TT`s Lost in Tokyo : state

Does responding to climate change risks REQUIRE government?

TokyoTom — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:45:00 GMT

A reader of Bob Murphy`s recent post on climate science - "TokyoTom Moving the Goalposts?" - queried my views on whether perceptions of climate change problems themselves justified a need to establish government. I copy below my response (with a few typo and editorial changes):

"Do you believe that averting climate catastrophe is, by itself, justification for establishing a government?"

No, Taylor, I don`t see that a looming climate catastrophe (or other apparent catastrophe) by itself would justify the formation of a state. Absent governments, other voluntary responses would no doubt arise, and more quickly than when hampered by governments and rent-seeking.

"I am curious if you seek to use the government to solve this problem because it already exists and thus you see it as expedient and practical to do so"

My view is quite a bit more subtle. First, the fact of the matter is that we HAVE a government; even if we didn`t, we`d have to deal with the governments of other peoples on an issue such as this. Theoretically, in negotiations with others around the world regarding the atmosphere and climate, we might very well end up creating forms of government. Be that as it may, we cannot ignore that states exist; the question is in part whether we can put them to any good use, and in part how do we avoid making them worse.

Then again, our government has already helped screw up the issue in any number of ways. In my view, the focus should be as much on UNDOING what has been counterproductive and what libertarians have never supported. Those who don`t want to see MORE government should not be closing their minds to the fact of the status quo, and ought to see in concerns about climate change and resources issues (irrespective if the concerns are justified or not) an OPPORTUNITY to undo existing and damaging state actions.

See my point?

But in all this, libertarians rarely strive to be positive change agents, but instead have been almost wholly co-opted by rent-seekers who benefit from rights to pollute for free and barriers to entry under the status quo.

[A few lists of my many posts related to this subject can be found here, here and here.]

A few simple thoughts on the evolution of moral codes, and why we fight over them (and religion, liberty and the state)

TokyoTom — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 13:14:00 GMT

A recent post on the Mises Daily pages on the "Religious Roots of Liberty" by the late Congregationalist minister Rev. Edmund Optiz (1914-2006) (originially published in The Freeman, February 1955) provides an opportunity to restate and discuss some of the thoughts I`ve been working though on evolution, group dynamics, religion and on the assertions of some that there is an "objective moral order".

It seems like quite a bit to chew, I know, but I dared (with the modesty and boldness of the inexpert, of course) to venture a few thoughts.

I copy below some of my comments and related dialogue on the comment thread (minor edits):

TokyoTom
I see I`m late to this discussion, but I`ll note I was thinking related thoughts and just put up a blog post on the subject of evolution, group dynamics, religion and an "objective moral order" of the type that Gene Callahan and Bob Murphy assert but won`t trouble themselves to spell out; it`s here for those interested:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/08/28/fun-with-self-deception-those-who-espouse-an-quot-objective-quot-moral-order-act-refuse-to-elucidate-or-act-as-if-there-is-none.aspx

Briefly as to this piece by Rev. Optiz: while religion has undeniably played a crucial historical role in organizing Western society, and still plays an important role in the voluntary organization of society and, at times, in opposing state tyranny, we should try to understand the roots of religions, how they have been employed to organize us and how they have been abused to control us and to lead us into conquering and/or slaughtering rival groups, whether "heathen" or merely of a different sect.

Organized religions sprang from less-organized tribal faiths, and, like those faiths, served to improve group cooperation and cohesion. Groups successful in intergroup conflicts - largely by ruthlessly putting to sword those with different gods - brought their religions with them. This was certainly the case of the Hebrews; Christianity spread because an opportunistic Constantine found in it a useful way to enhance his power and to improve the cohesion of his troops and empire. Mohammed likewise saw in his visions and his experience with "people of the Book" a way to expand his own power and to unite Arabs (later Caliphs took this further to build empires).

Rev. Optiz is clearly right that, within religious societies, "the Book" served as a check on unwary secular leaders, who nevertheless always strove to coopt religious leaders. But modern secular society and the US political system are both far away from the Book, whether Biblical prescription or the Constitution. This leaves us vulnerable to the continued growth of the state, and to potential conflict as people look for group protection, inevitably in some in groups that preach exclusion rather than inclusion.
Published: August 28, 2009 11:23 AM

TokyoTom
"tyranny is always a denial — or a misunderstanding — of the mandates of an authority or law higher than man himself." [a quote from Rev.　Optiz]

Sorry, but while I believe in the laws of physics and am aware of the deep evolutionary roots of our need for various but mutually contradictory faiths, I see no "law" higher than man.

