Ballentine's Libertarian Blog

Did policy makers finally figure it out? It seems the military is finally attempting to find and create jobs for Iraqis. The Washington Post says:

Members of a small Pentagon task force have gone to the most dangerous areas of Iraq over the past six months to bring life to nearly 200 state-owned factories abandoned by the Coalition Provisional Authority after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Their goal is to employ tens of thousands of Iraqis in coming months, part of a plan to reduce soaring unemployment and lessen the violence that has crippled progress ...

Was this not obvious? Millions of unemployed and impoverished young male Iraqis... to what institutions are they supposed to turn? Religion? Not in our best interest. Terrorism? Even worse.

As countries get rich, they tend to become less radicalized, more middle class, and more democratic. Think Weimar Republic Germany: the country is economically devastated, has no intact infrastructure, is undergoing hyper-inflation, and is spending all its revenue on reparations (paying the Allies back for causing WWI). The economically impotent men of Germany turn to the military, blame the Jews for their problems, and resort to war and ethnic cleansing. In Iraq, the men turn to the insurgents and extremists, engage in sectarian violence, and resort to plunder and ethnic cleansing.

These dangerous situations aren't started because of evil populations or radical religions: they are caused by economics.

The way to endear yourself in the hearts and minds of the people isn't through romanticized ideals and guns: it is through material assistance. That is why Hezbollah enjoys such grassroots support in Lebanon: Hezbollah is Lebanon's welfare system. They help people get jobs, and give money to those in need. Unfortunately, its goals aren't admirable. Similar to this were the political machines of the 19th and early 20th centuries (Tammany Hall in NYC, for example): they used social welfare to capture the votes of the poor. Is there a compelling reason why we can't employ the same tactics for worthy goals?

Why it took this long for policy makers to figure out they should attempt to get people employed is very confusing to me. Let's put these people back to work as soon as possible, so they don't have time or reason to engage in dangerous activities.

For those of you who aren't aware, recent years have seen the "militarization of law enforcement and the dramatic rise in the use of paramilitary police units for routine police work." Reminiscent of authoritarian states? Yep. Check out this map of recent raids to see just how pervasive this behavior has really become. I was specifically shocked when I filtered for "innocents killed" and received a large number of cases.

Here's a good summary of the issue from the (go figure) Executive Summary of Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America by Radley Balko.

These increasingly frequent raids, 40,000 per year by one estimate, are needlessly subjecting nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders, and wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes invaded while they’re sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed paramilitary units dressed not as police officers but as soldiers. These raids bring unnecessary violence and provocation to nonviolent drug offenders, many of whom were guilty of only misdemeanors. The raids terrorize innocents when police mistakenly target the wrong residence. And they have resulted in dozens of needless deaths and injuries, not only of drug offenders, but also of police officers, children, bystanders, and innocent suspects.

the most recent of which being this one:

November 21, 2006—GA

Acting on a tip from a confidential informant, police conduct a no-knock raid on the home of 88 year old Kathryn Johnston.

Johnston, described by neighbors as feeble and afraid to open her door at night, opens fire on officers as they burst into her home. Three of the officers are wounded before Johnston is shot and killed.

Relatives say that Johnston lived alone, and legally owned a gun because she was fearful of intruders. She lived in the home for 17 years. Police claim that they find a small amount of marijuana in Johnston's home, but none of the cocaine, computers, money, or equipment described in the affidavit that was used to obtain a warrant.

There are now allegations of a police cover-up.

Three police were shot by an 88 year old woman? Not only are these raids unethical, but they kinda suck at 'em, huh? Commentary on the issue courtesy of Tim Lynch from Cato-at-liberty:

Yesterday, [Thursday of that week] NYT columnist Bob Herbert observed (subscr. required) that the New York City cops involved in Monday’s controversial shooting of an 88 year-old woman have still not been questioned by internal affairs detectives. Compare that situation with a John Q. Citizen who claims to have shot someone in self-defense. The cops want to question John Q. as soon as possible — especially before he “lawyers up,” as they say on TV. By the same logic, internal affairs investigators should want to quickly question cops who are involved in questionable shootings.

But they don't, because of favoritism and a terrible double-standard.

(First, I actually just skimmed through the 54 minute Murtha-Abscam video, and the guy is clearly not a moral man. It saddens me that these are the people running our government... that he has been reelected 14 times.)

