of Opportunity Costs (09/08/05)
Whose Incompetence Do You Trust? (09/10/05)
An Open Letter to Michael Moore (09/13/05)

Whose Incompetence Do You Trust?

So you think government is to be trusted to “get the job done”? Are you less certain, in the aftermath of Katrina? Well, even if you’re not certain, you can bet that many other remain certain that government is still to be trusted, if it’s given more money or put it in the hands of the right party. I think not.

FDR’s administration might have foreseen the vastly expensive and intrusive central government that grew out of its anti-Depression efforts. But whether or not FDR’s administration foresaw the regulatory-welfare state, its “experiments” on the American people shouldn’t have been trusted.

FDR’s administration wasn’t to be trusted to foresee and prevent the attack on Pearl Harbor, when a successful defense of Pearl Harbor might have deterred the Japanese and hastened victory in Europe. (The U.S., rightly, would have at some point come to the aid of Great Britain.)

Truman’s administration wasn’t to be trusted to foresee and prevent the invasion of South Korea, which led to a costly and inconclusive war and demonstrated, for the first time, a lack of military resolve (Truman’s willingness to accept the status quo ante). Thus it should have come as no surprise that the USSR was emboldened to tighten its grip on Eastern Europe and to squash the 1956 uprising in Hungary.

Eisenhower’s administration wasn’t to be trusted to foresee that the Bay of Pigs invasion, which the Kennedy administration botched, would make Castro more popular in Cuba. The botched invasion pushed Castro closer to the USSR, which led to the Cuban missile crisis.

JFK’s inner circle was unwilling to believe that Soviet missile facilities were enroute to Cuba, and therefore unable to act before the facilities were installed. JFK’s subsequent unwillingness to attack the missile facilities made it plain to Kruschev that the the Berlin Wall (erected in 1961) would not fall and that the U.S. would not risk armed confrontation with the USSR (conventional or nuclear) for the sake of the peoples behind the Iron Curtain. Thus the costly and tension-ridden Cold War persisted for almost another three decades.

LBJ’s administration wasn’t to be trusted to foresee the consequences of the incremental application of military power in Vietnam, which led to the enemy’s eventual victory. Worse for the U.S., the Vietnam experience became a rallying point for the anti-war Left, which continues to undermine the defense of American interests.

Nixon’s administration wasn’t to be trusted, period.

Carter’s administration wasn’t to be trusted to foresee how its feeble, futile, and belated effort to rescure the Americans held hostage in Iran would encourage Islamic terrorists. Ditto for the Reagan administration’s willingness to cut and run after the bombing of the Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon, for the Clinton Administration’s similar bug-out after the massacre of U.S. troops in Somalia, and for the Clinton administration’s feeble, legalistic responses to the bombing of the World Trade Center and the bombings U.S. embassies in Africa.

Bush I’s administration wasn’t to be trusted to foresee that the failure to remove Saddam and install a friendly Iraqi government in 1991 would eventually require us to start from scratch, after Saddam and his party had had time to plan for a post-invasion insurrection.

Bush II’s adminstration wasn’t to be trusted to go where the Clinton administration had failed to go, that is, to anticipate and prevent the long-planned attacks of September 11, 2001.

Government incompetence is nothing new under the sun. It just seems new to hundreds of millions of naïve Americans, who want to believe that government, which usually fails to anticipate rather predictable and often manipulable human enemies (and fails to defeat them except when it wages all-out war), will magically become competent when it comes to dealing with implacable nature, in all its variety — the usual log-rolling, pork-barreling, and graft notwithstanding.

But of course, the sudden emergence of governmental competence is precisely what most Americans want to believe in. (It’s the main theme of every presidential election.) And so we will end up throwing more money at the problem, to little avail and without regard for the viable alternative. That alternative is to let people decide for themselves what risks are important to them, and to let them decide how to spend their money (cooperatively, as they wish) in preparation for those risks.

We should trust the collective wisdom of people acting cooperatively in their own interest, through markets, to protect and preserve their lives and property. We should not trust the amply demonstrated incompetence of government, which suppresses the collective wisdom of markets and replaces it with the collective misjudgments of politicians and bureaucrats, whose main interest is to protect and preserve their power and perquisites.

(For more, see this post at ParaPundit, and this one. Then there’s this one, and several others, at Capital Freedom. And don’t forget Catallarchy, which has plenty, just scroll down.)

Katrina’s Aftermath: Who’s to Blame?

My heart goes out to those who are injured, sick, homeless, jobless, and hungry in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. My heart does not go out to those who helped to make the disaster as vast as it is turning out to be. And who are those culprits?

Let’s start with government, which made it possible for people to live in low-lying areas by erecting dikes, levees, and pumping stations — not at the expense of the direct “beneficiaries” of such facilities but at the expense of taxpayers.

Let’s continue with government, which insists on taxing the rest of us so that the victims of disasters such as Katrina can “rebuild their lives and businesses” in the very same vulnerable places.

Let’s continue some more with government, which insists on taxing the rest of us to entice residents and businesses to remain in vulnerable areas — in the name of urban pride and “job creation” — through various forms of personal and corporate welfare.

And let’s end with voters, business owners, labor unions, and others who support the politicians who perpetuate all such government programs because those programs are “humane,” “compassionate,” or “essential.” Those voters, business owners, workers, and others who are victims of Katrina are, in fact, victims of their own willingness to extort taxpayers to pay for inadequate protection against foreseeable disasters, such as major hurricanes along the Gulf Coast. They would make better decisions if they had, instead, to choose between spending their own money for adequate protection from foreseeable disasters or exerting themselves to make a life or run a business out of the reach of such disasters.

Programs such as those I mention above create an expectation that government will take care of people who expose themselves to danger, thus making it likely that people will make decisions that do indeed expose them to danger. The price? Death, disease, homelessness, joblessness, and hunger. And the waste of billiions of dollars of taxpayers’ money.

Katrina is just one of the many natural disasters that government, acting at the prompting of voters and other interested parties, has converted to a vast human tragedy. And there will be many more such tragedies, I fear.

Silent Killer

The Food and Drug Administration.

Case Dismissed

Mike Renzulli tries to make a case that libertarians should join forces with the Democrat Party:

[T]he Democratic Party still considers Thomas Jefferson…to be their [sic] founder.

That’s nice, but what have you done for me lately? Oh, this:

There have been libertarian traditions within the Democratic Party…. The Cleveland Democrats (a.k.a. “Gold Democrats”), beginning with the leaders of the Free Trade, anti-Tariff, hard Gold movement from the 1870’s through the early 1930’s, were a dominant group within the Democratic Party….The Cleveland Democrats were the last significant libertarian force within the Democratic Party. Their final major accomplishments were the anti-Prohibitionist movement in the 1920’s and the 1932 Democratic Party Platform, which Franklin Delano Roosevelt infamously ran on–and promptly forgot once he was elected….

