tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-200774442024-03-18T13:02:15.121-05:00Free AssociationProudly delegitimizing the state since 2005<br>
<br>"Aye, free! Free as a tethered ass!" —W.S. Gilbert<br><br>"All the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and . . . the State should be abolished." —Benjamin Tucker<br><br>
"You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." —James Madison<br><br>
"Fat chance." —Sheldon RichmanSheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.comBlogger2800125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-1981202193530230162024-03-18T04:55:00.002-05:002024-03-18T13:01:43.026-05:00Trump: Another Special-Interest-Pandering Politician<p>Trump promises to slam a <em>100-percent</em> tariff on [Update:] imported cars made in Chinese-owned factories in Mexico. He announced this not to a group of prospective car buyers but to a group of car makers. So what else is new? Car buyers, who outnumber the well-organized car makers but are not themselves organized, would have to pay more for cars <em>they do not want</em> if Trump got his way. That's the point.</p><p>This is America first? No, it is not. It is "An Interest Group Whose Votes I Want" First versus everyone else. That's always the case with protectionism. Stopping consumers from buying whatever they want helps some (in the short term) at the expense of the rest. Calling the favored group "America" is self-serving special pleading. Trump's good at that. He thinks he knows better than you.</p><p>Trump is just another special-interest-pandering politician. Many people are fine with that because they misunderstand markets and dislike foreigners. But as Adam Smith taught us long ago, the wealth of a nation is determined by the people's free access to the world's products and not by how much they are cut off from those products. We produce to consume. We don't consume to produce.</p><p>David Friedman cleverly points out that cars can be produced in two ways: the old-fashioned factory way and by, say, growing grain, loading it on ships headed to, say, Japan, and welcoming the returning car-laden ships. Both production methods are legitimate, and which one prevails should be left to free people making choices in a spontaneously ordered marketplace. Trump obviously never learned about the <a href="https://www.econlib.org/library/Topics/Details/comparativeadvantage.html">law of comparative advantage</a>.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/atom.xml" title="Atom feed">Atom</a></div>Sheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-40331877898466849982024-03-15T05:52:00.001-05:002024-03-15T05:52:49.517-05:00TGIF: Reverse Scapegoating in the Immigration Debate<p>In the controversy over immigration we can spot a phenomenon I call "reverse scapegoating." According to <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scapegoat">Merriam-Webster</a>, the scapegoat is "one that bears the blame for others." With reverse scapegoating, others bear the blame for one. Both are unjust.</p><p>Reverse scapegoating is clear in the demagoguery about "migrant crime," occasioned most recently with the murder Laken Riley. As the Associated Press <a href="https://apnews.com/article/laken-riley-university-georgia-death-nursing-student-a88e92600ab4dcce1a88e121b7b9c722">shouted</a> in a recent headline, "Killing of Laken Riley is now front and center of US immigration debate and 2024 presidential race." The 22-year-old Georgia nursing student's body was found after she had been beaten during a morning run. Very sad indeed.</p><p>Based on surveillance-camera footage, the AP reported, the police arrested "Jose Ibarra, 26, a Venezuelan citizen. Immigration officials say Ibarra entered the U.S. illegally and was allowed to stay. He unlawfully crossed into the U.S. in 2022, authorities said." Ibarra faces murder and other major charges.</p><p>Opponents of immigration are having a field day, none more than Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate. Even people who would have nothing to do with Trump echo his words. Trump reacted by saying, according to the AP roundup, “Crooked Joe Biden’s Border INVASION is destroying our country and killing our citizens! The horrible murder of 22-year-old Laken Riley at the University of Georgia should have NEVER happened! [Ibarra is] an animal that came in.” Naturally, Trump believes Ibara wouldn't have entered had Trump been in charge of the border.</p><p>In other words, the murder of this innocent woman allegedly by a migrant who entered the country without government permission papers <em>proves </em>that what's going on at the Mexican border is an existential threat to America and must be stopped by any means necessary.</p><p>The problems here should be obvious. First, it's not an invasion. Everyone knows that the word refers to a foreign military entering a country uninvited -- you know, as the U.S. military did in Iraq and Afghanistan or Russia in Ukraine.</p><p>Moreover, why should a horrific act allegedly committed by one person without papers tar others who had nothing to do with the crime? We know that most people who enter the country with or without papers commit no crimes. Rather, they produce value in the marketplace, benefitting us all, and strive for better lives. Why should the U.S. government condemn them to life sentences in the poorest, most war-torn, and least free countries when they could make up to 20 times as much money here? Of course, criminal suspects should not be immune from prosecution because of their immigration status.</p><p>Some statistics show that legal and illegal immigrants commit proportionately less crime than native-born Americans. I know many people won't believe it, but it seems to be true. (See, for example, Bryan Caplan's <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Open-Borders-Science-Ethics-Immigration/dp/1250316960"><em>Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration</em></a>, pp. 91-92. And Cato's Alex Nowrasteh's discussion <a href="https://www.cato.org/multimedia/media-highlights-tv/alex-nowrasteh-discusses-blog-post-illegal-immigrants-have-low">here</a>.)</p><p>We all know from historical experience that most immigrants are a net plus to us as they help themselves. A few commit harm, but native-born Americans harm innocent people every day. Some Americans, who freely travel from state to state and city to city without papers, commit horrific crimes. Should we ban or closely monitor interstate migration? How about freedom of reproduction? After all, some couples will produce future criminals. </p><p>A response might be, "If we can save one life...." But they don't mean it because if they did, they'd propose licensing reproduction, restricting domestic travel, reducing the speed limit to 10 miles an hour, and outlawing left turns. Many other intolerable ways of saving lives can be imagined. "But that would be extreme!" someone might say. And sentencing innocent people to lives of poverty, war, and tyranny is not?