Rather, there has always been a tension between the individual, his needs for groups, and the restrictions and demands that others - including the leaders of the groups - wish to impose on him. What we call "tyranny" is simply the condition when individuals (and sub-groups) find the demands of the larger group (and those who marshall force) to be intolerable.
Published: August 28, 2009 11:33 AM

fundamentalistf
TT: " But modern secular society and the US political system are both far away from the Book, whether Biblical prescription or the Constitution. This leaves us vulnerable to the continued growth of the state..."

Very true. That's why we have witnessed the growth of the state correlating with the decline of traditional Christianity in the West. Unfortunately, atheists and agnostics are not siding with freedom; they are overwhelmingly socialist. So far, atheists and agnostics have faile miserably since the enlightenment at establishing freedom.

TT: “While I certainly agree that man has an exquisite moral sense, my own view is that that sense and capacity are something that we acquired via the process of evolution, as an aid to intra-group cooperation…”

So what you’re saying is that random mutations occurred that gave some individuals a moral code which in turn gave them a survival advantage. However, if you want to be scientific about it, you have to have some kind of evidence. Has anyone found the “morality” gene? Where is the evidence that morality has certain groups an advantge over those without the “morality” gene? It seems to me you are swallowing a great deal on pure faith.
But for the sake of argument, let’s assume you’re correct that morals are nothing but a random mutation that gave some humans an edge in surviving. Why are we bound to follow today such accidents that gave humans that advantage millions of years ago? That doesn’t mean they’ll give us an advantage today.

Besides, there has been some variation in morality over the centuries. Genghis Khan took great pride in slaughtering every person in a city he conquered and making mountains out of their skulls. Of course, there was the morality of Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Is it possible that several different genetic mutations occurred and caused these differing views on morality? If so, that means that our genes can’t claim that Hitler’s genes were immoral; they were just different.

As you can see, claiming genetic status for morality does not help escape the problems involved in moral relativity. If morality isn’t transcendant, that is, doesn’t come from some one with greater authority than man (or in your case an accident inside of man), then everyone is free to choose his own morality, even one that elevate murder to a sacred act.
Published: August 28, 2009 1:37 PM
fundamentalistf
PS,
TT, you'll find the answers to the questions you posted on your blog in the works of natural law philosophers. A good intro is "Natural Law and the Theory of Property: Grotius to Hume" by Stephen Buckle.
Published: August 28, 2009 1:40 PM

TokyoTom
Roger, thanks for your comments.

That's why we have witnessed the growth of the state correlating with the decline of traditional Christianity in the West.

While I agree about the vulnerability, I wouldn`t lay that as a principal cause for the growth of the Western state, for which I would simply point to a loss of control by Rome and greater technological means for coercion and influence. See Hayek.

atheists and agnostics are not siding with freedom; they are overwhelmingly socialist.

An interesting thought, but who supported all of nonsense of the Bush administrations? And certainly the vast majority of voters wouldn`t touch an atheist with a 10-foot pole. Anyway, what brings you to your conclusion?

So what you’re saying is that random mutations occurred that gave some individuals a moral code which in turn gave them a survival advantage. However, if you want to be scientific about it, you have to have some kind of evidence.

It doesn`t seem you`ve looked at my links; Yandle might make the most agreeable start.

Obviously things are more nuanced than your statement; we are close cousins of highly social animals (bonobos, chimpanzees and gorillas) that are highly socialable and display much of the same reciprocal behavior, including the means of enforcing it, and the disparate treatment of those less closely related or familiar and of those entirely outside the group (viz., the other or "enemies").

I`m merely postulating that human groups that proved better at internal cooperation were more likely to be successful when faced with environmental challenges and opportunities, and to pass their genes along, which gave rise to our innate sense of "fairness" and to tribal rules and religions. We clearly have much greater inherent abilities to cooperate; indeed, the relatively longer infancy and childhood of our species requires such cooperation. We are good not only at reading faces and the intentions of others, but signalling our own via various clues - including being unique among mammals in having white sclera, the better to show others what we`re thinking about: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/13/opinion/13tomasello.html. The fact that we give so much away is a strong indicating that doing so was to our advantage; viz., that we benefit from cooperation.

More proof of course can be easily seen in the fact that societies groups with greater internal cohesion tend to do well in inter-group competion. Such cohesion was foster by religions (which also fostered the formation of larger societies that were better able to engage in specialization), as well as by more basic tribal reactions that put group pressure on dissenting individuals.

Why are we bound to follow today such accidents that gave humans that advantage millions of years ago? That doesn’t mean they’ll give us an advantage today.