So much for the long-defunct (and hardly libertarian) Cleveland Democrats. Instead we got FDR’s New Deal (a.k.a. fascism in America) and, later, LBJ’s Great Society (a.k.a. socialism in America). (Read this to understand the immense cost of those ventures.) I have seen no evidence that today’s Democrats are any less committed to the “ideals” of the New Deal and Great Society than were Democrats of the 1930s and 1960s.

I thought Renzulli was trying to woo libertarians, but he switches gears:

There have been conservative Democrats which were fairly pro-freedom, but they mostly died out in the 1950’s. Nevada Senator Pat McCarran (McCarran Airport in Las Vegas is named after him) was, what would be called in today’s terminology, a paleoconservative. He was pretty closely connected with Senator Joseph McCarthy in his anti-communist crusade, as were other conservative and states-rights Democrats.

But the Demos still have Bobby Byrd. I guess that ought to attract a lot of libertarians.

Oh, here’s the argument for libertarians:

It was not the Republican Party who [sic] has been the libertarian political party in American politics, it was the Demcorats.

The Republican Party of the 1920s through 1960s was far closer to being libertarian than was the Democrat Party of the same era. Since then, of course, the GOP has had a taste of power and has compromised its old limited-government principles to hold onto that power. But regardless of the GOP’s sins, the Dems’ sins are greater. The GOP is still “home” for conservatives who adhere to the principle of limited government. Where are the Democrats on limited government? Nowhere, unless you count the Dems rather adolescent posturing on abortion and support of “progressive” eugenics.

What about those newly profligate Republicans?

With the recent budget being proposed by Bush and Congress, admittedly Republicans and Democrats, to spend $3 TRILLION….It is abundantly clear that in recent years the leadership of the Republican and Libertarian Parties are not interested in upholding the Jeffersonian ideals of simple, frugal government as much as the present leadership of the Democrats.

Renzulli admits that the Democrats are party to the present reign of profligacy in Washington, as they are — willingly. But Renzulli then tries to suggest that the Dems’ present leadership is interested in “simple, frugal” government. Hah! The Dems pay lip service to a balanced budget, not because they want to cut spending but because they want to raise taxes in order to finance latter-day versions of the New Deal and Great Society.

The Dems are more likely to be anti-war and against war-related “infringements” of civil liberties (e.g., peeking at your reading list if you otherwise seem to be engaged in suspicious behavior). But being anti-war isn’t the same as being pro-liberty, unless you adhere to the idiotic, paleolibertarian dogma of last-ditch self defense. (Aha! Maybe Renzulli is appealing to paleos. Good luck.) As for civil liberties, would you rather have the federal government peeking at your reading list or regimenting your entire life through regulation and taxation? The latter, of course, is what happens when Dems are in charge.

The Sun may burn out and Hell may freeze over, but this libertarian will never join forces with the Demo(n)crats.

See also:

Libertarian Conservative or Conservative Libertarian? (07/29/04)
“The Party of the Little People” ? (08/03/04)
Does Libertarian-Conservative Fusion Have a Future? (08/19/04)
Hobbesian Libertarianism (10/08/04)
What Realignment? (12/05/04)
What’s a Libertarian to Do? (12/05/04)
Libertarianism and Conservatism (12/05/04)
Judeo-Christian Values and Liberty (02/20/05)
Where Conservatism and (Sensible) Libertarianism Come Together (04/14/05)
Conservatism, Libertarianism, and Public Morality (04/25/05)
Redeeming the Promise of Liberty (05/06/05)

Technorati tag:

An Alternative to Death and Taxes?

The tragic death of Jeffrey Yu-Chang Kao in Houston, Tex., on November 5, 2003, at the hands of a Houston Metro bus driver, could lead to the removal of a layer of immunity from local governments in Texas. That’s good news for the victims of negligent government employees and bad news for the taxpayers of Texas. A better alternative, for everyone, would be to privatize public transit, as well as other pseudo-governmental functions.

Because Houston Metro is operated by the Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas, claims against it are capped under the Texas Tort Claims Act. Judicial interpretation of the act (scroll to I.B.7) has resulted in a $100,000 cap on the damages payable in a death caused by the actions of an employee of the State or one of its political subdivisions. Metro, as an arm of Harris County, is sheltered by the cap. If it weren’t it might by now be out of business, given its track record.

Jeffrey Kao’s widow, Loan-Anh Tran Kao, has since November 2004 publicized the case through a statement at a website, which links to an on-line petition addressed to the Texas State Legislature. Ms. Kao closes her statement by saying:

After Jeff’s accident, for the first time in my life, I felt powerless. I wanted to empower myself. I did not know where to start. I had been told time and time again that any efforts to force METRO to be held accountable for its actions would be futile and that the prudent action was to accept the $100,000 liability limit. However, I refused to believe that an entity set up to serve the public and funded by the public is not and cannot be held accountable to the public. Thus, I am doing the only thing I know to do right now and that is to work to change a law that makes METRO value a person’s life at only $100,000. This limit was established in 1973, was not indexed for inflation or cost of living and has not been changed since 1973. It is time for a change.

In the petition she adds:

I cannot undo the damage that has been inflicted upon my family. I can, however, with your help, make sure that, to the extent humanly possible, no one else will have to lose a love one. Metro must be held accountable for not putting safety first. Metro should not be protected by a $100,000 liability cap when it does not put safety first.

The $100,000 cap would be $330,000 if inflated to keep pace with the rise in the CPI since 1973. That’s not much money for a life. Removal of the cap makes more sense, from a claimant’s point of view. And that’s exactly what a Texas legislator has proposed.

On March 16, 2005, State Rep. Corbin Van Arsdale (R-Houston), placed before the Texas House of Representatives a bill (H.B. No. 2588) that would, among other things, remove the cap on the damages for which a political subdivision of the State of Texas may be liable:

(b) Notwithstanding any other law, sovereign immunity of a political subdivision described by Sections 101.001(3)(B) and (C) to suit and from liability is waived, and the political subdivision is liable to a claimant to the same extent as a private person according to Texas law.

The bill is still in committee, and the Texas Legislature has adjourned until 2007. (Gov. Rick Perry has called a special session, but that session will focus on public-school finance.) Perhaps the Legislature will take up the bill two years from now. If it does, my heart wants the bill to become law, for the sake of Ms. Kao and other victims of negligence by public employees. My mind tells me that the removal of the cap would harm the taxpayers of Texas, with little effect on the behavior of public employees. My libertarianism tells me that there must be a way to save lives and taxpayers’ money.