</p><p>As economist <a href="https://www.independent.org/store/book.asp?id=117">Benjamin Powell</a> points out, as long as America is a magnet for those seeking better lives, and as long as legal immigration is virtually ruled out for all but a few, a border problem will exist -- complete with traffickers' vicious exploitation. The source of the problem, however, is not immigration but bad policy. Again, as Powell says, this is like the prohibition of booze and drugs. When people want to do something peaceful that's against the law, they'll find a way to do it -- even if it's with the help of bad people who otherwise never would have gotten involved. Prohibition creates the crisis that politicians and voters are then determined to stop by any means no matter how cruel.</p><p>You don't like illegal immigration? Legalize it! End reverse scapegoating!</p><p>(For more, watch <a href="https://youtu.be/Ii9LLpEsbr0?si=iwSJRQW3l2FIQHNw">Bryan Caplan's</a> excellent video presentation of the case for open borders.)</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/atom.xml" title="Atom feed">Atom</a></div>Sheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-29149608755502472942024-03-14T10:30:00.002-05:002024-03-14T10:32:57.203-05:00Celebrating the Gaza Onslaught: Is There No Shame?To Israel's supporters: are you not ashamed when you see the videos that IDF soldiers make to celebrate the death, destruction, and humiliation they're inflicting on the people of Gaza? Some would call those soldiers "my people." We're talking about Abu Ghraib stuff here.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/atom.xml" title="Atom feed">Atom</a></div>Sheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-24846388809440740642024-03-13T11:52:00.000-05:002024-03-13T11:52:14.494-05:00Something to Agree on?<p>Can't we all at least agree that this was an extremely clumsy <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/jonathan-glazers-oscars-speech-against-israel-prompts-fierce-jewish-reactions/">sentence</a> from Academy Award-winning <em>Zone of Interest</em> director Jonathan Glazer that invited misinterpretation?</p><p style="padding-left: 40px;">Right now we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict for so many innocent people, whether the victims of October the 7th in Israel or the ongoing attack on Gaza.</p><p>I assume he meant that they repudiate (why would this British guy say "refute"?) Israel's hijacking both Judaism and the memory of Hitler's victims in a cause that has produced such horrible consequences for both the Israelis and Palestinians.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/atom.xml" title="Atom feed">Atom</a></div>Sheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-59063841939598428982024-03-09T05:11:00.002-06:002024-03-09T05:11:42.836-06:00Now an Audiobook: What Social Animals Owe to Each Other<p>My book <em>What Social Animals Owe to Each Other</em> is now an audiobook. It's on YouTube <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9fzwuNn3_k">here</a>. And <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cyF1grIVYn0AcEEzY3Z9PyeduTUt8VBR/view?usp=drive_web">here's</a> an MP3. What? You need an MP4? Okay, <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NSX_n28sYJo0HrOjIG2XubU5Gscoq4xz/view?usp=drive_web">here</a>.</p><p>HT: Spencer Hayek</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/atom.xml" title="Atom feed">Atom</a></div>Sheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-10031730611391488392024-03-08T06:00:00.002-06:002024-03-08T10:43:20.488-06:00TGIF: Is Israel Crazy?<p>Has Israel gone mad? Or has it always been mad? What is the country thinking?</p><p>The collective nouns seem reasonable in light of the widespread support in that country for the Israeli government's appalling military assault on the people of the Gaza Strip for the last five months. How can Israel -- and its outside supporters -- cheer on the bombings (compliments of coerced Americans), the ground attacks, the mass starvation, the terror, and the rest of the crimes that we witness every day? The death toll is pushing 31,000, most of them infants, children, women, and old men, not fighters. So many more have been disabled for life. Gazans -- including newborns -- lack food, good water, medical services and equipment, and drugs, including anesthesia. The humanitarian aid is a small fraction of what they need. So many have been driven from their homes, to which they'll never return because the buildings have been destroyed.</p><p>And there's no end in sight! Will it take the murder of the last Gazan for it to stop? For clear-eyed observers watching helplessly from afar, it is heartbreaking. We cannot even stop the Biden administration from sending bombs, bullets, and spare parts to Israel -- without which this could not go on.</p><p>Those are human beings in Gaza, for heaven's sake! Stop the carnage!</p><p><span></span></p><a name='more'></a>Israel's supporters may think that uttering the word <em>Hamas</em> provides all the justification required. That can't be. Common-sense moral intuition possessed by virtually everyone says otherwise. Yes, Hamas committed horrible acts on Oct. 7. So this is the response? Mass death, injury, and destruction? Don't say, "What else could Israel do?" Being unable to think of something else to do is not a license to kill tens of thousands of infants, children, the infirm, the elderly, and the rest. That makes no sense.<p></p><p>Hamas was nothing before the late 1980s. Why hadn't Israel been willing to treat the Palestinians justly before that? Maybe we would have never heard of Hamas. But Israel encouraged Hamas, well before Netanyahu, because the Islamic organization was seen as a religious rival to the popular and <em>secular</em> PLO; hence Hamas could be used to split the Palestinians. Divide and rule. Advantage Israel.</p><p>History did not begin on October 7, 2023. It began more than a hundred years ago. Why? Because Arabs, both Muslims and Christians, dared to live in the Jewish Promised Land. Well, Zionism said in effect, "we're back. Thanks for keeping an eye on things, but you can go now. And if you don't go, we'll 'transfer' you out by force."</p><p>So Gaza was a pressure cooker set on its deadly schedule long ago. Later events, such as the Israeli blockade of the strip and repeated military assaults, made things worse. This is not an excuse but necessary information -- the full context -- for comprehending what's going on.</p><p>Why is it going on? One reason, I think, is an aspect of Zionist and Israeli culture, which originated with <em>some</em>, not all, European (Ashkenazi) Jews many years ago. Zionism arose in Europe in the late 19th century; Jews lived in other places too, however. It embodied the conviction that European history -- even before the genocidal Nazis -- and the world's alleged congenital hatred of Jewry made permissible anything seemingly necessary to survival. World opinion doesn't matter -- the world will hate "us" no matter what. So the rules are different. As Rabbi Stuart Federow <a href="https://youtu.be/so85uZm_chw?si=kAR9qH-sV78BNuWQ&t=729">said after Oct. 7</a>, "What better proof is there that we are the servants of God who suffer because we're God's servants than what is going on in the world today? Why is there anti-Semitism? Because deep down in the recesses of their heart and soul, they know we're right."