We can`t change human nature, but we can be aware of it, and we do, via culture (and formal/informal institutions, such as property) try to channel it productively and to dampen socially costly excesses. Much of this has not been a deliberate process, but simply a process of the survival of successful societies.

there has been some variation in morality over the centuries. Genghis Khan took great pride in slaughtering every person in a city he conquered and making mountains out of their skulls. Of course, there was the morality of Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

A close look at what you call variation in morality seems to me to be purely a cultural advance as societies extends their boundaries by created wider, more inclusive bonds, both through religion and law. But we have ALWAYS treated outsiders differently from insiders; moral codes were group codes that created few if any rights to or responsibilities towards outsiders. Few societies have blinked an eye at the slaughter of those considered to be outsiders; the same can still be seen in our blase lack of concern for the deaths of Iraqis generated by our toppling of Saddam (which has surely been orders of magnitude greater than ours), or for "collateral damage" in our pursuit of those whom we sometimes called "freedom fighters".

Has there been a continued evolution of man in the past few thousand years? Surely; we can see it the spread of lactose tolerance, for example. But as cultural standards are so important to morality, it is impossible for now to tease out a biological evolution in morality.

If so, that means that our genes can’t claim that Hitler’s genes were immoral; they were just different.

This is confused; we all have different genes, and the expressing of those genes (phenotype) is strongly influenced by culture, up-bringing and experience. But we do see generalizable differences in male and female behavior, for example; females had the job of raising children and protecting the hearth, while men and less to risk in struggles for power and more to gain in confronting out-groups.

Thus our societies have always had different moral codes for men and women, and our cold, mass-murdering marauders have always been men.

claiming genetic status for morality does not help escape the problems involved in moral relativity.

Agreed!

If morality isn’t transcendant, that is, doesn’t come from some one with greater authority than man (or in your case an accident inside of man), then everyone is free to choose his own morality, even one that elevate murder to a sacred act.

First, our undeniable reliance on communities for support is not an "accident", but is something that proved powerfully advantageous, just as it remains part of our genetic make up.

Second, certainly in many (if not most), killing outsiders (what we even today loathe to call "murder") has been sanctioned, perhaps even "sanctified" (an certainly the slaughter of outsiders has been frequently blessed by in-group moral/religious authorities) - which of course implies a group ethic and not a purely personal choice.

But of course, the looser societies are, the weaker the formal and informal group sanctions and more individuals are left to their own decisions. Thus, as the state has coopted and supplanted voluntary society, the more "immoral", licentious and selfish behavior that we see.

Finally, in my view morality has never truly been "transcendent", but is derived from a shared inheritance of strong interpersonal cooperation, further shaped by the groups within which we "grow up", which groups all have their own (and mutually contradictory) "sacred postulates".

TT

PS: Thanks for pointing to Buckle; my quick question would be whether "natural law" is something that applies to the behavior of all life forms, or simply man (and would blink out of existence if man were to).

Link to this post.

Legal resources on state-created limited liability for shareholders, consequences and reform

TokyoTom — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:25:00 GMT

Here, in chronological order, are some legal resources on state-created limited liability for shareholders: history, alternatives, consequences and reform: Christopher D. Stone, "The Place of Enterprise Liability in the Control of Corporate Conduct"...(read more)

Jared Diamond: Those in stateless societies "enjoy" lives that are murderous and short

TokyoTom — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:50:00 GMT

Jared Diamond has an interesting essay at the current issue of New Yorker, " Vengeance Is Ours ", that is worth considering. In the essay, Diamond not only describes the moral and political economy of cycles of personal and inter-tribal vengeance...(read more)

Almost levelled, West Virginia: Crooked justice allows mountain-top removal practices to freely injure homes and health

TokyoTom — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 13:15:00 GMT

... with the federal government, state and union all firmly in the pocket of coal firms. This seems to be a classic case, on a huge scale, of the difficulties individual property owners and communities face when confronting clearly wrongful acts by large...(read more)

Not Climate Change Welfare, But Capitalism and Free Markets

TokyoTom — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:26:00 GMT

... is what poor countries need. So corrrectly argues Keith Lockitch of the Ayn Rand Institute , in a new article that responds to the agreement, by the delegates of industrialized nations at the December climate change conference in Bali, to activate...(read more)

Harold Bloom: "The Fall of America"

TokyoTom — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:14:00 GMT

There's a short but good interview here of Harold Bloom, Yale literature professor and cultural critic (update: NOT to be confused with the long late Allan Bloom, author of Closing of the American Mind; my bad!): http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture...(read more)

Goering and Madison on War

TokyoTom — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:31:00 GMT

Having just stumbled across places where Lew Rockwell and others have done me the honor of posting three of my favorite quotes on war, I'd like to repeat those quotes here in the hope of increasing the likelihood that others might see them.

