Tuesday, February 24, 2009

"Do You Libertarians Have a Better Idea?"

http://mises.org/story/3316
We libertarians can seem a contrary bunch -- we spend much time pointing out the foolishness and dangers in so many public policy proposals and actions by the pro-government parties (the Democrats and the Republicans) -- that it can seem like we ourselves don't have any ideas to propose instead. It's not true (mainly because nobody's listening when we start explaining what *should* be done), but it can seem that way.

The governments trillion-dollar Stimulus packages these days are, regrettably, not likely to be effective -- certainly, they won't be remotely as affective as they are expensive. 

So, you may ask -- what would you Libertarians do? We have to do SOMETHING!

Of course, the FIRST thing we have to do, in a crisis like this, is NOT DO THE WRONG THINGS that will just make everything worse. We have to resist being panicked into doing things that may help today but will make us very sorry tomorrow. 

But in addition to that, there are things we *should* do, and this article in the Mises daily blog enumerate them. (They refer to it as "Austrian" ideas -- that refers to the school of economics that Libertarians embrace, the school of economics cofounded by Ludwig von Mises and others.)

Here is the opening paragraph, in case you hesitate to click the link above:

"Do You Austrians Have a Better Idea?"

Mises Daily by  | Posted on 2/2/2009 12:00:00 AM

A lot of people get annoyed with Austrian economists because they tend to be so dogmatic (we prefer the term consistent) and because they cloak their strictly economic claims with self-righteousness (we prefer the term morality). After a good Austrian bashing of the latest call to steal taxpayer money and waste it on something that will make a given problem worse, the stumped critics will often shout, "Oh yeah? Well do you guys have a better idea?"

Now, in truth, someone doesn't have to have a better suggestion in order to point out that a recommended strategy will exacerbate the situation. If an allergic man has been stung by a bee, I don't know what to do except rush him to the hospital and maybe scour the cupboards looking for Benadryl. But I'm pretty sure drawing blood from his leg, in order to inject it into his arm and thus "stimulate his immune system," is a bad idea on numerous accounts — not least of which, is that I'm pretty sure an allergic reaction means your immune system needs to calm down. But the point is, if a bunch of guys hold the man down — he has to be forced to endure the procedure for his own good, don't you know — I feel perfectly qualified in yelling, "Stop!"

If you grasped that analogy, you can understand my feelings about anything Paul Krugman writes.

---------------------

The author goes on to make a number of suggestions, which I will simply list. If these sound nuts to you -- and only a libertarian wouldn't think so -- I sincerely hope you will go click through and read the article to see why they aren't nuts -- but are the only sensible suggestions you are likely to hear about this crisis.

1. Do nothing. That is, Do No Harm.

2. End personal and corporate income taxes. No, really. (Did you know the government took in $1 trillion last year from other than personl and corporate income taxes? No? You have much to learn.)

3. Dismantle the Social Security system -- eventually, not right now as it would be obviously too disruptive. But head in that direction.

4. While the enormous stimulus effects of ending personal and corporate income taxes are solving our financial crisis and bringing in more tax revenues from other sources, cut federal government spending by $1 trillion, over several years. Remember that when Libertarian Party candidate Ron Paul, some years ago, was asked "If as a Libertarian you oppose income taxes, how will you pay for the government?" He responded, "Well, I wouldn't pay for *this* government...." It's true that if the government keeps increasing spending by a multiple of inflation year after year (as it has been doing for decades), you reach a point where only confiscatory taxes can bring in the needed money. This government is simply unaffordable, is the point. (Can't lose a trillion dollars, you think? Funny -- just ten years ago, the federal budget was a trillion dollars less than it is now. Think about that for a minute....)  While expenditures are being cut, raise more money by selling off the lengthy list of governmental assets the government shouldn't own at all.

5. Cut expenses by eliminating, for example, the DEA (drug admin), which obviously doesn't do any good. And the SEC, which costs us billions but failed to catch Bernie Madoff, which is supposed to be its reason for existence. There are many other major federal programs we should think twice about, like the Dept of Education, which ensures that we'll never give a good education to our kids, especially our poor minority kids. Cut the Pentagon budget in half -- that would save a quarter-billion dollars right there. Worried that we won't have enough? Our annual budget for defense is $500 billion; China's, Russia's, France's, Iran's, Iraq's, Britain's, Italy's, Germany's, North Korea's, Japan's are all $50 billion or less each. Our defense budget is larger than the combined budgets of the next ten countries. Think twice before listening to Republicans who tell you we have to spend more, not less. 