</p><p>I used the narrower terms <em>Ashkenazi</em>, <em>Israeli</em>, and <em>Zionist</em> culture, not the broader <em>Jewish</em> culture. That's because Zionism was never anything like a unanimous Jewish view. Also, no single Jewish culture exists. Jews are of many cultures, languages, and nationalities. We've been encouraged to forget that. The Arab Jews (you read that right), the <em>Mizrahi</em>, saw things differently from the Ashkenazim because they had lived and prospered alongside their Arab Muslim neighbors for generations. Ask historian <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Three-Worlds-Arab-Jew-Avi-Shlaim/dp/0861544633/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2X3BKCH535PK3&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.m6gIrJAUQh06w3WbGRhhbl8TFb1gIs5r16LoW_bNj3SEFywZ7WWKxKYE-FccIIVbDHQd4apyQEzXv8iQH_XOuLUx3NBIQ4BK-EGtMFK4D9gQbECXnQqYUvoRryJWHXz9yufhgTD-EX8eDeFE3p28PuzSd0B6BXKKUPCzIpFpQswSiAtJEXTrdVGdfBSOwfwrx9OmIfZ_WfvM57-iX9o2zNmC8Z1vlhFthcIBhcLBI7w.AK2-tSjJbsD3p4sZIWalMxuK2GpGFPcwMMdbMOt2-WE&dib_tag=se&keywords=avi+shlaim+book&qid=1709724968&sprefix=avi+sh%2Caps%2C193&sr=8-1">Avi Shlaim</a>, the Iraqi-born Jewish historian. Ask <a href="https://youtu.be/QAxfRLfUVZQ?si=f0Ay8CctwnESCJyT">Alon Mizrahi</a>. The Arab Jews spoke Arabic, wore Arabic clothing, listened to Arabic music, and ate Arabic food. The Ashkenazi Israeli elite found them "too Arab" and worked to "Israelize" them when too few European and American Jews were willing to emigrate.</p><p>Another reason the words <em>Zionists and Ashkenazi Israelis</em> are more appropriate than the narrower <em>Jews</em> is that so many Jewish people are shocked by what Israel is doing. Look at who turns out en masse for and even leads the anti-Israel protests in the United States and other Western countries: Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow. They wear shirts that cry out, "Not in Our Name." Consider the religious backgrounds of many of the most prominent critics of the "Jewish state's" mistreatment of the Palestinians. It is not Judaism versus the world. It's Zionism versus Jews and the world. <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/179430/zionism-lost-argument-american-jews-israel?utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SF_TNR&utm_medium=social">The ranks of anti-Zionist and non-Zionist Jews grow every day</a>. It's absurd to blame "the Jews" for Israel's bad behavior. Memo to the relatively few real anti-Semites who sully the anti-Israel demonstrations: creep back into the shadows. You are not welcome.</p><p>Jewish anti-Zionism is as old as Jewish Zionism itself. The early Zionists, like their successors, believed that Jews constituted a single "race," or blood group. According to this essentialism, one could not <a href="https://www.amazon.com/How-I-Stopped-Being-Jew/dp/1784782009/ref=sr_1_3?crid=23N9TSQECJGGR&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.MnEHwO41NKyk6NDOcKmTxsrv46czyCf3GlNuxU0LfR38qJvt4H0VdHHH50qhSI6xx0JXtkWn0wd9yEatb3lFjpHmwmn9x5IgLwD4ky9sWwgvNbO0qk6hliDgWwc4wcwehehfANwnRJKjBmFEoZw8BolErsKfL_tXNVcHquBT3rkZcZIJl8gPrB5Oij3ahUiM_iU67LXNw7YhJeAmuG3u3st8ObtgCG8ftTJQx18CX68.pP7Juz5m9oylxiHRIUaKt4hyMZ9nuHeUoms67U8w97Y&dib_tag=se&keywords=shlomo+sand&qid=1709897255&sprefix=shlomo+%2Caps%2C162&sr=8-3">stop being Jewish</a>. The Nazis later were happy to agree. To the extent anyone believes that today, Hitler has won.</p><p>The anti-Zionist Jews rejected essentialism. They understood that Judaism was (and is) a religion and the Jewish people its practitioners comprised of many "races," ethnicities, and nationalities. In America the Reform Jewish movement agreed and explicitly renounced the claim that they were a diaspora longing to "return" to their national home in Palestine. In their view Judaism existed to spread God's word and set an example for the world. Nationalism conflicted with that mission. Theirs was the prophetic universalist Judaism that had long clashed with tribalism and the ghetto mindset.</p><p>Most Orthodox Jews rejected Zionism for similar reasons. (My paternal grandfather was one.) In effect, they asked, "Where is it written that God would appoint the atheist Herzl or the atheist Ben-Gurion as the Messiah?" According to the Orthodox, God (using the Romans) exiled the Jews from Judea in 70 CE because they had sinned. The arrival of the Messiah, a man, king, and warrior, not a divine being, would herald the time for return. (Israeli historian Shlomo Sand <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Invention-Jewish-People-Shlomo-Sand/dp/1788736613/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&dib_tag=se&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.MnEHwO41NKyk6NDOcKmTxsrv46czyCf3GlNuxU0LfR38qJvt4H0VdHHH50qhSI6xx0JXtkWn0wd9yEatb3lFjpHmwmn9x5IgLwD4ky9sWwgvNbO0qk6hliDgWwc4wcwehehfANwnRJKjBmFEoZw8BolErsKfL_tXNVcHquBT3rkZcZIJl8gPrB5Oij3ahUiM_iU67LXNw7YhJeAmuG3u3st8ObtgCG8ftTJQx18CX68.pP7Juz5m9oylxiHRIUaKt4hyMZ9nuHeUoms67U8w97Y&qid=1709897727&sr=8-1">shows</a> that no evidence of an exile exists.)</p><p>The anti-Zionist Jews, both Reform and Orthodox, had three grounds for rejecting Zionism. First, it would turn Judaism into idolatry. Instead of Yahweh and the Torah, the object of adoration would be the state of Israel. To the dismay of the anti-Zionist Jews, an atheist nonpractitioner with a Jewish mother could, in the Zionists' eyes, be a Jew in good standing (and qualify for Israeli citizenship) <em>as long as</em> he or she loved "the Jewish state."</p><p>Second, the earliest anti-Zionist Jews pointed out that Palestine was not a "land without a people." They knew that Arab Muslims, Christians, and secularists had lived there for generations. Further, they warned that the European Zionists' palpable disdain for the locals and their arrogant coveting of the land would inevitably bring <a href="https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/tgif-ahad-haam/">trouble</a>. As Israeli historian <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Myths-About-Israel-Ilan-Pappe/dp/1786630192/ref=sr_1_2?crid=25VKAJADH788J&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.kIh4kL8QYtcLltZOqhHf1lXesQsfAcVYHFlMNbMs2co0Q0-uw68XLGMiEJivuQe5uGy4z_KJ3maZF555jNKJY8X0lv5HPnka0mJXN04mGXQYGlLNn9vmlKbTFEfvecvCS3w3Eg5K7203gVNOjvX8rusijP7MToY0ahOlGiezrigARsUCW_sPUekD5ElQKX-WWTIU_A6_2vJbgHoOWvCIHDeBGtBK20utciRq-iIoBUI.-wb9lpTxR63FXz8EAD4f5Wk2KvxhOI_uKHumqNCaCXw&dib_tag=se&keywords=ilan+pappe&qid=1709745167&sprefix=ilan+%2Caps%2C238&sr=8-2">Ilan Pappé</a> says, "Jews had to escape from Europe to find a safe haven. But you cannot create a safe haven by creating a catastrophe [<em>Nakba</em>] for other people."