I’m entirely in sympathy with anyone who has suffered at the hands of a negligent person or entity — especially a government entity that is able to evade the consequences of its negligence by hiding behind its shield of sovereign immunity. After all, the true sovereign in the United States is — or is supposed to be — the people, not government. That’s the best argument for removing the shield of sovereign immunity from all political subdivisions of the State of Texas, not to mention all political entities in the United States. But…

Tort lawyers and irresponsible juries are (unwittingly) working hand-in-glove with tax-spend-and-regulate governments (federal, State, and local) to drive the American economy to its knees. Taking the lid off tort claims may seem just when viewed in the context of a particular case, but it could have dire long-term consequences for the taxpayers of Texas, and other States.

Why should we expect government employees to be any less negligent just because a change in the law uncaps tort claims against government entities? If criminal prosecutions won’t deter negligence, nothing will. Government employees can and will continue to act irresponsibly because their bosses — unlike the owners of private businesses — have no bottom-line incentive to enforce responsible behavior. After all, who will end up paying the claims allowed by a change in the law? Not government employees or their bosses. No sir, tort lawyers will go where the money is: in the pockets of taxpayers.

The real, long-term solution to the twin problems of negligence and liability is to get government out of the transit business — and all the other businesses that it’s in, namely, providing roads, schools, recreation, health care, social services, etc. Government, at all levels, should focus on its few legitimate lines of work, principally, defense and criminal justice.

But let’s start with the transit business. If transit systems were truly private — neither operated by a government entity nor in an agency relationship with a government entity — there’d be no cap on claims and the cost of claims would be passed on to users of the system, not to taxpayers (as taxpayers). The right course of action for the Texas legislature isn’t to remove the cap on liability claims but to remove the counties and cities of Texas from the transit business.

It says on Houston Metro’s own website that the “Texas State Legislature authorized the creation of local transit authorities in 1973.” Well, that was back in the bad old days when “socially responsible” Democrats controlled the Texas legislature. It seems to me that the current, Republican-controlled legislature should do the Republican thing and order the privatization of local transit systems in Texas.

That would accomplish three things at a stroke:

1. There’d be no cap on damages caused by negligent government employees.

2. There’d be a compelling (profit) incentive to ensure the safe operation of transit vehicles. For example, in 2004 the U.S. Postal Service’s motor-vehicle accident rate was 10.4 per million miles (see p. 12), whereas UPS’s rate was less than one accident per million miles.

3. The users of transit systems would pay for those systems — not the general public. (The users might cry “unfair” because of the existence of “free” public roads, but that’s changing in Texas.)

Houston Metro’s total operating expense in fiscal year 2003 was $395.6 million (including depreciation and amortization). Fares covered only $47.3 million (12 percent) of that total. The deficit was covered by sales taxes collected by the city and county on behalf of the transit authority. In other words, many taxpayers who don’t ride Metro subsidize those who do. And taxpayers who do ride Metro are simply subsidizing themselves. There’s no such thing as a free ride.

That’s not to say private entities couldn’t be lured into the business, if they were allowed to raise fares and eliminate unprofitable routes. A Houstonite who absolutely can’t bear the thought of paying for his own commute can always move to Los Angeles, a.k.a. Houston-on-the-Pacific.

So here’s my suggestion for the Texas State Legislature:

1. Remove the liability cap, as proposed by Rep. Van Arsdale.

2. Rescind the statutory authority for public transit systems and set a date certain for privatization.

3. Require municipalities to contract-out their transit systems during the transition period. That transition period would enable contractors to test the market to determine the most profitable combination of routes, schedules, and fares. The transition period also would give transit riders and entrepreneurs time to test and implement alternatives, such as carpooling, commercial van services, etc.

4. Municipalities would be required to contract-out to several operators, whose territories would overlap in high-density areas, to encourage competition.

5. The operators would acquire public-transit facilities and equipment through long-term lease-purchase arrangements at favorable terms. (After all, an asset that produces negative earnings is worthless to its owner — taxpayers, in this case.)

The privatization of transit systems in Texas might start a trend toward the privatization of other government-run businesses that aren’t properly the business of government.

If it did nothing else, privatization would reduce incidents of lethal negligence and keep tort lawyers out of taxpayers’ pockets.

This post is also available at Blogger News Network.

Speaking of the Senate…

The Frank Capra classic, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, was invoked often during the recent debate about filibusters. Mostly forgotten is the 1976 “remake,” Billy Jack Goes to Washington. Here’s a plot summary, courtesy iMDB:

After a senator suddenly dies after completing (and sealing) an investigation into the nuclear power industry, the remaining senator and the state governor must decide on a person who will play along with their shady deals and not cause any problems. They decide on Billy Jack, currently sitting in prison after being sent to jail at the end of his previous film, as they don’t expect him to be capable of much, and they think he will attract young voters to the party. Billy is pardoned, released and nominated, after which he begins his duties. He soon notices that things aren’t right, and starts trying to find out just what is going on.

Now, there’s a movie with everything Hollywood loves: sleazy corporations, sleazy politicians, a wronged “little guy,” vengeance, etc., etc. etc. I’m glad I missed it.

The director and star of the movie was Tom Laughlin. Other than making “B” movies, his claims to fame seem to be that he beat up Gene Wilder (when he and Wilder were in high school) and garnered 147 votes in the 2004 New Hampshire primary.

Oh, and the producer of the movie was none other than Frank Capra Jr. A rather little chip off the old block.

No Wonder Families Are Fleeing the Cities

Headline: Child Population Dwindles in San Francisco

What?

San Francisco has the smallest share of small-fry of any major U.S. city. Just 14.5 percent of the city’s population is 18 and under.

It is no mystery why U.S. cities are losing children. The promise of safer streets, better schools and more space has drawn young families away from cities for as long as America has had suburbs.

But kids are even more scarce in San Francisco than in expensive New York (24 percent) or in retirement havens such as Palm Beach, Fla., (19 percent), according to Census estimates.

Why? This is part of it:

San Francisco’s large gay population — estimated at 20 percent by the city Public Health Department — is thought to be one factor…. [No kidding!]

Then, there’s this:

Another reason San Francisco’s children are disappearing: Family housing in the city is especially scarce and expensive. A two-bedroom, 1,000-square-foot starter home is considered a bargain at $760,000.

And this:

Determined to change things, Mayor Gavin Newsom has put the kid crisis near the top of his agenda, appointing a 27-member policy council to develop plans for keeping families in the city.

