The increases in Roth IRA contribution limits, Health Savings Accounts, the tax-rate cuts, and the possible LSA’s and RSA’s are good, but we should all be wary of States bearing gifts. Though it may be difficult to see, The State, headed by President Bush, is eliminating many “loopholes” it previously created, upon astonishment that people are taking advantage of them. The most aggregious one is this:

For those whose interest in Ricardo has been stimulated by the ongoing trade discussion, Murray Rothbard discusses this on pp. 94-99 of Classical Economics: An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, vol. II (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 1995), arguing on the basis of new research by William O.

Some of the worst attacks on our personal freedom come in the form of edicts as to whom we can trade with, and whom we must make war on. This is referred to by the famous dictum attributed to Bastiat: “When goods are not allowed to cross borders, armies will.” The truth of the dictum has been demonstrated in history, both ancient and recent, time and again. Restrictions on trade between nations do indeed lead to wars, and while it is harder to observe, freedom to trade prevents wars.

Here is an English version of  my review of Hoppe’s  Myth of National Defense, which appeared in Frankfurter Allgermeine Zeitung, January 5, 2004 (from the German):

Brad DeLong, who is Keynesian, has an  interesting post from the Suskind/O’Neill book “The Price of Loyalty.” He titles his post: “Worst Presidential-Level Economic Policy Meeting Ever.” (I thought DeLong’s piece on the  erosion Okun’s Law was interesting too.)

Ilana Mercer has written an interesting, article, The criminal’s theoretical enablers. In it, she argues against the left-libertarian notion that punishment should be abolished in favor of restitution. She argues, rather, that restitution should supplement punishment. I would argue that, in reality, it should be the other way around: punishment should supplement restitution. This could be seen as splitting hairs, but I think that the importance placed on restitution vs. retribution is critical.

It is gratifying that so many libertarians took time to give me the benefit of their thoughts on my recent commentary about the case for free trade. I am grateful to the von Mises Institute for posting these comments and for forwarding to me additional comments excluded from posting by resource limitations. The numerous comments are a tribute to a lively and flourishing libertarian culture that was so sorely missing in America for so long.

I cannot answer everyone who offered points and posed questions. I will limit myself to generally addressing three confusions.

The Bush proposal to spend zillions to supposedly improve marriages is being sold mostly in the name of “saving” the marriages of low-income Americans. It’s a classic case, in other words, of Mises’s theory of interventionism: The welfare state has wrecked millions of marriages by eliminating the guilt from abandoning one’s own children, and high taxes and inflation have created unbearable financial pressures that have destroyed many other marriages.

Paul Craig Roberts submits that a country will be hurt by free trade if another country has an absolute advantage and there is total mobility of factors of production.

In his  latest version of the “problems with free trade” argument, PCR appears to grant that free trade is beneficial generally, but is only problematic when all (or nearly all) firms seeking cheap labor actually relocate to the cheap labor market country.