</p><p>Third, the Jewish anti-Zionists feared that Zionism and its so-called "Jewish state" would jeopardize the lives of Jews who were happily settled in the United States and other Western countries after valiant struggles for emancipation, acceptance, and assimilation. An exclusivist state would encourage anti-Semites, who would say in effect, "You Jews now have your own special state way over there. Let me help you pack your bags." That was a genuine concern because much was at stake. (For more about the anti-Zionist Jews, see the Reform Alfred Lilienthal's 1949 <em>Reader's Digest</em> article, <a href="https://masbury.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/alfred-lilienthal-1949-israels-flag-is-not-mine/">"Israel's Flag Is Not Mine."</a> Also check out the still-active 81-year-old <a href="http://www.acjna.org/acjna/default.aspx">American Council for Judaism</a>, founded by <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Rabbi-Outcast-Berger-American-Anti-Zionism/dp/1597976970/ref=sr_1_6?crid=3C3TDBEKAOOYN&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.au0s5Il5NX08m_hrqKAi08Gr2M1_RSYvQR1sLvDGLJa966Cx2p2HwcWfEpqULfOpO9T6_ojRiKf66NH6yPR1pvfsX9gxww4tF1q0blIOL1Qy3caJKQqhk9wpmoFt99T6qVLkfeG2a9iv7JBWCW_qPXaYUpPKaXhbLLxbfq9EyYlUthBSmFiJXk32jlLCmSPfH6fbFgQqbe75GOe5RfGQSQfECSyW8QR9Txp2hkDcvIU.1RxZJCMWDpZe4iFx0fRYrr_1pQLOHC56iq9UeVpAsTg&dib_tag=se&keywords=jewish+anti-zionism&qid=1709743672&sprefix=Jewish+anti-z%2Caps%2C509&sr=8-6">Rabbi Elmer Berger</a>. Also check out the YouTube videos of the Orthodox anti-Zionist Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro.)</p><p>Shamefully, after 1948 the Israeli government and its American supporters <a href="https://theintercept.com/2024/03/03/israel-our-palestine-question-zionism-american-jews/?fbclid=IwAR0KdsOA4nc-QUEmOJLptmOXaHgqJ5kd-xhNO-d3eqdY1U-7kNI70JwW25o">worked to discredit</a> the Jewish anti-Zionists because they told the public about the mass dispossession and even massacres of Palestinians by ruthless Zionist militias, which had future Israeli prime ministers in their ranks. Without that <em>Nakba</em>, <a href="https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20221011-historians-reveal-israels-use-of-poison-against-palestinians/#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17099152409244&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.middleeastmonitor.com%2F20221011-historians-reveal-israels-use-of-poison-against-palestinians%2F">no "Jewish state" could have come into existence through self-declaration</a>. (Contrary to popular belief, the United Nations did not partition Palestine into Arab and Jewish states because it lacked the power to do so. Rather, the General Assembly voted to <em>recommend</em> partition. See Jeremy R. Hammond's <a href="https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/10/26/the-myth-of-the-u-n-creation-of-israel/">"The Myth of U.N. Creation of Israel."</a>)</p><p>If Jewish Zionists are honestly concerned about a rise in anti-Semitism and are not, again, crying "wolf" merely to innoculate Israel from legitimate criticism, they ought to look to Israel's mistreatment and humiliation of the Palestinians in Israel proper, the West Bank, and Gaza as a source. That may prove enlightening.</p><p>But are Jewish Zionists really worried about anti-Semitism? Golda Meir, the former prime minister of Israel who infamously denied the existence of the Palestinians, worried about what she said were the two dangers facing the Jewish people: annihilation and assimilation. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency <a href="https://www.jta.org/archive/meir-warns-american-jews-of-dangers-of-assimilation">reported</a> on June 17, 1972:</p><p style="text-align: center;"><strong>Meir Warns American Jews of Dangers of Assimilation</strong></p><p style="padding-left: 40px;">Premier Golda Meir has warned American Jewry of what she called the “dangers of assimilation and intermarriage.” The Premier told the opening session of the Zionist Organization of America’s 75th jubilee convention that she viewed the issues as seriously as she did the existence and security of Israel itself. She challenged the ZOA and other American Zionists: “Are you certain that your children and grandchildren will remain Jews?”...</p><p style="padding-left: 40px;">"I dread the verdict of history on this generation if, given the opportunity which the State of Israel’s existence provides to strengthen the Jewish people, we fail. There could be no greater tragedy than this... The big question is: Can Jewishness flourish in free [i.e., tolerant--SR] societies? We now see that not only through hatred and oppression can the number of Jews be diminished, but also through love and freedom."</p><p style="padding-left: 40px;">The solution, Mrs. Meir said, was an intensive Jewish life in the diaspora, with Israel, Hebrew education and aspiration to aliya [i.e., permanent migration to Israel--SR] as its central features.</p><p>This is remarkable. Did she perhaps think that a little anti-Semitism could help prevent assimilation and intermarriage by strengthening Jewish identity? As Herzl said, the anti-Semites make "us" Jews. Anyone who thinks that Israel is essential to eliminating anti-Semitism and making Jewish people safe is sadly mistaken. Where are Jews less safe than in Israel? Certainly not America.</p><p>The Israeli Arab Jew Alon Mizrahi <a href="https://easternoak.co/maybe-its-time-we-started-talking-about-how-terrible-zionism-is-for-jews-too/">points out</a> that Zionism should be judged by what it does, not by what it says. "Palestinians are, and forever will be, the foremost victims of Zionism," he writes. "But for too long we have neglected to look at the terrible price Jews have been paying for it in terms of their humanity, their morality, their freedom and creativity and, tragicomically, their sense of place and belonging among our brothers and sisters of all races and places, including, yes, Palestine."</p><p>Amen.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/atom.xml" title="Atom feed">Atom</a></div>Sheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-52023838856559772962024-03-07T06:05:00.000-06:002024-03-07T06:05:01.522-06:00Coming to Palestine Now an Audiobook!<p>My book <em>Coming to Palestine</em> is now an audiobook. You can listen to it on <a href="https://youtu.be/a6ZlN8m6fXw?si">YouTube</a>. The audiobook is also <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ut_5tJ3PhUX34kTvtu_749icHn-fcSqe/view">here</a>. HT: Jorge Besada.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/atom.xml" title="Atom feed">Atom</a></div>Sheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-22375927376841334622024-03-03T12:32:00.000-06:002024-03-03T12:32:00.307-06:00Guest Appearance on the Bob Murphy ShowPodcaster and economist Bob Murphy and I recently talked about my life as a libertarian, the outlook for liberty, and Israel. Watch it <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKi_hmEAWLA">here</a>.