6. End the stimulus packages. Tell the Big Three car companies, and the banks, and the investment firms: This is a capitalist country; make money, keep it; lose money, eat it. Keeping alive Undead Companies is a formula for never coming out of the recession. Just think what Ford, the only US car company that isn't broke (yet), would look like if GM and Chrysler went out of business, or drastically reduced? Ford would soar! So would Toyota and Honda, which make most of their US-bound cars right here in the U.S., with US employees.

7. Legalize all immigrants who have jobs and pay taxes. We need jobs and taxes; if they're working, that's good, not bad. 

Go for it! If you keep doing the same old things, if you keep BELIEVING the same old JERKS with the same old self-benefitting ideas, you'll keep getting the same results. Want radically different results? Take a closer look at some radical ideas -- especially ideas that weren't radical when our Founders thought them up.

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Obama's Change: New Boss, Same As Old Boss

Now THIS is good!

and sad....



"If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got."
    -slogan of a previous LIbertarian Party candidate for president, explaining why you shouldn't just vote Democrat or Republican again and again...

Of course, to be fair, Obama's thinking probably goes: Under Clinton, we somehow (the operative word: somehow--they don't have any idea actually *how*) had a solid economy and minimal debt with (yay Demos!) rising government spending! If we hire a bunch of Clinton's people, maybe they'll magically produce the same result! 

Even though they don't know how they produced the result last time.

This is called Magical Thinking.

Monday, February 9, 2009

Stimulus Disaster: "Obama's Wealth Destruction"

Mises Daily Commentary - Posted on 2/9/2009

President Obama is under the impression that history owes him $1 trillion right now to spend on whatever he wants. His language is strident and full of irritation that anyone would question his right to live out his personal dream of being Franklin Roosevelt to George Bush's Hoover. This, he says, is what the election was all about.

The arrogance reminds me of George Bush after 9-11, who similarly believed that history owed him a gargantuan war in the tradition of FDR. And look how that arrogance led to disgrace and loss, as he unwittingly presided over the destruction of American prosperity while searching for bugbears abroad.

It just goes to show you that the presidency is something like a drug. It makes people lose all connection to reality. Part of the reality that Obama needs to recognize is that the New Deal was a calamity far worse than the initial market downturn that began it. He needs to stop basing his policies on dumbed-down civics texts versions of events and consider the economic logic.


MORE AT: http://mises.org/story/3331


Three More Reasons to Oppose the Stimulus Package, Based on Statements By One of Its Supporters

I'll be posting a number of essays on why the stimulus package is a bad idea, why it won't work anyway, and what we SHOULD be doing. First, as a warmup, this from 'Hit & Run,' Reason.com’s staff blog

Three More Reasons to Oppose the Stimulus Package, Based on Statements By One of Its Supporters

1. Any spending bill this Mama Cass-sized should first be read by the people voting for it in Congress and by the people who will spend the rest of their lives paying for it. Supporters of the stimulus bill call it a "seismic shift in the role of government in our society." Isn't it worth taking more than what, two weeks to plow through the details? The only people who tell you to hurry up and buy now are scam artists. We're not on the Titanic, for god's sakes. Any more than we were last fall when Hank Paulson was crapping his pants on an almost hourly basis.

Read the rest here.

Friday, January 30, 2009

How to Sell a Mess: What "stimulus" advocates learned from the push for war with Iraq (Reason Magazine)

This timely article from Reason Magazine:
"How to Sell a Mess: What "stimulus" advocates learned from the push for war with Iraq"

When Washington makes a big decision—to pass the PATRIOT Act, to invade Iraq, to bail out Wall Street, to spend hundreds of billions "stimulating" the economy—the most important stage of the debate isn't the final agreement on what to do, but rather the establishment of an acceptable radius of disagreement, writes Jesse Walker. The goal, as in the current "stimulus" debate, is to establish that dissidents just don't deserve attention: that they're extremists, partisan flacks, or just not "serious."

http://www.reason.com/news/show/131332.html

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

The Obama Inauguration: Hopes Ride on Smart Guy; Time To Forgive?

My wife and I watched Barack Obama's inauguration this morning – I realized with surprise that this is the first inauguration I've seen. Didn't care about Bush's; was working when Clinton and Reagan came in; wasn't paying attention prior to that.

Nice that a million people can show up and, according to news reports, not a single person had to get arrested. 

The Man from We Hope

I didn't vote for Barack, I'm a Libertarian, not a Democrat or Republican, so I don't agree with the standard policies views he tends to take. But like a lot of us, I am rooting for him anyway. I hope he succeeds, because we need him to succeed – to move the economy in the right direction (or at least not screw it up; nobody really knows how to improve the economy, but there are lots of well-established ways to ruin it), to resolve our wars and our many foreign entanglements, and to move the federal government away from its intrusions on our liberties. And maybe—one can hope—to back the Presidency down from the power grabs of recent years. 