My favorite quotes on war are from Hermann Goering and James Madison:

Hermann Göring (dialog with interviewer Gustave Gilbert while the Nuremberg Trials were pending):

"'Why, of course, the people don't want war .... Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.'

"'There is one difference,' I pointed out. 'In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.'

"'Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.'"

Gustave M. Gilbert, The Nuremberg Diary, 1947.

James Madison:

"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."
---James Madison, Constitutional Convention [June 29, 1787]

"Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manner and of morals, engendered in both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

--James Madison, from "Political Observations," April 20, 1795 in Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, Volume IV, page 491. http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=875&chapter=63919&layout=html&Itemid=27

I first mentioned these on a Mises blog thread (in reaction to Lew Rockwell's "Blood on Their Hands" piece, http://blog.mises.org/archives/006825.asp); he separately posted these quotes on his website (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/014163.html).

War-profiteering and "Parasitic Imperialism"

TokyoTom — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:40:00 GMT

I posted the following in response to a piece by Glenn Greenwald:

War-profiteering is simply more Treasury-raiding by elites - at our cost and our children's. An economics professor at Drake (Ismael Hossein-zadeh, an ethnic Kurd from Iran, by the way) has some interesting and relevant thoughts in a well-reviewed book that came out last year called "The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism", http://www.amazon.com/Political-Economy-U-S-Militarism/dp/0230602282/ref=ed_oe_p/105-9360914-5760441. His web page, with links to recent writings, is here: http://www.cbpa.drake.edu/hossein-zadeh/default.htm

In a recent article "Parasitic Imperialism", Hossein-zadeh concludes (emphasis added):

"Although immoral, external military operations of past empires often proved profitable, and therefore justifiable on economic grounds. Military actions abroad usually brought economic benefits not only to the imperial ruling classes, but also (through "trickle-down" effects) to their citizens. Thus, for example, imperialism paid significant dividends to Britain, France, the Dutch, and other European powers of the seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries. As the imperial economic gains helped develop their economies, they also helped improve the living conditions of their working people and elevate the standards of living of their citizens.

"This pattern of economic gains flowing from imperial military operations, however, seems to have somewhat changed in the context of the recent U.S. imperial wars of choice, especially in the post-Cold War period. Moralities aside, U.S. military expeditions and operations of late are not justifiable even on economic grounds. Indeed, escalating U.S. military expansions and aggressions have become ever more wasteful, cost-inefficient, and burdensome to the overwhelming majority of its citizens.

"Therefore, recent imperial policies of the United States can be called parasitic imperialism because such policies of aggression are often prompted not so much by a desire to expand the empire's wealth beyond the existing levels, as did the imperial powers of the past, but by a desire to appropriate the lion's share of the existing wealth and treasure for the military establishment, especially for the war-profiteering Pentagon contractors. It can also be called dual imperialism because not only does it exploit the conquered and the occupied abroad but also the overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens and their resources at home.

"Since imperial policies abroad are widely discussed by others, I will focus here on parasitic military imperialism at home, that is, on what might be called domestic or internal imperialism. Specifically, I will argue that parasitic imperialism (1) redistributes national income or resources in favor of the wealthy; (2) undermines the formation of public capital (both physical and human); (3) weakens national defenses against natural disasters; (4) accumulates national debt and threatens economic/financial stability; (5) spoils external or foreign markets for non-military U.S. transnational capital; (6) undermines civil liberties and democratic values; and (7) fosters a dependence on or addiction to military spending and, therefore, leads to an spiraling vicious circle of war and militarism."

The vast amounts flowing to huge defense contractors in all states is the chief reason that the Dems refuse to stand up to Bush, and politics in Washington has generally become simply a fight over the spoils of the federal budget and other government largess. Because the Dems are not that much different, they have a tough time pretending that they are more responsible. And as the media is itself owned by large conglomerates, they have little interest in rocking the boat by standing up to either politicians, the military establishment or the corporate or Israel lobby, but are content to feed Americans pap, and individual reporters of course have more to gain from sucking up to the power brokers than in offending them.

Increasingly, elites are running the country for their own selfish interests. Wars and the fear they stir up better allows elites to further squeeze and control all of us (via the PATRIOT Act, domestic spying, data mining, a “Real ID” and citizen chipping, etc.).