“It goes to the heart and soul of what I think a city is about — it’s about generations, it’s about renewal and it’s about aspirations,” said Newsom, 37. “To me, that’s what children represent and that’s what families represent and we just can’t sit back idly and let it go away.”

Newsom has expanded health insurance for the poor to cover more people under 25, and created a tax credit for working families. And voters have approved measures to patch up San Francisco’s public schools, which have seen enrollment drop from about 62,000 to 59,000 since 2000.

One voter initiative approved up to $60 million annually to restore public school arts, physical education and other extras that state spending no longer covers. Another expanded the city’s Children’s Fund, guaranteeing about $30 million a year for after-school activities, child care subsidies and other programs.

“We are at a crossroads here,” said N’Tanya Lee, executive director of the nonprofit Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth. “We are moving toward a place where we could have an infrastructure of children’s services and no children.”

“Children’s services” cost money, which requires higher taxes, which in turn will drive more young, middle-class families out to the suburbs. But “city planners” just don’t get it:

Other cities are trying similar strategies. Seattle has created a children’s fund, like the one in San Francisco. Leaders in Portland, Ore., are pushing developers to build affordable housing for families, a move Newsom has also tried.

Why should families stay in the city?

They can enjoy world-class museums, natural beauty and an energy they say they cannot find in the suburbs.

Well, the enjoyment of museums and so-called beauty doesn’t happen through osmosis. It takes an active effort. The same enjoyment can be had by occasionally commuting into the city from the suburbs. As for “energy,” that’s just another word for crime, pollution, congestion, and weird people.

Lamm (Sort Of) Lays It on the Line

Richard Lamm, a Democrat with impeccable civil rights credentials, who has taught at the University of Denver since 1969 (except for 12 years when he was Colorado’s governor) has this to say (punctuation errors in the original):

Most discussion of minority failure blames racism and discrimination. I m an old civil rights lawyer and such racism and discrimination clearly still exists. But the problem is, I fear, deeper than the current dialogue. We need to think honestly about these problems with new sophistication. One of these new areas is to recognize that increasingly scholars are saying culture matters.

I m impressed, for instance, that minorities that have been discriminated against earn the highest family incomes in America. Japanese Americans, Jews, Chinese Americans, and Korean Americans all out-earn white Americans by substantial margins and all have faced discrimination and racism. We put Japanese Americans in camps 60 years ago and confiscated much of their property. Yet today they out-earn all other demographic groups. Discrimination and racism are social cancers and can never be justified but it is enlightening that, for these groups, they were a hurdle, not a barrier to success.

The Italians, the Irish, the people from the Balkans America has viewed all these groups and many more with hostility and suspicion, yet all have integrated and succeeded. Hispanic organizations excuse their failure rates solely in terms of discrimination by white America and object vociferously when former Education Secretary Lauro Cavazos observes that Hispanic parents don t take enough interest in education. But Cuban Americans have come to America and succeeded brilliantly. Do we discriminate against Hispanics from Mexico but not Hispanics from Cuba?

I suggest that those groups whose culture and values stress delayed gratification, education, hard work, success and ambition are those groups that succeed in America regardless of discrimination. I further suggest that, even if discrimination was removed, other groups would still have massive problems until they develop the traits that lead to success. Asian and Jewish children do twice as much homework as Black and Hispanic students, and get twice as good grades. Why should we be surprised?

A problem well defined is a problem half-solved. We must recognize that all the civil rights laws in the world are not going to solve the problem of minority failure. Ultimately Blacks and Hispanics are going to have to see that the solution is largely in their own hands.

The solution was taken out of their hands because Hispanics and Blacks (especially Blacks) have been the preferred targets of welfare and affirmative-action programs. Yes, culture matters, but Black and Hispanic culture has come to include a heavy dose of dependence on government. Dependency breeds dependency, not initiative. I wonder if Lamm can see that, or if he thinks the solution is simply a different kind of special treatment?

Base Closure: A Model for Entitlement Reform?

President Bush has pre-empted a stalling tactic by Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) by appointing a nine-member base closure commission while the Senate is in recess. The BRAC process (for Base Realignment and Closure) is aimed at taking local politics out of base closure decisions. BRAC was used in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995. Here’s how it works (adapted from Kenneth R. Mayer’s article, “The Limits of Delegation: The Rise and Fall of BRAC,” Regulation, Fall 1999):

  • An independent Base Closure and Realignment Commission surveys existing bases, working from a list of closures recommended by the Department of Defense, and identifies the facilities that could be closed or moved without reducing the combat readiness of the armed forces.
  • The commission then forwards a list of recommendations to the president, who can approve or disapprove the list, as a package.
  • If the president approves the list, it goes to Congress.
  • Unless Congress passes a joint resolution of disapproval within 45 days, the Secretary of Defense hads the authority to carry out the closures.

The process, in other words, requires the president and Congress to take a package deal, rather than tweak it to serve particular interests — local constituencies, in the case of base closings. (As Meyer explains, President Clinton, unlike Presidents Reagan and Bush 41, did inject local politics into the 1995 BRAC process. No surprise there.)

It is tempting to consider the use of similarly empowered independent commissions to find solutions to other politically explosive issues — Social Security and Medicare, for instance. But Mayer throws cold water on that notion:

The use of an independent commission may mask, but cannot eliminate, the fundamental tension between the interests of local constituencies [or interest groups: ED] and the broader “public benefit.” The resort to an independent commission is an attempt to take the politics out of politics and substitute a superficially rational process for a purely parochial one. Such an effort is not always effective — as we have seen even in the case of BRAC — nor is it always desirable.

Critics argue that an independent commission is simply political cover for legislators who are too timid to make their own choices. By delegating controversial decisions to a nonelected board or agency, legislators hope to evade both responsibility and accountability.

The limited success of independent commissions [which Mayer details: ED] stems from the basic parameters of congressional delegation. Delegation does not work unless legislators cede their power to make after-the-fact decisions. But the broader or more controversial the policy, the less likely it is that legislators will agree to cede that power. And rightly so.

Mayer may be right, but at this point I’d gladly see Congress appoint a Social Security-Medicare commission modeled on BRAC. Would it be a constitutional delegation of congressional power? Well, if BRAC is constitutional (and it seems to be), almost any kind of delegation is constitutional. (For the constitutionally fastidious among you, I offer two scholarly takes on the constitutionality of delegation.)

Bankruptcy Reform Update

I’ve updated an earlier post about the bankruptcy-reform bill that’s making its way through Congress. An e-mail from a reader prompted the update.