I hope he can do all this, or even make great strides in good directions. I hope he turns out to be the best president we've ever had, and earns a second term from it. Pulling out of the power dive we've gotten into, in so many areas of public life, is too important for partisan politics. 

Smart Guy

Can he do it? Nobody knows. But as one commentator remarked, when it comes to the economy, he hasn't said anything in particular to suggest he has any new ideas, or knows anybody with good new ideas, for fixing it; so far it's been a combination of conventional wisdom and FDR-style boosterism (which, judging by the record, simply doesn't work). He's lining up a bunch of Clinton-era bureaucrats, and that's either bad, or maybe it's good, considering the state of the economy under Clinton. 

Obama's a smart guy, that becomes clearer and clearer with every day. Notice how his election-day acceptance speech he performed without notes. Flawlessly, and eloquently. He gave his inauguration speech, which they say he wrote the day before, also without notes; it was likewise eloquent, well formed, sensible, clear, flowing – and flawless. This guy's smart. 

And his campaign was apparently one of the best-run campaigns ever. This guy is scary smart. Or maybe reassuringly smart. 

Time to Forgive.

One thing I hope his presidency does accomplish is changing the race debate (if you can call it a debate) once and for all. What I want to happen is this: I want Black America to forgive White America. 

We've made vast improvements in race relations, on a formal and on a day-to-day level, for the last fifty years. But the bitterness, the accusatory tone, the wagging finger, the blame game continues. Not surprising: Activists need to keep the guilt level high to keep moving forward, and fear backsliding. But fifty years of guilt-tripping gets old, it gets tired, and it risks backlash of its own. 

Black America has come a long way in fifty years. Now that we've elected a black President, I think it's time for black people finally to forgive white people. Forgive us for the crimes some of our ancestors committed against most of their ancestors. Forgive, and drop the excuses. We've carried the burden long enough, and far enough. My personal ancestors didn't come here until after slavery was over, and were themselves poorly treated in their home country; your ancestors were slaves but you weren't and your grandmother wasn't. And while bad effects follow such crimes, after 150 years and a black President, it's time to start over, launch a new era, and become one country. 

Cute Kid

Story is, while the Obama family was touring D.C. before the Inauguration, they stopped at the Lincoln Memorial and saw Lincoln's Inaugural Address carved on the side. Barack's older girl says, "You have to give one of them?", meaning an Inaugural Address. He says, Yes. 

She says "Humph. First African-American President. It better be good...." 

Smart kid. I wonder if we're seeing the glimmer of another future president there....

Mr. President. Hmmm...

I worry about the Imperial Presidency issue. Nothing isolates a high-level politician like being treated like royalty. And that starts with the 'Mr. President' convention. In DC you hear the story of Jack Kennedy, after his oath, ran into his colleague, Tip O'Neal--both were Massachusetts pols and old friends. Jack told him to still call him Jack -- O'Neal said no, it's Mr President - for the rest of your life.

This is bad. He's a human being, not a king, not royalty. The notion of respect for the office overcomes good sense. The office gets too damned much respect as it is, if you ask me. He's just the head of the executive branch of what is supposed to be a limited-government democracy. This compulsion to tug the forelock, which is obviously not limited to Brits, is a very bad habit. George Washington fought against it all his life. His successors don't. We should.

Friday, January 9, 2009

Oakland's Violent Protesters Need To Be Prosecuted

Just one question regarding the hijacking by violent demonstrators this week (Jan 2009) of the protest march in Oakland against the shooting of an innocent man by BART police: Will our outrage at this misbehavior be enough to actually result in prosecuting the hundred outlaws arrested?

If things go as the usually do in, say, San Francisco or Berkeley, in a few days the Oakland authorities will just drop the charges against most of the arrested and let them go. A handful will get a weekend or two in jail. None will be treated as if what they did is really an outrage. 

What message does *that* send? In San Francisco, it's "We're the violent-protest-friendly City!" This is not a message Oakland needs. Or any city, obviously.

Protesters know that in California, you can inconvenience and disrupt the community without consequence (except when police act out); authorities bluster their outrage, but prosecutors and judges open the jail doors en masse. The apparent excuse is that if the thing they are protesting is deplorable enough, they can take the law into their own hands, by their own authority, and destroy the property of innocent people -- as if this is some kind of appropriate tit-for-tat.

In Oakland, the protest organizers expressed outrage that their peaceful march was used as an excuse for violence. The only right thing to do is to treat this seriously--justice for the innocent victims, and justice for the protest organizers.