By the way, Hossein-zadeh also specifically analyzed these factors with respect to Iran last year: "Behind the plan to bomb Iran" (8/31/06), http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14771.htm.

Greenwald's piece is here: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/29/iran/index.html; my initial posting is here: http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/29/iran/view/index34.html

Can a Free Society Solve Global Warming?

TokyoTom — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 03:28:00 GMT

Gene Callahan has an interesting post, entitled "How a Free Society Could Solve Global Warming", in the October 2007 issue of The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty, at the website of The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE): http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=8150.

I will revist this and post comments later.

Thanks to Fundamentalist, who brought this to our attention on the Malthus and Mein Kampf thread.

[Update:] It seems to me that one particularly interesting takeaway from Callahan's article is the following:

One way negative externalities can be addressed without turning to state coercion is public censure of individuals or groups widely perceived to be flouting core moral principles or trampling the common good, even if their actions are not technically illegal. Large, private companies and prominent, wealthy individuals are generally quite sensitive to public pressure campaigns.

To cite just one recent, significant example, Temple Grandin, a notable advocate for the humane treatment of livestock, asserts that McDonald’s is the world leader in improving slaughterhouse conditions. While many executives at the fast-food giant genuinely may be concerned with the welfare of cattle, pigs, and chickens, undoubtedly a strong element of self-interest is also at work here, as the company realizes that corporate image affects consumers’ buying decisions.

But that self-interest does not negate the laudable outcome of the pressure McDonald’s has applied to its suppliers to meet the stringent standards it has set for animal-handling facilities. Similarly, to the degree that the broad public regards manmade global warming as a serious problem, companies will strive to be seen as “good corporate citizens” that are addressing the matter. And this isn’t ivory-tower speculation on my part—I can see the “green friendly” ads already.

(emphasis added)

Francis Fukuyama hates America,

TokyoTom — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 11:32:00 GMT

and is now fervently praying that the Lilliputians tie down Gulliver, NOW. His latest post concludes:

"America’s founding fathers were motivated by a similar belief that unchecked power, even when democratically legitimated, could be dangerous, which is why they created a constitutional system of internally separated powers to limit the executive. Such a system does not exist on a global scale today, which may explain how America got into such trouble. A smoother international distribution of power, even in a global system that is less than fully democratic, would pose fewer temptations to abandon the prudent exercise of power.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C10%5C25%5Cstory_25-10-2007_pg3_5

Tribal pigheadedness: RedState bans Ron Paul supporters

TokyoTom — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 13:38:00 GMT

"The simplest way to explain the behavior of RedState [in banning Ron Paul supporters] is to assume that it doesn`t want to be controlled by a cabal of its enemies" (to misquote Thomas ;)). [The above and following are from a post I made with respect to the recent decision of RedState to refuse to allow Ron Paul supporters to comment about Ron Paul.

My post was here: http://techrepublican.com/blog/me-and-the-other-twenty-five-percent. And more here: http://techrepublican.com/blog/redstate-bans-ron-paul-supporters

http://redstate.com/blogs/leon_h_wolf/2007/oct/22/attention_ron_paul_supporters_life_is_really_not_fair

http://www.redstate.com/stories/miscellanea/with_regard_to_our_position_on_morons_and_the_unsolicited_media_attention_from_third_parties

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/015298.php

BTW, "Thomas" is an RS founder who commented on the techrepublican site. His home page is here: http://t-crown.blogspot.com/

Actually, because RS is very tribal, it doesn`t even want to LISTEN to those who disagree with its hawkish, big government/big defense ways. That`s why RS management and members reflexively see those who are turned off with what the Bush administration has wrought as "liberal" enemies rather than really engaging with the critique. To listen might require too much introspection, which must be avoided at all costs. As Lew Rockwell noted:

The conservatives ... want to evade responsibility for the results of the policies imposed by monsters that they themselves created. When the left does this, we know not to take it too seriously. If you give the state the right to expropriate all private property, you can't be too surprised when dictators take over. Similarly, when the whole of your intellectual enterprise has been wrapped up in celebrating the nation-state and its wars, condemning civil liberties, casting aspersions on religious liberty, and heralding the jail and the electric chair as the answer to all of society’s problems, you can't complain when your policies produce tin-pot despotic imperialists like Bush. You have no intellectual apparatus with which to beat them back.