Oops. I remembered a point I meant to make in the first update, so now there’s a second update.

And a third one.

The Bankruptcy Bill in Perspective

UPDATED THRICE, BELOW

The bankruptcy-reform bill, as described in an article by Stephen Laboton of The New York Times:

The Senate assured final passage of the first major overhaul of the nation’s bankruptcy laws in 27 years on Tuesday….

The bill would disqualify many families from taking advantage of the more generous provisions of the current bankruptcy code that permit them to extinguish their debts for a “fresh start.” It would also impose significant new costs on those seeking bankruptcy protection and give lenders and businesses new legal tools for recovering debts.

…The senators…voted 69 to 31 to limit debate and cut off any effort to kill the legislation by filibuster.

Final passage of the measure is now an inevitable formality.

Good.

Of course, there’s the usual hand-wringing from the usual sources:

“This bankruptcy bill is mean-spirited and unfair,” said Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts. “In anything like its present form, it should and will be an embarrassment to anyone who votes for it. It’s a bonanza for the credit card companies, which made $30 billion in profits last year, and a nightmare for the poorest of the poor and the weakest of the weak.”

Hmmm….In other words, it’s okay for some people to rack up credit-card debt and then dishonor their obligation to repay that debt. (Think of it as a financial Chappaquiddick.) The result, of course, is that other people wind up subsidizing the deadbeats through higher prices and interest rates.

And how does Teddy K. know how much profit credit-card companies ought to make? The market should determine that, not Senator Stumblebum. If the profits of credit-card companies are “too high” it’s only because banking regulations restrict competition. But Teddy and his ilk never saw a regulation they didn’t like. Teddy has himself to blame for those “high” profits that he finds so offensive.

The bottom line: Bankruptcy reform will make goods, services, and credit somewhat cheaper for responsible citizens. And it will make responsible citizens out of many who otherwise would have racked up too much debt, knowing there was an easy way out it. Seems like a win-win situation to me.

UPDATE: And if you think otherwise, you’re just another addict of the regulatory-welfare state. As I have written:

Unless Americans become aware of the extremely high and largely hidden cost of the regulatory-welfare state, they will remain addicted to it. For reliance on government is an addictive drug — and a very expensive one. We swallow each dose in the hope that it will make us secure, and when that dose doesn’t make us secure we swallow another dose, in the hope that that dose will make us secure. And on and on. In the end, we are left with nothing but a costly addiction to government that impairs our liberty therefore ruins our economic health.

What Americans have failed to understand, is that there is less risk of coming to harm in a free-market economy — where individuals have an incentive to take care of themselves — than there is of coming to harm in the regulatory-welfare state. (See my series of posts on “Fear of the Free Market,” in three parts; my post on “Free Market Healthcare“; and my post on “Why Class Warfare Is Bad for Everyone.”) Free people do not stay mired in poverty and tend not to repeat their mistakes, if they are allowed to learn from those mistakes. (See my posts about income inequality.)

The price of addiction (from the same post):

  • Real GDP (in year 2000 dollars) was about $10.7 trillion in 2004.
  • If government had grown no more meddlesome after 1906, real GDP might have been $18.7 trillion (see first chart above).
  • That is, real GDP per American would have been about $63,000 (in year 2000 dollars) instead of $36,000.
  • That’s a deadweight loss to the average American of more than 40 percent of the income he or she might have enjoyed, absent the regulatory-welfare state.
  • That loss is in addition to the 40-50 percent of current output which government drains from the productive sectors of the economy.

And that is the price of privilege — of ceding liberty piecemeal in the mistaken belief that helping this interest group or imposing that regulation will do little harm to the general welfare, and might even increase it.

Those who favor the regulatory-welfare state — in any of its manifestations — effectively favor the ill fortune of all their fellow citizens. That is either grossly immoral, grossly ignorant, or grossly stupid — take your pick.

UPDATE II: Those who believe the canard that medical bills are a major cause of bankruptcy should read this post by Gail Heriot at The Right Coast, and follow the links. Even if medical bills were a major cause of bankruptcy (which they’re not), the cause of high medical costs in the United States is an artifact of the regulatory-welfare state:

  • High demand is fuelled by taxpayer-subsidized healthcare facilities, laws mandating access to emergency rooms, and government “insurance” programs (e.g., Medicare and Medicaid). “Free” care and subsidized premiums discourage self-rationing.
  • High demand is further fuelled by tax laws that encourage employers to offer subsidized health-insurance plans, many of which must render certain legally mandated benefits. Self-rationing is discouraged by the low premiums and co-payments that result from employer subsidies.
  • On the supply side, there’s restrictive licensing (favored by the various “unions”: doctors, hospitals, etc.) and slow FDA approval of new drugs.

Artificially high demand plus artificially low supply equals higher healthcare costs for all, including those persons who actually need healthcare.

The solution to the minuscule problem of bankruptcies caused by medical bills — and to the real problem of high medical costs — isn’t laxer bankruptcy laws, it’s less government interference in health care.

UPDATE III: The inestimable David Broder, reliable purveyor of leftish conventional wisdom, doesn’t like the bill (my comments bolded in brackets):

This “reform,” which parades as an effort to stop folks from spending lavishly on themselves and then stiffing their creditors by filing for bankruptcy protection, is a perfect illustration of how the political money system tilts the law against average Americans….[It is an effort to discourage deadbeat-itis, whatever else it may be. You can’t take that away, David. As for the “political money system,” money always talks; the answer to “money in politics” isn’t the impossible dream of less money, it’s less government power.]

Few policy battles draw enough public and press interest for the legislators to feel real scrutiny — Social Security being a current example. Most are in a netherworld, where media coverage is cursory and interest groups’ pressure determines the outcome. That’s how bankruptcy reform made it through the Senate, and why it will soon pass the House and be signed into law by President Bush. [Oh, do you really think so? Smacks of sour grapes to me. Lots of things get passed by Congress without a lot of media coverage. You win some, you lose some.]

The recent decade’s rise in the number of bankruptcy cases has been dramatic, and it is not difficult to find cases of abuse. But most bankruptcy petitions are filed by people with real financial problems, often the result of family illness, divorce or loss of jobs. [But “they hired the money,” as Silent Cal used to say. Personal responsibility implies prudent planning.] This bill will make it harder for everyone — chiselers and innocent victims alike — to get a clean start on their future without the overhang of mounting interest payments on unpaid credit cards and other debt…[As I said above: good. There’ll be one less moral hazard on the golf course of life.]