I just finished reading a policy report on Iran that discussed deterrence and preventive war as the two foreign policy options as Iran nears nuclear armament. The author argues that neither choice is attractive, but deterrence is the lesser of the two evils. If you are interested in the issue, I'd recommend the whole thing: it is a sobering picture of an Iran and the region that most Americans do not undertsand well. Otherwise, read the executive summary, and the concluding section, "The Potential Benefits of War versus the Potential Benefits of Deterrence," it is two pages worth of reading.

The policy report also includes these two paragraphs where the author discusses how the Iranians might take certain events in the US out of context, as he argues we do with internal Iranian events... the whole thing is very reminiscent of the Cold War. It seems hard to refute that cultural misunderstanding and miscommunication causes a sizable percentage of foreign policy strife. Note the presence of "Republican senators Sam Brownback and Rick Santorum, as well as Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican National Committee" at this very radical gathering.

"Finally, as hawkish American pundits repeat the bizarre and seemingly apocalyptic statements of Iranians to advance the case for war, they would be well-served to consider how hawkish Iranians could make much the same arguments about certain worldviews that are prevalent in America and enjoy influence in Washington. For one example, the evangelical preacher John Hagee has published a top-selling book titled Jerusalem Countdown, in which he uses biblical prophecy to advocate an apocalyptic showdown wherein Israel and the United States join in a preventive war against Iran, which will be, in Hagee’s telling, the fulfillment of God’s will. Ultimately, according to Hagee, the war will provoke Russia to lead a group of Arab nations into war against Israel and the United States, and this will hasten the second coming of Christ, wherein Hagee and his followers will be granted eternal life.

Hagee has now formed a lobbying organization, Christians United for Israel (CUFI), which is designed to advance his apocalyptic visions. At CUFI’s kickoff banquet, the 3,000 attendees heard speeches from Republican senators Sam Brownback and Rick Santorum, as well as Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican National Committee. Subsequently, CUFI has enjoyed remarkable access to the Bush administration, including a series of off-the-record briefings on Middle East policy at the White House with officials that the Bush administration refuses to name."

The incoming Democratic majority, of "the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history" fame, nearly appointed John Murtha as House majority leader. Murtha doesn't exactly have the cleanest record. Courtesy of Wikipedia, "In September 2006 the left-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) listed Murtha under Honorable Mention in its 20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress (one of only four Democrats listed on the site). The report cited Murtha's steering of defense appropriations to KSA Consulting, which employed his brother Robert, and the PMA Group, founded by Paul Magliocchetti, a former Murtha senior aide.^[5]"

Murtha was also embroiled in the 1980 Abscam investigation. The Economist's blog Democracy In America tells us, "In 1980, Mr Murtha was filmed telling undercover agents posing as Saudi sheikhs offering him a hefty bribe that he was "not interested...at this point." He was named as a co-conspirator in the Abscam scandal, but not indicted. He says it was all innocent, but the video doesn't look that way." From Wikipedia, "Murtha also brags about his power in Congress, ability to steer money where he wants it, and notes a specific bank he used for such activity." He also did not report the attempted bribe, which, unlike his other actions, was a clear violation of House ethics rules. Sadly, the House ethics committee declined to charge Murtha for his failure to report the bribe. They quickly shut down the investigation, causing the lead Abscam investigator to abruptly resign in protest.

If you don't believe corruption is a grave problem in American politics, know that of the 31 government officials targeted in the Abscam investigation, six Congressmen and five lower-ranking government employees were later convicted of bribery and conspiracy ... and some of those un-indicted, e.g. Murtha, acted dubiously.

As a side note, for those of you of comparable age and physical fitness to me, Murtha was one of only two Congressmen to vote for the reinstatement of the draft in 2004.

Not technically corruption, but gross misuse of taxpayer funds:

Citizens Against Government Waste names Mississippi Senators Thad Cochran and Trent Lott Porkers of the Month for the $700 million expenditure dubbed, in the vein of the $223 million Alaskan "bridge to nowhere," the "railroad to nowhere."

I'd like to share with you an excerpt from a past issue of Cato's Letter. The title is "Globalization is Grrreat!" (Mmm Frosted Flakes...):

Last year a Mayan friend who teaches anthropology in Guatemala took me to the Mayan highlands. He told me that anthropologists from Europe and the United States who want to “study” the Indians complain that many Mayan women don’t wear their beautiful and laboriously handmade indigenous clothing every day. That garb is increasingly reserved for special occasions, such as christenings and weddings. The reaction of the visitors is almost uniformly one of horror. The Mayans are being robbed of their culture, they say. They are the frontline victims of globalization and cultural imperialism.