The problem with American conservatism is that it hates the left more than the state, loves the past more than liberty, feels a greater attachment to nationalism than to the idea of self-determination, believes brute force is the answer to all social problems, and thinks it is better to impose truth rather than risk losing one soul to heresy. It has never understood the idea of freedom as a self-ordering principle of society. It has never seen the state as the enemy of what conservatives purport to favor. It has always looked to presidential power as the saving grace of what is right and true about America. I'm speaking now of the variety of conservatism created by William Buckley, not the Old Right of Albert Jay Nock, John T. Flynn, Garett Garrett, H.L. Mencken, and company, though these people would have all rejected the name conservative as ridiculous. After Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR, what's to conserve of the government? The revolutionaries who tossed off a milder British rule would never have put up with it.

For my part, I'm hoping that the whole conservative movement will go down in flames with the decline and fall of the Bush administration. The red-state fascists have had their day and instead of liberty, they gave us the most raw and stupid form of imperial big government one can imagine. They have given America a bad name around the world. They have bamboozled millions. They have looted and bankrupted the country. They have killed tens of thousands. If they don't crack up on their own, we must do what we can to discredit them and their ideology forever.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/conservative-hoax.html

Further:

Whereas the government is considered to be bubble-headed and ham-handed in domestic policy, in matters of foreign policy the government is suddenly imbued with virtuous traits such as courage. Taxes, in this case, are not a burden but the price we pay for civilization. The largest and most violent government program of all – namely war – is not an imposition with unintended consequences but an essential and praiseworthy effort at protection. I don't mean to pick on the right exclusively. The left often offers the inverse of this recommendation. They believe that the government can't but unleash Hell when it is waging war and spending on military machinery. But when it comes to domestic policy, they believe the same government can cure the sick, comfort the afflicted, teach the unlearned, and bring hope and happiness to all. Each side presumes that it potentially enjoys full control over the government it instructs to do this thing as versus that thing. What happens in real life, of course, is that the public sector – always and everywhere seeking more power – responds to the demands of both by granting each party's positive agenda while eschewing its negative one. Thus is the left given its welfare, and the right given its warfare, and we end up with a state that grows ever more vast and intrusive at home and abroad.

What neither side understands is that the critique they offer of the programs they do not like applies also to the programs they do like. The same state that robs you and me, ties business in knots, and wrecks the schools also does the same – and worse – to countries that the US government invades. From the point of view of the taxed, the destination of the money doesn't matter; it is all taken by coercion and all of it saps the productive capacity of society. Similarly, the state that uses military power to impose its imperial will on foreign regimes – destroying property and lives, and making endless enemies – is the one the left proposes to put in charge of our economic lives. ... It is undeniable that the warfare state will not restrict itself to harming and bullying foreign peoples. It always and everywhere does the same to the domestic population. It occupies us, attacks our property, ferrets out political enemies, and wages low-intensity warfare against us.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/two-brains.html

Ron Paul on the environment and energy

TokyoTom — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:16:00 GMT

1. There is an excellent interview of Dr. Ron Paul now up at Grist, the environmental news and commentary site, that explores some of his views on environmental and energy issues. I am with him in principle but think he has underestimated the seriousness of the climate change problem and not seriously thought through the issues yet.

http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/16/paul/

Selected remarks on international issues include the following (emphasis added):

"If it is air that crosses a boundary between Canada and the United States, you would have to have two governments come together, voluntarily solving these problems."

Q: "What's your take on global warming? Is it a serious problem and one that's human-caused?"

A: "I think some of it is related to human activities, but I don't think there's a conclusion yet. There's a lot of evidence on both sides of that argument. If you study the history, we've had a lot of climate changes. We've had hot spells and cold spells. They come and go. If there are weather changes, we're not going to be very good at regulating the weather.

"To assume we have to close down everything in this country and in the world because there's a fear that we're going to have this global warming and that we're going to be swallowed up by the oceans, I think that's extreme. I don't buy into that. Yet, I think it's a worthy discussion."

Q: "So you don't consider climate change a major problem threatening civilization?"

A: "No. [Laughs.] I think war and financial crises and big governments marching into our homes and elimination of habeas corpus -- those are immediate threats. We're about to lose our whole country and whole republic! If we can be declared an enemy combatant and put away without a trial, then that's going to affect a lot of us a lot sooner than the temperature going up."

Q: "What, if anything, do you think the government should do about global warming?"

A: "They should enforce the principles of private property so that we don't emit poisons and contribute to it.

"And, if other countries are doing it, we should do our best to try to talk them out of doing what might be harmful. We can't use our army to go to China and dictate to China about the pollution that they may be contributing. You can only use persuasion."

Q: "You have voiced strong opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. Can you see supporting a different kind of international treaty to address global warming?"

A: "It would all depend. I think negotiation and talk and persuasion are worthwhile, but treaties that have law enforcement agencies that force certain countries to do things, I don't think that would work."