[W]hen an amendment was offered to restrict so-called “asset protection trusts,” used by wealthy individuals to shelter their portfolios from creditors, it was rejected. Five states — Alaska, Delaware, Nevada, Rhode Island and Utah — have changed their laws to let people who live anywhere in the country establish trusts of unlimited size that cannot be reached by federal bankruptcy proceedings. The amendment would have limited this “millionaires’ loophole” to $125,000.

But Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the bill’s chief sponsor, intent on blocking any amendment that might prove indigestible in the House, said, “This is an issue that just needs more time for us to determine whether there is an abuse that needs to be corrected.” With no more debate, it was rejected.

These amendments came from the liberal camp — senators such as Edward Kennedy, Russ Feingold, Richard Durbin and Charles Schumer — and were easily dismissed by the Republican majority. Even more instructive was what happened when a conservative, Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, tried to put a little balance into the bill.

As attorney general of Texas, Cornyn said the Enron bankruptcy case “opened my eyes to a very real abuse in the current bankruptcy system,” the loophole that allows corporations to go “judge-shopping” for jurisdictions with permissive standards. Enron, which had 7,500 employees in Houston, filed for bankruptcy in New York, where it had 57 workers, because New York, along with Delaware, is known as being lenient on big business.

Congress recently passed a law restricting plaintiffs in class-action suits from judge-shopping in the state courts, and Cornyn argued that it should also require corporate bankruptcy cases to be filed in their principal place of business. Citing cases of Polaroid, K-Mart, WorldCom and Enron, he said the judge-shopping loophole “serves to unfairly enable corporate debtors to evade their financial commitments.”

No one rose to dispute Cornyn. So what happened? He withdrew the amendment, without a vote, “out of respect to the managers of this bill who say that amendments to this bill would endanger its ultimate passage.” [I agree that no one should get a special break when it comes to honoring debt. Absolutely, no question. But let’s take half a loaf rather than none. The present version of bankruptcy reform may not be perfect, but it’s a step in the right direction. The alternative of no reform is worse, unless you’re a class-baiting liberal like Broder.]

Practical Libertarianism for Americans: Part V

V. THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF LIBERTY

This is an excerpt of Part V of a nine-part work in progress. I welcome constructive criticisms and suggestions. Please send an e-mail to: libertycorner-at-sbcglobal-dot-net .

Absent the welfare-regulatory state, most of the poor would be rich, by today’s standards. And those who remain relatively poor or otherwise incapable of meeting their own needs — because of age, infirmity, and so on — would reap voluntary charity from their affluent compatriots….

[A]t the onset of the Great Depression — Americans and American politicians lost their bearings and joined Germany, Italy, and Russia on the road to serfdom. Most Americans still believe that government intervention brought us out of the Depression. That bit of shopworn conventional wisdom has been debunked thoroughly by Jim Powell, in FDR’s Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression, and Murray N. Rothbard, in America’s Great Depression. The bottom line of FDR’s Folly is stark:

The Great Depression was a government failure, brought on principally by Federal Reserve policies that abruptly cut the money supply; unit banking laws that made thousands of banks more vulnerable to failure; Hoover’s tariff’s, which throttled trade; Hoover’s taxes, which took unprecedented amounts of money out of people’s pockets at the worst possible time; and Hoover’s other policies, which made it more difficult for the economy to recover. High unemployment lasted as long as it did because of all the New Deal policies that took more money out of people’s pockets, disrupted the money supply, restricted production, harassed employers, destroyed jobs, discouraged investment, and subverted economic liberty needed for sustained business recovery [p. 167].

All we got out of the New Deal was an addiction to government intervention, as people were taught to fear the free market and to believe, perversely, that government intervention led to economic salvation. The inculcation of those attitudes set the stage for the vast regulatory-welfare state that has arisen in the United States since World War II….

You know the rest of the story: Spend, tax, redistribute, regulate, elect, spend, tax, redistribute, regulate, elect, ad infinitum. We became locked into the welfare state in the 1970s…, and the regulatory burden on Americans is huge and growing. The payoff:

  • Real GDP (in year 2000 dollars) was about $10.7 trillion in 2004.
  • If government had grown no more meddlesome after 1906, real GDP might have been $18.7 trillion (see first chart above).
  • That is, real GDP per American would have been about $63,000 (in year 2000 dollars) instead of $36,000.
  • That’s a deadweight loss to the average American of more than 40 percent of the income he or she might have enjoyed, absent the regulatory-welfare state.
  • That loss is in addition to the 40-50 percent of current output which government drains from the productive sectors of the economy.

And that is the price of…ceding liberty piecemeal in the mistaken belief that helping this interest group or imposing that regulation will do little harm to the general welfare, and might even increase it….

The next several years will see a showdown between the forces of darkness and the forces of progress in America. The forces of darkness — having already greatly diminished the general welfare in the name of improving it — will seek to tighten the shackles of the regulatory-welfare state in the name of environmentalism. The forces of progress will seek to tame the regulatory-welfare state — if not repeal it. But they will be labeled evil, greedy, know-nothings for trying to protect us generally from the predations of the welfare-regulatory state and particularly from the ravages of environmental hysteria. As Ludwig von Mises put it:

[I]f a revolution in public opinion could once more give capitalism free rein, the world will be able gradually to raise itself from the condition into which the policies of the combined anticapitalist factions have plunged it.14 [Quoted by Bryan Caplan.]

I am doubtful of a revolution in public opinion, especially because it would require a revolution in elite opinion and in the media — both of which are in thrall to the god of the regulatory-welfare state.

As I will argue in Part VI, we have come to our present state because public opinion, elite opinion, and the media have combined to undo the great work of the Framers, whose Constitution prevented tyranny by the majority. Unchecked democracy has become the enemy of liberty and, therefore, of material progress. As Michael Munger says, “The real key to freedom is to secure people from tyranny by the majority, or freedom from democracy.”

The last best hope for liberty and prosperity lies in the neutralization of public opinion through a renewal of constitutional principles. I’ll have more to say about that in Parts VII and VIII.

Click here for the full text of Part V.

The Stupid Party

Orin Judd, writing at Tech Central Station, observes of the Democrat Party’s suicidal behavior:

[W]e should be reluctant to label a whole political party “stupid.” But the only other description that seems to fit this behavior pattern is insanity: doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result. So, take your pick, stupidity or insanity?

And the right answer is: stupidity. As I have shown, the right is smarter than the left.

Great Minds Agree, More or Less

UPDATED, BELOW:

Randy Barnett, writing at The Volokh Conspiracy, says:

In hindsight, I think that the creation of the Libertarian Party has been very detrimental to the political influence of libertarians. Some voters (not many lately) and, more importantly, those libertarians who are interested in engaging in political activism (which does not include me) have been drained from both political parties, rendering both parties less libertarian at the margin….