 The visitors don’t bother to ask the Mayan women why many of them don’t wear traditional clothing, but my friend does. The women tell him that they don’t wear their handmade clothes because they have become too expensive. Now, what does it mean for handmade clothes to become too expensive? It means that the labor of a Mayan woman has become more valuable. Instead of spending hours and hours at a hand loom making a shirt to wear, she can spend that time making the same shirt to sell to a lady in France and use the proceeds to buy three outfits—and eyeglasses, or a radio, or medicine against dengue fever. Or women can make something else and still be able to buy more of the things they value. They’re not being robbed. They’re becoming wealthier. And from their perspective, that’s not a bad thing. But from the perspective of what my friend calls the anti-globalization “poverty tourists,” who like to take pictures of colorful poor people, it’s a big disappointment.

This excerpt from an isuse of Cato's Letter is by Tom Palmer, whom I had the pleasure of meeting this summer. He has an incredible ability to take complex topics and break them down succinctly, through straightforward, unadorned language and interesting anecdotes. I would highly recommend reading "Globalization is Grrreat!" if you have any doubts about the benefits of globalization.

If you are interested in reading more of Palmer's writing or his blog, check out: http://tomgpalmer.com/.

Also, subscribe via email to the quarterly Cato's Letter: it is short, informative, and only comes four times a year! You don't have any excuses not to.

For those of you that read my blog on the "sensationalism and hyperbole" that surrounds terrorism (and marriage!) today, here is one of many parallel lesson from history:

From: Jerry Taylor
Posted At: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 3:34 PM
Conversation: Cato-at-liberty
Subject: Apocalypse Cancelled

Remember in the 1990s, when the rainforests were alleged to be disappearing and forests of all kinds were being clear-cut around the globe at such an alarming rate that mass species die-offs were inevitable and the planet’s lungs would soon give out lest we, I don’t know, turn the globe into one giant Ted Kaczynski National Forest?

Well, it turns out that this is yet one more doomsday predication that won’t likely pan out. According to an article that appears today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 22 of the 50 countries around the world with the most forestland saw forest acreage expansions over the past 15 years, and most of the rest are transitioning from deforestation to reforestation. Now that’s out of the way, let’s move on to the next “end is near” prognostication ….

Read more

Free market solutions for more than poverty:

From: Free exchange
Posted At: Thursday, November 16, 2006 2:02 PM
Conversation: Free exchange
Subject: Heroes of that kidney
 

The Economist calls for a legal, well-regulated market in kidneys from living donors:

[H]aving a kidney removed is as safe as common elective surgeries and even beauty treatments (it is no more dangerous than liposuction, for example), which sets it apart from other types of living-organ donation. America already lets people buy babies from surrogate mothers, and the risk of dying from renting out your womb is six times higher than from selling your kidney.

 In America last year 4,039 people died waiting for a kidney. The Economist calculates that

if just 0.06% of healthy Americans aged between 19 and 65 parted with one kidney, the country would have no waiting list.

It cites Iran as a good example:

An officially approved patients' organisation oversees the transactions. Donors get $2,000-4,000. The waiting list has been eliminated.

But with free international trade, what would prove to be a market-clearing price? On the internet donors are asking anything from $10,000 to $250,000 for a kidney, seemingly at random. 

And why stop at kidneys? If courts can put a value on a human life, as they frequently do, should a person be free to sell their life for that value or higher?

Read more

I recently read a Reason Magazine article, Marital Mythology by Julian Sanchez, which was very enlightening. The article summarizes and explains two books, one concerning the evolution of marriage, and the other a discussion of marriage (or lack thereof) in low-income families.

I am already a supporter of gay marriage based on my libertarian, live-and-let-live personal moral code, and this excellent article provided a firm intellectual backing for gay marriage that I had not previously deeply considered. Sanchez’s discussion centers on the fact that, in the 5000 year evolution of the institution of marriage, the “most reliable constant is flux.”

(I also personally enjoyed Sanchez’s ironic humor: “for all the ink and pixels expended on the issue, no one has managed a compelling explanation of precisely how allowing more people to marry will induce fewer people to marry.”)