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/atom.xml" title="Atom feed">Atom</a></div>Sheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-35219358021671561662024-03-01T05:09:00.001-06:002024-03-01T05:14:37.528-06:00TGIF: Immigration in an Nth-Best World<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizVm5O3PQ0kysjnZU-NR9hyphenhyphen9gJeuqpvQO675Oc2RfmokgqjKJzAf3wkKvBjnQ5PFc9IPRYMAv9nq2XxyZ5FsYfv7wPaTHDg1AyN-wIn_Vr1JHqxnjLjIeiyJCPR1iYpoHvavGbnbpBXFjvSaGfe7Mwrq2MMl2JCzbl0mdfIKVfVIgAcwXrM-nFtw/s1200/Shush.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="630" data-original-width="1200" height="168" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizVm5O3PQ0kysjnZU-NR9hyphenhyphen9gJeuqpvQO675Oc2RfmokgqjKJzAf3wkKvBjnQ5PFc9IPRYMAv9nq2XxyZ5FsYfv7wPaTHDg1AyN-wIn_Vr1JHqxnjLjIeiyJCPR1iYpoHvavGbnbpBXFjvSaGfe7Mwrq2MMl2JCzbl0mdfIKVfVIgAcwXrM-nFtw/s320/Shush.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p>We live in an nth-best society. It's neither fully libertarian (though libertarians disagree over exactly what that would mean) nor totalitarian like the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Maoist China, or North Korea. It's somewhere in between, closer to libertarian than many other places but not close enough.</p><p>One challenge for libertarians is knowing which proposals to favor and which to oppose in an nth-best society. Merely reciting the nonaggression obligation is not enough if our goal is to persuade many people that the freedom philosophy is both right and practical.</p><p>A mixed economy, the system combining markets with heavy doses of government interference, produces problems that libertarians need to address to be relevant. Many problems concern so-called public property, government-controlled land and buildings, many of which are presumptively open to all U.S. residents. Roads, parks, museums, and courthouses are examples. Libertarians would privatize most or all of it. (<a href="https://www.panarchy.org/rodericklong/property.html">Roderick Long notes</a> that nongovernmental publicly owned property can exist and has existed.) However, simply proclaiming the pure libertarian vision based on private property fails to address today's acute problems involving public property, such as the obstruction and defilement of sidewalks and parks by disorderly homeless, jobless, and troubled individuals who prevent civil self-supporting taxpayers from using those facilities as intended.</p><p>It is equally unreasonable to address those problems by giving politicians and bureaucrats carte blanche to regulate "the people's" property.</p><p>If this sounds relevant to the immigration issue, go and buy yourself a cigar. There's a view floating around social media and elsewhere that free immigration, or open borders, is not a libertarian position because "we the people," the true owners of government-controlled property, have the same right as any private owner to set rules for entry and use. Therefore, non-owners properly could and perhaps should be excluded. This rule-setting presumably would occur through the democratic process, that is, voting.</p><p>Right off the bat, that seems odd. The democratic process is majority takes all -- the bloc of minority "owners" would lose out. If 50 percent minus one welcomes new arrivals to deal with and 50 percent plus one does not, the smaller group loses out simply because it is smaller. If a member of the minority persists, he is punished.</p><p>This would seem like Rousseauian "general will" libertarianism, except that's a contradiction in terms.</p><p>This position is presented as the grown-up libertarian position in today's world. I disagree.</p><p>Bear in mind that this proposal is intended to answer naive, immature, likely new social-media libertarians who believe that in today's mixed economy, the government must not set any rules whatsoever for public property. I'm sure such libertarians exist, but libertarians are <em>not</em> logically or morally obligated to favor the no-rules position. On the other hand, a better version of libertarian theory also does not entail restrictions on people's nonaggressive freedom of movement.</p><p>Those who think otherwise prove far too much. If "we" through the democratic process may shut immigrants out by keeping them off "our" public property, why can't we make other rules? How about a rule that says if you hold certain political or social views, you can't drive on the roads or use the courts and libraries? Why the distinction between the native-born and the foreign-born? A country is not a country club.</p><p>Making rules for today's public property requires nuance and reasonableness. There is a difference between excluding drunken, unwashed, screaming people without clothing from the DMV and excluding civil people <em>without government permission papers</em> from the roads and sidewalks. Forbidding homeless people from defecating, urinating, and discarding drug paraphernalia in public differs from forbidding Americans to hire, sell to, rent to, or live with, and otherwise associate with any peaceful people they choose regardless of where they were born.</p><p>The first instances disrupt taxpayers' peaceful use of public property; the second do not. Is the nondisruption principle a distinctively libertarian standard? Not specifically, but so what? We're in an nth-best society, remember. Culture, convention, and context help determine exactly what constitutes disruption, but the spirit of individual liberty never disappears. We can expect hard cases, but that doesn't make the principle worthless.</p><p>Is the principle arbitrary? No. In a partially free society, public property is presumptively open to the public: if someone makes it impossible for others to use it as intended, that person can properly be excluded. (Not by any means, of course.)</p><p>Could the nondisruption principle be used to justify <em>any</em> government restriction, such as closed borders? No. The case for any given rule should not rest on hypotheticals or highly unlikely events not intrinsic to a situation. That's why a border wall is different from a stop sign. There is no necessary connection between immigrants freely coming here to look for jobs, sellers, buyers, houses, apartments, friends, lovers, spouses, etc. and the disruption of public property. We can easily imagine the orderly movement of people over the border if residency and work were legal and entrepreneurial Americans were free to create businesses that match newcomers with opportunities. If a specific disruption occurs, law enforcement should be directed at actual disrupters, not at whole classes of people just because they might be disruptive. Americans might be disruptive too.</p><p>What about the tax burden, which is a different sort of potential problem from acute disruption? For a full discussion, see Bryan Caplan's graphic nonfiction work, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Open-Borders-Science-Ethics-Immigration/dp/1250316960"><em>Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration</em></a>. Caplan is a libertarian, but more importantly here, a solid social scientist who knows the immigration data as well as anyone. (The Cato Institute also has examined the data closely. For example, <a href="https://www.cato.org/white-paper/fiscal-impact-immigration-united-states#introduction">here</a>.)