While some libertarian political activists are certainly Republicans and Democrats, the existence of the Libertarian Party ensures that there are fewer activists and fewer voters in each major party coalition than would otherwise exist. Therefore, each party’s coalition becomes less libertarian. I do not mean to exaggerate the extent of this effect. But even a handful of political activists in local and state party organizations can make a big difference. Whatever one thinks of the initial creation of the Libertarian Party, its continued existence seems to be a mistake for libertarians.

Here’s my take (from October 26, 2004):

Max Borders, writing at Jujitsui Generis, says:

A viable Libertarian Party is going to have to change its ways: 1) its platform, i.e. to moderate its views; 2) it’s [sic] image, i.e. of geeks and pot-smokers; and 3) maybe even its name and brand, i.e. a name and brand sullied by 1 and 2.

Here’s a better plan. Don’t run LP candidates for office — especially not for the presidency. Throw the LP’s support to candidates who — on balance — come closest to espousing libertarian positions. Third parties — no matter how they’re packaged — just don’t have staying power, given the American electoral system. The LP’s only hope of making progress toward libertarian ideals is to “sell” its influence to the highest bidder.

My approach would keep the LP intact, as an ideological center of gravity for politically active libertarians, who would determine which major-party candidates and causes are worthy of endorsement and active support. It seems to me that such a scheme would give libertarian ideas greater visibility and leverage than the alternative posed by Barnett.

Given a say in the matter, I would argue that the LP ought to lean toward Republican candidates and causes, for reasons I have discussed in earlier posts (here, here, and here):

[L]ibertarians and conservatives generally see eye-to-eye on so-called social programs, affirmative action, Social Security reform, school vouchers, campaign-finance laws, political correctness, and regulation. Libertarians will never see eye-to-eye with conservatives on all issues, but it seems to me that they see eye to eye on enough issues to make a political alliance worthwhile.

If libertarians were pragmatic they would adopt this view: An alliance with conservatives is, on balance, more congenial than an alliance with liberals because conservatives are closer to being “right” on more issues, and their theocratic leanings are unlikely to prevail (the social norms of the 1940s and 1950s are gone forever). If libertarians were to approach conservatives en bloc, libertarians might be able to help conservatives advance the causes on which there is agreement. If libertarians were to approach conservatives en bloc, libertarians might be able to trade their support (and the threat of withdrawing it) for influence in the councils of government. Libertarians could use that influence to push conservatives in the right direction on issues where they now differ with conservatives.

Many libertarians will reject such a strategy, but they would be wrong to do so. We will never attain a libertarian nirvana — whatever that is — but we can advance some libertarian causes. We shouldn’t let the “best” be the enemy of the “good.”

* * *

Getting the left (i.e., Democrats) to buy into economic liberty may prove to be just as hard as getting Republicans to buy into gay marriage, abortion, and decriminalization of drugs. Bill Clinton alienated much of his party by supporting welfare reform and NAFTA. He also raised taxes (against Republican opposition), tried to nationalize medicine by the back door after his 1993 plan failed (thanks to Republicans), and seldom saw a regulation he didn’t like (whereas the Bush administration has slowed the pace of regulation considerably).

Are Democrats likely to offer us another “Clinton” (but not Hillary) anytime soon? Perhaps the results of the 2004 election will cause them to do so. But that prospect doesn’t do much to brighten my day. Social freedom has advanced markedly in my lifetime, in spite of rearguard efforts by government to legislate “morality.” Government control of economic affairs through taxation and regulation has advanced just as markedly, especially under Democrats.

In sum, libertarians may be repulsed by the moralists who have taken over the Republican Party, but that moralizing, I think, is a lesser threat to liberty than regulation and taxation. For that reason — and because Republicans are more likely than Democrats to defend my life — I’m not ready to give up on the GOP.

* * *

I view a stable society as a necessary condition of liberation. Stability helps to ensure that we keep the liberation we’ve gained as individuals, without sacrificing other values, such as the prosperity we enjoy because of somewhat free markets and the security we enjoy because we remain resolute about fighting criminals and terrorists.

Of course, there is such a thing as too much stability. For example, a society that frowns on actions that do no harm to others (e.g., a white person’s trading with or marrying a black person) and then uses the government to bar and penalize such actions is not conducive to liberty.

But efforts to secure personal liberation can be destabilizing, and even damaging to “liberated” groups, when “liberation” proceeds too swiftly or seems to come at the expense of other groups (e.g., the use of affirmative action to discriminate in favor of blacks, the insistence that marriage between man and woman is “nothing special” compared with homosexual marriage). For, as I said here, “[t]he instincts ingrained in a long-ago state of nature may be far more powerful than libertarian rationality.”

Where does that leave libertarians? Well, it leaves this libertarian rather more sympathetic to conservatives, who are more reliable than leftists about defending life and economic liberty….

When I say “defend my life,” I mean on city streets as well as overseas.

…I think libertarians have a lot to lose by throwing in with leftists. And they probably have nothing to gain that won’t be gained anyway, as society proceeds — in its glacial way — to liberate individuals from the bonds of repressive laws.

Why should libertarians make a Faustian bargain with the left to achieve personal liberation — which, with persistence, will come in due time — when the price of that bargain is further economic enslavement and greater insecurity?

UPDATE:

For corroboration, I turn to Philip Klein’s “Rifts and the Right” at Tech Central Station:

Whether libertarians like it or not, cultural issues most likely did more to reelect President Bush than enthusiasm for Social Security reform.

This does not mean that libertarians who want to influence conservative thought should throw their hands up in despair. A debate that has echoed in conservative and libertarian enclaves on the Internet over the past few days has focused on the rift between the two groups, but there is a common ground to be had. To achieve this common ground, libertarians must acknowledge that values are important and conservatives must push to remove government from the values debate.


Libertarians should realize that it is not, by definition, a contradiction of limited government principles to suggest that the erosion of traditional values has had adverse effects on American society. In fact, the existence of a culture that fosters shared values is essential to a free society….


The problem with social conservatives lies not in their ultimate goal of strengthening families or in their belief that religion has an important role to play in society, but in their means of getting what they want. If conservatives believe in small government, they can’t make an exception on social issues.


Almost every major “values” issue originates from the government being overly involved in areas it shouldn’t be in. The debate over stem-cell research is spurred by government involvement in medical research. School prayer is controversial because parents are denied control over their education dollars….


Libertarians and conservatives share a common interest in getting the government out of people’s lives while preserving the values on which this country was founded.