Q: "You believe that ultimately private interests will solve global warming?"

A: "I think they're more capable of it than politicians."

Q: " What's your position on a carbon tax?"

A: "I don't like that. That's sort of legalizing pollution. If it's wrong, you can buy these permits, so to speak. It's wrong to do it, it shouldn't be allowed."

[Note: This seems ambiguous, but I suppose RP intended to disagree with the concept of permits as well as taxes.]

Q: "You've described your opposition to wars for oil as an example of your support for eco-friendly policies. Can you elaborate?"

A: "Generally speaking, war causes pollution -- uranium, burning of fuel for no good purpose. The Pentagon burns more fuel than the whole country of Sweden."

Q: "Do you support the goal of energy independence in the U.S.?"

A: "Sure. But independence does not mean to me that we produce everything. I don't believe governments have to provide every single ounce of energy. I see independence as having no government-mandated policy: If you need oil or energy, you can buy it."

Q: "What about being independent from the Middle East, so we're not buying oil from hostile countries?"

A: "I think it's irrelevant. We wouldn't be buying it directly, we would be buying it on the world market. I don't think the goal has to be that we produce alternative fuel so that we never buy oil from the Middle East. The goal should be to provide all useful services and goods through a market mechanism instead of central economic planning or world planning. That system doesn't work."

2. Dr. Paul also discussed energy and the environment in an interview in June, when he said the following:

Q: "Especially after the release of Al Gore’s global warming documentary, the environment has been very much on people’s minds. Where do you stand on global warming?"

A: "Global temperatures have been warming since the Little Ice Age. Studies within the respectable scientific community have shown that human beings are most likely a part of this process. As a Congressman, I’ve done a number of things to support environmentally friendly policies. I have been active in the Green Scissors campaign to cut environmentally harmful spending, I’ve opposed foreign wars for oil, and I’ve spoken out against government programs that encourage development in environmentally sensitive areas, such as flood insurance."

Q: How about KYOTO?

A: "I strongly oppose the Kyoto treaty. Providing for a clean environment is an excellent goal, but the Kyoto treaty doesn’t do that. Instead it’s placed the burden on the United States to cut emissions while not requiring China – the world’s biggest polluter – and other polluting third-world countries to do a thing. Also, the regulations are harmful for American workers, because it encourages corporations to move their business overseas to countries where the regulations don’t apply. It’s bad science, it’s bad policy, and it’s bad for America. I am more than willing to work cooperatively with other nations to come up with policies that will safeguard the environment, but I oppose all nonbinding resolutions that place an unnecessary burden on the United States.

http://www.teamliberty.net/id447.html

3. The New York Times has a new article on the views of the Republican candidates on climate change, but somehow they managed to miss Ron Paul:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/us/politics/17climate.html?bl&ex=1192852800&en=07847552491b852f&ei=5087%0A

Sophomoric optimism?

TokyoTom — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:39:00 GMT

Jon Bostwick agrees on another post that "Man is clever but not wise ("homo sapiens" is a misnomer)", but further comments (emphasis added):

"True. But humanity is wise. Men create cultures, economies and law.

"Man's flaw is that he is over confident of his own intelligence. He tries to control things he doesn't understand, like culture, economies, and law.

"You have just made an excellent case for why government involvement will not improve the environment. Because governments, like man, are not wise."

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/10/12/libertarian-reticience-other-than-to-bash-enviros.aspx

This is too simple, as well as self-contradictory. Humanity is wise because he collectively (but non-deliberately?) creates "cultures, economies and law" (let's not forget governments), but individuals are foolish when they seek to use institutions to achieve particular purposes?

Our states are merely one subset of the wide universe of formal and informal institutions through which we cooperate with one another. States are not a market, to be sure, but then neither are corporations, and there is a spectrum of ownership types between the two. We can study all of these institutions and use that knowledge to direct how we make use of them. Such study has informed, for example, the deliberate shifts in policy that have led to the ongoing (yet incomplete) privatization of the former USSR and of China.

A study of institutions governing common pool resources by guru Elinor Ostrom makes the following point:

"Whether people are able to self-organize and manage CPRs also depends on the broader social setting within which they work. National governments can help or hinder local self-organization. "Higher" levels of government can facilitate the assembly of users of a CPR in organizational meetings, provide information that helps identify the problem and possible solutions, and legitimize and help enforce agreements reached by local users. National governments can at times, however, hinder local self-organization by defending rights that lead to overuse or maintaining that the state has ultimate control over resources without actually monitoring and enforcing existing regulations.