</p><p>The story revealed by that data is not what most people imagine. Caplan writes: "Free immigration with a U.S.-style welfare state is <em>not</em> a recipe for fiscal disaster. Even under open orders, the burdensome immigrant would be the exception, not the rule.... Most immigrants pull their own weight -- and then some. A few don't [just as with the native-born]. But that's a flimsy reason to ditch the principle of free immigration." (Nor would we ditch the principle of free reproduction because some Americans will produce future net tax-consumers.)</p><p>Libertarians would better use their time working to shrink and repeal welfare-state programs than trying to save them from the stresses and strains they're bound to encounter. Despite hard cases in the world as we find it, the presumption should favor liberty for all, even newcomers. How can that not be the libertarian position?</p><p>Open borders are moral and desirable because prohibiting free movement necessarily aggresses against nonaggressors, <a href="https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/sheldon/tgif-refreshing-immigration/">including Americans</a>; condemns the most wretched people on earth to poverty and tyranny; and keeps us all from getting richer. Strictly speaking, the right at stake is not the right to immigrate. Rather, it's the right <em>not to be subjected to initiatory force</em>. The right to immigrate, as <a href="https://c4ss.org/content/25648">Roderick Long might put it</a>, is just one of many specific applications of that one right.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/atom.xml" title="Atom feed">Atom</a></div>Sheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-25930438094832405212024-02-23T05:32:00.003-06:002024-02-23T05:40:10.652-06:00TGIF: What Should I Do on Election Day?<p style="padding-left: 40px;">Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. --H. L. Mencken</p><p>This column was prompted by a conversation I had with a few neighbors, whom I do not know, over the Nextdoor.com platform. I thank them for being unwitting grist for my mill. Of course, the names are withheld to protect the innocent.</p><p>A woman was upset about something the state government had done. She took to social media to say that this shows that we all need to vote. Always up to a challenge, I decided to weigh in. I asked what good would her plea do considering that one vote <em>almost never</em> decides an election. The chance of any given voter making a difference is virtually nil. How many tied elections have you heard about? In my longish lifetime, no election would have turned out differently had I acted other than I did. Not one.</p><p>Did the Nextdoor.com participants not think about the arithmetic? Why agonize over the "choice" they will face on election day? Why lose a wink of sleep?</p><p>You might think that since the woman was addressing an audience larger than one, she might respond that this is about more than one vote. I don't think that works because her audience was too small to make a difference, even assuming everyone she reached votes the way she wants them to -- which is unlikely. </p><p>That aside, you'd have thought I had insulted the participants' religion -- which in a way I did. Democracy is a religion.</p><p>My neighbors' responses were predictable. What if everyone felt the same way as you? they asked. One person said that if everyone agreed with me, "nothing would get done." I might have responded, "If I thought everyone was going to stay home, then I might vote if a worthy person were on the ballot. (Not likely.) My candidate would win 1-0. Whoopee! Or: considering what governments do to us, getting nothing done would be a feature, not a bug.</p><p>Instead, I asked them: why is voting the only matter about which you ask, "What if everyone thought that way?" The world would be in a sad state if everyone had done what any given person had done over the years. Does an aspiring doctor, lawyer, or plumber ask, "What if everyone chooses what I've chosen"? It's a paralyzing question.</p><p>How is the question even relevant? We're not doing philosophy here. It's a practical question. No matter what I do on election day, everyone else is going to do what he or she is going to do. They won't consult me. I guarantee it. So the outcome is going to be the same no matter what I do. In that case, why not do something that makes a difference, like play with the kids, have a conversation, read an article, watch a movie, donate blood, or make some money? In those cases, the means will almost certainly produce the end sought. That's not the case with voting.</p><p>Since my neighbors didn't want to face the math, I found little interest in the related point that they had no incentive to become truly informed voters. But this is like ignoring the 800-pound gorilla over there in the corner. One person thought it was enough to get the candidates' position papers and to look at Ballotpedia.com. I said that was hardly adequate. Everything that governments do affects the economy, which means <em>us and our everyday lives</em>. Wouldn't voters need to study economics before properly judging the candidates? I posed a thought experiment: candidate A favors the minimum wage. Candidate B opposes it. Other things equal, whom do you choose and why? No one answered. Someone said that's not what matters.</p><p>In fairness, I should concede that people have reasons to vote other than to influence the result. People vote because they see it as a sign of good citizenship, even if few people observe it. I suppose people vote simply to express support for a candidate or cause. It's like applauding at a major league baseball game. Your joining in (or not) doesn't make a difference. Related to this is the sense that voting is a sort of chipping in on behalf of someone you like. For these people, the point about not individually affecting the outcome won't apply. Voting makes them feel good.</p><p>I submit that all of this confirms what <a href="https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa594.pdf">Bryan Caplan says</a> about why democracies consistently choose socially destructive policies. It's not that special interests control the politicians, who then ignore the voters. That theory overlooks too much, as David Friedman shows in <em>The Machinery of</em> Freedom, chapter 38. (<a href="http://daviddfriedman.com/Machinery%203rd%20Edn.pdf">free PDF</a>). He writes:</p><p style="padding-left: 40px;">It seems more reasonable to suppose that there is no ruling class, that we are ruled, rather, by a myriad of quarreling gangs, constantly engaged in stealing from each other to the great impoverishment of their own members as well as the rest of us.