As I wrote in Part IV of “Practical Libertarianism for Americans“:

Forbearance from meddling in the socio-economic order implies laissez-faire, except to prevent or remedy an actual harm….As Hayek pointed out, liberty requires a degree of stability in society; otherwise, how can you decide, with any degree of confidence, what sort of life and livelihood to pursue? Of course, there can be such a thing as too much stability (as Hayek also argued), as well as too much instability. Thus it is equally damaging to liberty to use the law to bar interracial marriage, to foster affirmative action as it is practiced in the United States, to prohibit smoking on private property, or to regulate economic activity on the basis of environmental hysteria rather than sound science.

To paraphrase what I wrote here, you may want government to meddle in certain private matters because that meddling seems to advance liberty. But it should bother you that government can just as easily restrict liberty, all in the name of meeting a pressing social or economic need. Government has taken liberty down a slippery slope, and every instance of meddling — always for a “good” cause — creates a precedent for another step down the slope. It all reminds me of this exchange from Act I, Scene 6, of Robert Bolt’s play about Sir Thomas More, A Man for All Seasons:

Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law.

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that.

More: Oh? And when the last law was down–and the Devil turned round on you–where would you hide? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

Support Homeschooling

WriteWingNut, a homeschooler and co-blogger at Blogger News Network, writes about “Homeschooling and Socialization.” There’s much to be said in favor of homeschooling as an antidote to public education. But teachers’ unions and their allies (notably the Democrat Party) have a lot of political clout, which they wield almost ceaselessly in an effort to undermine homeschooling.

Just take a look at the website of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), for a taste of the legal hurdles that homeschoolers face or are threatened with. Here’s what HSLDA is and does:

Home School Legal Defense Association is a nonprofit advocacy organization established to defend and advance the constitutional right of parents to direct the education of their children and to protect family freedoms. Through annual memberships, HSLDA is tens of thousands of families united in service together, providing a strong voice when and where needed.

HSLDA advocates on the legal front by fully representing member families at every stage of proceedings. Each year, thousands of member families receive legal consultation by letter and phone, hundreds more are represented through negotiations with local officials, and dozens are represented in court proceedings. HSLDA also takes the offensive, filing actions to protect members against government intrusion and to establish legal precedent. On occasion, HSLDA will handle precedent-setting cases for nonmembers, as well.

HSLDA advocates on Capitol Hill by tracking federal legislation that affects homeschooling and parental rights. HSLDA works to defeat or amend harmful bills, but also works proactively, introducing legislation to protect and preserve family freedoms.

HSLDA advocates in state legislatures, at the invitation of state homeschool organizations, by assisting individual states in drafting language to improve their homeschool legal environment and to fight harmful legislation.

HSLDA advocates in the media by presenting articulate and knowledgeable spokesmen to the press on the subject of homeschooling. HSLDA staff members are regularly called upon for radio, television, and print interviews, and their writings are frequently published in newspapers and magazines across the country. HSLDA’s own bimonthly magazine, The Home School Court Report, provides news and commentary on a host of current issues affecting homeschoolers. And its two-minute daily radio broadcast, Home School Heartbeat, can be heard on nearly 500 radio stations.

HSLDA advocates for the movement by commissioning and presenting quality research on the progress of homeschooling. Whether it’s in print, from the podium, or on the air, HSLDA provides insightful vision and leadership for the cause of homeschooling.

You can support HSLDA’s worthy efforts by shopping online through its Clicks for Homeschooling page:

Did you know that you can support homeschooling just by using the links on this page or special QuickLinks set from this page to get to your favorite online retailers? That’s right, the online retailers on this page will give a portion of your online purchase amount back to HSLDA for the work of the Home School Foundation. So next time you want to shop online, please come to this page first or use one of our QuickLinks to get to the online retailer. It’s easy and you will be helping the Home School Foundation support homeschooling through its Special Needs Children’s Fund, Widows Curriculum Scholarship Fund, and its other funds.

The list of participating retailers includes many familiar names (e.g., Amazon.com, Circuit City, Home Depot, Toysrus.com, and Wal-Mart.com). From now on, I’m going first to the Clicks for Homeschooling page before I shop online.

(Thanks to my daughter-in-law for the tip about HSLDA.)

Lincoln, the Poet President

Abraham Lincoln ended his First Inaugural Address (March 4, 1861) with these words:

We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address (November 19, 1863) is no less majestic:

…we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Lincoln’s poetry soared again in his Second Inaugural Address (March 4, 1865), weeks before Lee surrendered to Grant (April 9, 1865):

Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

The Politician: The Pathological Pursuit of Power

Joel Bakan’s The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power is creating a bit of a stir. And no wonder, given its premise (from the jacket):

Bakan contends that the corporation is created by law to function much like a psychopathic personality whose destructive behavior, if left unchecked, leads to scandal and ruin.

In the most revolutionary assessment of the corporation as a legal and economic institution since Peter Drucker’s early works, Bakan backs his premise with the following claims:

The corporation’s legally defined mandate is to pursue relentlessly and without exception its own economic self-interest, regardless of the harmful consequences it might cause to others — a concept endorsed by no less a luminary than the Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman.

The corporation’s unbridled self-interest victimizes individuals, society, and, when it goes awry, even shareholders and can cause corporations to self-destruct, as recent Wall Street scandals reveal.

While corporate social responsibility in some instances does much good, it is often merely a token gesture, serving to mask the corporation’s true character.

Governments have abdicated much of their control over the corporation, despite its flawed character, by freeing it from legal constraints through deregulation and by granting it ever greater authority over society through privatization.

Despite the structural failings found in the corporation, Bakan believes change is possible and outlines a far-reaching program of concrete, pragmatic, and realistic reforms through legal regulation and democratic control.

Bakan would be on the right track if, instead, he were to make these claims:

The politician’s license — granted by the “living” Constitution — is to pursue relentlessly and without exception his power to control our peaceful pursuit of happiness, regardless of the harmful consequences it might cause — a concept endorsed by no less than three dozen Congresses, a dozen presidents, and dozens of Supreme Court justices.

The politician’s unbridled self-interest victimizes individuals, society, and, when it goes awry, even the purported beneficiaries of his insatiable thirst for control.

While the acts of government in some instances are necessary to the security of life, liberty, and property, most politicians — especially those of the left — do not even pretend that the scope of government power should be restricted to those necessary functions.

Elected officials and judges, sworn to uphold the Constitution, have violated their oaths of office innumerable times, by freeing government from its constitutional constraints and by granting it almost dictatorial authority over society through legislation, regulation, and adjudication.

(Thanks to Verity at Southern Appeal for the tip.)