"Participants are more likely to adopt effective rules in macro-regimes that facilitate their efforts than in regimes that ignore resource problems entirely or that presume that central authorities must make all decisions.If local authority is not formally recognized by larger regimes, it is difficult for users to establish enforceable rules. "

Elinor Ostrom et al., Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges, Science, 04/09/99 http://conservationcommons.org/media/document/docu-wyycyz.pdf

Was von Mises foolish to suggest we can use the state to reform our institutions?

“It is true that where a considerable part of the costs incurred are external costs from the point of view of the acting individuals or firms, the economic calculation established by them is manifestly defective and their results deceptive. But this is not the outcome of alleged deficiencies inherent in the system of private ownership of the means of production. It is on the contrary a consequence of loopholes left in this system. It could be removed by a reform of the laws concerning liability for damages inflicted and by rescinding the institutional barriers preventing the full operation of private ownership.”

http://mises.org/humanaction/chap23sec6.asp

And Cordato, for suggesting that Austrians take particular policy approaches to environmental issues?

"For Austrians then, public policy in the area of the environment must focus on resolving these conflicts over the use of resources that define pollution, not on obtaining an ultimately unobtainable "efficient" allocation of resources. ... For Austrians, whose goal is to resolve conflicts, the focus is on clarifying titles to property and rights enforcement.

http://mises.org/story/1760

Sorry, but I cannot believe that we are condemned always to repeat all mistakes, despite our rather constant human nature. Rather, as Yandle notes, our very history as a species is about our success in evolving, devising and adopting ways to manage shared problems. http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4064

This is a message of profound optimism, not cynicism --- said the fool.

Using the State to solve common resource problems?

TokyoTom — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:20:00 GMT

How exactly do you transfer commons into private ownership in a fair way, even for easily divided up stuff like land?

That's the trillion dollar question that someone asked me on a recent thread (http://blog.mises.org/archives/007152.asp#comments) regarding my suggestion that better definition and enforcement of property rights is key to addressing climate change and other environmental problems in the developing world. I have excerpted and augmented my response here:

Libertarians do not insist that open-access resources (or common property resources/CPR) be divided up by creating individual property rights; cooperative ownership via formal agreements or informally developed practices and customs (such those developed by Maine lobstermen, English angling clubs, indigenous peoples and Wikipedia and online communities) may work better at solving the prisoners' dilemma issues and are just as acceptable.

But technological advances and greater demand often swamp CPR regimes, so such regimes remain vulnerable if they are not accorded legal protection. My understanding of the UK enclosures in this regard is that they were actually a legislative theft of common property by the powerful.

Can states play positive roles in solving problems? At least internally, it is rather clear that the answer is that the state works best by allowing, and providing judicial mechanisms to enforce, private transactions, and works least well when it tries to specify detailed and rigid "solutions" itself - since the government itself never has perfect information, often plays favorites and once a regulatory regime is put in place, parties have no ability to work out their differences directly with each other, but are forever in the position of trying to influence the state and in adversarial positions vis-a-vis each other. But states can also play a positive role by disseminating information and by acting to facilitate deals between various resources users, particularly in cross-border/multi-state problems.

Elinor Ostrom is the guru of CPR regimes; anyone interested should look into her fascinating and highly-regarded work, particularly her seminal Governing the Commons (1990).

[She is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society, and a recipient of a number of prestigious awards. Her other books include Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources (1994); The Commons in the New Millennium: Challenges and Adaptations (2003); The Samaritan’s Dilemma: The Political Economy of Development Aid (2005); Understanding Institutional Diversity (2005); and Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice (2007).]

Here is one link to get readers started: Elinor Ostrom et al., Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges, Science 9 April 1999: http://conservationcommons.org/media/document/docu-wyycyz.pdf

Technology seems to provide us ability to create property rights regimes in ocean fisheries.

The stickiest problems are those where the resource is located in a country where we cannot ourselves create or enforce legal rights and in the atmosphere, which no one owns and to which all have access. Unfortunately, many libertarians don't even want to acknowledge, much less discuss, these problems. Since they are not confined to any one country, clearly we need to coordinate with others - for which purposes our state apparatus cannot be avoided.

Reaching any kind of effective solution for problems of this type will require much more focussed attention and bridge-building (abroad and at home), and if libertarians do not want to be part of the discussion, clearly they will have little influence on the results.

[Previously posted (with some tweaks) on a recent thread (http://blog.mises.org/archives/007152.asp#comments) in response to someone who is concerned about environmental problems but is unfamiliar with Austrian approaches.]