</p><p>As Caplan argues, the public generally supports destructive policies that harm each member individually. Why? Caplan doesn't think the problem is rational ignorance that comes from the impotence of one vote. Rational ignorance ought to lead to pro-market choices about half the time and anti-market choices the other half. Instead we find systematically anti-market bias. Since you can't affect the election and acquiring information is expensive, you may as well vote according to your biases. It will feel good, and it's cheaper.</p><p>Caplan writes, "[C]ompetition impels politicians to heed what voters favor [protectionism, farm subsidies, etc.], not what is best for them." Remember, politicians want to be reelected or achieve a legacy.</p><p>I don't tell people what to do, so I don't tell them not to vote. I have no reason to think they'd listen to me anyway.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/atom.xml" title="Atom feed">Atom</a></div>Sheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-59158503360228359752024-02-19T04:03:00.003-06:002024-02-19T09:28:21.216-06:00Keeping Perspective <div>To put things into perspective, be aware that people with advanced degrees from our best universities say things like, "Since no one, including criminals, has free will and hence is morally responsible for his or her actions, we ought to come up with a more appropriate criminal justice system. Therefore I propose that we hold a conference next spring to discuss this important matter and make recommendations for change. Be sure to save the date."</div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/atom.xml" title="Atom feed">Atom</a></div>Sheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-63153938435544319112024-02-16T05:39:00.003-06:002024-03-13T07:05:59.999-05:00TGIF: Trump Loves NATO<p>Trump is either contentedly ignorant of the things he talks about or callously scornful of his adoring fans, whom he sees as rubes eager to swallow whatever he says. He could be both. Above all, Trump is a Trump supremacist.</p><p>Does he believe in NATO or not? (Believe in it? Hell, I've seen it!) Trump wants it both ways. He loves the response he gets at rallies when, populist-style, he seems to put NATO down as a freeloader on America. But he doesn't <em>really</em> put it down. He is a devout NATOist.</p><p>How can that be? Look at his record. He's called for <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/09/trump-nato-expansion-proposal-096772">expanding NATO to the Middle East</a>! (He said it would allow the U.S. government to disengage, but how likely would that be?) During the Trump administration, North Macedonia joined the alliance. (Another country for potential American rescue, thank you very much.) And <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-nato-baltic-allies-stronger-1639290">NATO members near Russia</a> think Trump left the alliance stronger than it was before he took office. Yes, once or twice he threatened to pull the U.S. government out, but that's like the guy who starts to walk out of a car showroom in a bluff to get undercoating and rustproofing included in the price of the car.</p><p>So let's not play games. Trump loves NATO. It enables him to be a big cheese on the world stage. His fans say we should take him seriously, not literally. What does that mean? Trump is a shameless snake oil salesman. (That doesn't mean I think the alternative is better.)</p><p>Take the latest brouhaha. Trump has upset the usual suspects by saying that if a NATO member government were "delinquent" in paying "its bills," "I" -- he personally? -- would not protect it from an attack by, say, Russia. He even said he would "encourage [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want." He's rather casual about other people's lives.</p><p>The first thing to notice is that he <em>would</em> protect members that <em>had</em> paid what he calls their "bills." He believes in NATO's mutual defense commitment. QED.</p><p>Under Trump (like any other president), Americans could be forced to fight for and/or materially assist other NATO governments that came into conflict with non-NATO countries. That's the point of NATO! An attack on one is an attack on all. The collective defense commitment under <a href="https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm#:~:text=Article%205%20provides%20that%20if,to%20assist%20the%20Ally%20attacked.">Article 5</a> -- which has been invoked only once, by the U.S. government after 9/11 -- provides wiggle room with the phrase "such action as [each member government] <em>deems necessary</em>," but still it expresses an intention for mutual defense. And, most importantly, the U.S. government's nuclear arsenal is in the background.</p><p>The next thing to understand is that Trump's talk about bills and dues is <a href="https://apnews.com/article/nato-trump-delinquent-defense-allies-c1f7de696ff6ca06e4088f49b93122e1">balderdash</a>. NATO members don't pay dues. What Trump must be confused about is the members' agreement to <em>try</em> to raise their military spending to at least 2 percent of their GDP. That money does not go to NATO; it's part of their government budgets. This agreement is understood as a guideline, not a commitment. Members have no deadline, so they can't be delinquent. According to the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/12/nato-countries-defense-spending-gdp-trump/"><em>Washington Post</em>, using NATO figures</a>, 11 of the 31 members have met the guideline. (Iceland has no armed forces.)</p><p>How does Trump know that 2 percent is the magic number? He doesn't. How does he know that striving for 2 percent by raising taxes or cutting other spending wouldn't destabilize one country or another? He doesn't. But the issue gives him another chance to pretend that the United States is the aggrieved party internationally. NATO members are taking advantage of America.</p><p>That's been his shtik since he started running for president in 2015. No demagogue would get far by ranting that the United States has bullied other countries long enough and it's time to stop. No, his pitch is that the United States has been trampled on by others long enough. That's how a populist rallies support. The fact is that for decades in foreign affairs, the U.S. foreign-policy elite has called the shots and others have knuckled under or else. As President George H. W. Bush said in 1990, "What we say goes." This power has been waning recently: other people will take only so much pushing around, and other power centers rise up.</p><p>One reasonably winces at Trump's invitation to Russia, although Russia is unlikely to be interested in accepting it or even capable of doing so. We wince because when a government, any government, crosses borders, innocent people die. It's not something even to joke about.