I especially enjoyed this section,
”If marriage now seems especially fragile, she argues, that’s not a function of public policy mistakes subject to easy political correction. It reflects underlying economic, legal, and technological changes that are, in themselves, mostly desirable. While not opposed to attempts to help couples craft stable marriages, she warns that “just as we cannot organize modern political alliances through kinship ties…we can never reinstate marriage as the primary source of commitment and caregiving in the modern world. For better or worse, we must adjust our personal expectations and social support systems to this new reality.”

That conclusion may seem excessively fatalistic, especially given Coontz’s own chronicle of marriage’s ability to adapt to changing circumstances. But it does encapsulate a core piece of Hayekian wisdom. Organic social institutions grow and evolve from the bottom up, as individuals change their behavior in light of the circumstances they perceive on the ground. Attempts to freeze or correct them in accordance with a Grand Plan—a vision of how they ought to function that views change as a dangerous deviation from an ideal—are no more likely to succeed for marriages than for markets.”

I suggest you read the whole article, as it provides a firm refutation of ultra-conservative claims that “the family as it has been known for more than five millennia will crumble, presaging the fall of Western civilization itself.”

© 2006 WebRing Inc.                   The Individualist Ring [ Join Now | Ring Hub | Random | << Prev | Next >> ] Search

Sorry I missed a few days; "life" got in the way, as it were. I'd like to bring to everyone's attention, if you didn't hear, that the economist Milton Friedman passed away this past week. He was a champion of liberty, and worked tirelessly for free markets and especially school choice. He was a leading member of the "Chicago School" of economics, which helped bring about the popular downfall of Keynesian economics. However, I'd like to point out that in my 12th grade economics class only two years ago, we were taught exclusively Keynesian methods, and even watched a movie from the ~1970s hailing his accomplishments... possibly why Friedman pushed so hard for school choice! It just shows you how far public schools have fallen behind the times.

Friedman also popularized the now widely-accepted notion that the Great Depression was not caused by market failure, but by poorly-timed, stringent monetary policy, courtesy of the Federal Reserve. (Even the current Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke, has recognized this) Read more about this great man here, courtesy of the New York Times.

Also, read this blog from Reason Magazine:

From: Gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie)
Conversation: Reason Magazine - All Reason Articles from the Past Year: Page 1
Subject: O, Christmas Tree! O, Illegal Immigrants that Help You Grow Straight and Tall!
 

So what kind of crap is the lame-duck Congress contemplatin' this holiday season? Stuff like House Joint Resolution 96, which recognizes the "contributions of the Christmas tree industry" to the well-being of these United States.

The resolution was introduced by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) and concludes after a long litany of industry-loving chestnuts:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress--

(1) recognizes the important contributions of the live-cut Christmas tree industry, Christmas tree growers, and persons employed in the live-cut Christmas tree industry to the United States economy; and

(2) urges the Secretary of Agriculture to establish programs to raise awareness of the importance of the live-cut Christmas tree industry.

.... For reals? Congress continues to make a mockery of our political system.

A government-run monopoly of education may just be the worst idea going down in America today. This is a nice, easy introduction to the subject if you aren't familiar with it, or if you think a public education monopoly is a good idea (Liz Walker...):
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10623

An issue to keep your eyes on in the near future: free trade. The new Congress looks to be very anti-free trade. Cato (primary libertarian think-tank), the Economist, the Wall Street Journal and others have commented on this scary development. Cato says,
            Make no mistake, the incoming Congress looks like it will be less amenable to trade liberalization than the last.                   Many friends (or, at least, non-enemies) of free trade in the last Congress have been replaced by “fair-trade”                     Democrats who have lamented the trade policies of the Bush Administration and seem keen to provide more                         “oversight” (read: populist obstructionism) on trade issues in the future.
Just another reminder of the problem libertarians have with the Democrat/Republican decision. Democrats are going to take your economic freedoms, and Republicans are going to take your social freedoms. It seems that by voting for the Democrats in this election, which exit polls show libertarians largely did, libertarians merely switched the favored area of oppression, and didn't gain any freedom for the American people.

On the other hand, it is reassuring that those with libertarian ideals, estimated at ~10-15 of the popular vote, have become an important swing constituency. Hopefully this will mean the parties will be forced to cater more to libertarian ideals.