</p><p>To point out Trump's buffoonery, however, is not to defend NATO. Decades ago, libertarians started calling for the U.S. government to leave the alliance and the others. That was during the Cold War. It was motivated by, among other things, an understanding that what looks like defense to <em>you</em> might look like aggressiveness to <em>him</em>. Glancing back and pronouncing NATO a success because World War III did not happen might be a <em>post hoc ergo proper hoc</em> fallacy (<em>after this, therefore because of this</em>). We don't know what would have happened had NATO not existed or if it did, the U.S. government had not participated, especially if free entrepreneurship in security had been allowed to flourish. Maybe we were just lucky over 40-some years, especially concerning nuclear war, which would have ended the world.</p><p>Moreover, by what right does the U.S. government commit American individuals to fight or otherwise assist in another government's war? It is not an answer to say: "That's what governments do." That begs the question regarding the state's authority. I suspect Trump wouldn't understand.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/atom.xml" title="Atom feed">Atom</a></div>Sheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-37221305456494416582024-02-09T05:21:00.003-06:002024-02-09T11:29:23.297-06:00TGIF: Tariffs Tax Consumers<p>We seem to forget that a tariff is a tax. It is formally levied on importers, not on foreigners or things, but since it can usually be passed along, it ends up as an indirect tax on consumers.</p><p>The point of tariffs is to protect certain domestic businesses and their employees from formidable foreign competitors by raising import prices and reducing consumer choices. Higher prices! Less choice! Raising import prices gives domestic businesses room to raise their prices -- that's the point. Why have a tariff otherwise? (Tariffs intended to raise revenue rather than protect domestic companies have been imposed in the past, but in those cases, the government <em>wanted </em>people to buy the imports or else no revenue would have been raised.)</p><p>To put it mildly, taxes are bad. They are the government's way of taking money from people by force -- stealing -- and preventing them from spending it on their own purposes, activities that would have benefited others through production and trade. In a free society individuals are supposed to be at liberty to set and pursue their <em>own</em> goals. A society in which the government preempts individuals' goals is not fully free.</p><p>Even if under some market circumstances importers and foreign exporters have to pay some of a tariff, it's still an indirect tax on other Americans. Diverting money from importers and exporters to the government leaves them fewer dollars to spend or invest here. That's an unseen loss. Was Trump, who <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/06/trump-trade-war-foreign-leaders-00139852">promises</a> new anti-China and universal tariffs, daydreaming when he attended the Wharton School all those years ago? What's Biden's excuse? <a href="https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/tariffs-trump-trade-war/">He's left most of Trump's 2017-2020 tariffs in place.</a></p><p>Advocates of tariffs think the taxes will protect American businesses and jobs. But as Milton Friedman liked to remind us, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Even if some jobs are preserved or even restored, it comes at a high price. And, as the radical liberal economist Frédéric Bastiat would say, the price is imposed on a large <em>unseen</em> group of people. That includes people who can least afford it. That's not fair.</p><p>Because those forced to foot the bill are not readily identifiable, the overall cost of the tariffs is also unseen and hence unappreciated. Most of us have no sense of the damage the protectionists have done. <a href="https://fee.org/articles/tariffs-on-chinese-goods-cost-american-households-831-annually-fed-study-finds/">One study</a> estimated that a single round of Trump anti-China tariffs cost the "typical household" $831 a year. Even when some jobs are saved, <a href="https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/900000-per-job/">the price per job is stupendously expensive</a>. As Donald Boudreaux and Phil Gramm wrote in the <em>Wall Street Journal (</em><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/free-trade-protectionism-trump-biden-tariffs-4c4f0f44?mod=letterstoeditor_article_pos1">paywall</a>), Trump's tariffs to "close the 'washing-machine gap' ... cost $815,000 per job saved, and ... his steel tariffs ... cost ... more than $900,00 per job saved." Think of the opportunities forgone! Think of the opportunities forgone! And remember, for semi-finished goods, some American companies' output is other American companies' input -- meaning higher production costs than foreign companies face. (See <a href="https://taxfoundation.org/blog/who-really-pays-tariffs/">"Who Really Pays the Tariffs? U.S. Firms and Consumers, Through Higher Prices."</a>)</p><p>Some people will argue that America's astounding economic success in the 19th century is attributable to protective tariffs. The land of the theoretically free certainly had outrageous tariffs from the start. But beware of the <em>post hoc ergo propter hoc</em> fallacy (<em>after this, therefore because of this</em>). America had something else besides tariffs: largely free enterprise and low taxes inside a large free-trade zone. That's a much better explanation; it has a solid theory behind it. (See Donald Boudreaux's <a href="https://fee.org/articles/tariffs-and-freedom/">"Tariffs and Freedom."</a>) Slavery was the worst departure from classical liberal, or libertarian, principles, but there were other, though less monstrous departures. The tariff was one of them.</p><p>Slavery and the tariff had something in common. Both prevented people from freely doing what would do the most good for themselves and others. Through private property, free exchange, and the price system, unmolested markets tend to channel workers' efforts and scarce resources to the activities that best accord with consumers' and hence entrepreneurs' most intense demands. Enslaved people, forcibly and cruelly barred from free labor markets, were forbidden to choose what they would have anticipated as their most rewarding work. That was one way in which slaves suffered, but the prohibition also made almost everyone else poorer than they would have been. How so? As Adam Smith showed in 1776, specialization through the division of labor makes us richer. The bigger the market, the better.</p><p>We got rid of slavery, thank goodness. When will we finally get rid of that other mark of tyranny: the tariff and other forms of protectionism? And when will we finally stop taking protectionist demagogues seriously?</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/atom.xml" title="Atom feed">Atom</a></div>Sheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-30486922667395577942024-02-06T05:54:00.000-06:002024-02-06T05:54:17.003-06:00Weird Defenders of the PalestiniansWeird: the Palestinians' advocates who as a rule are unenthusiastic (to put it mildly) about private property rights.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/atom.xml" title="Atom feed">Atom</a></div>Sheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-58798548795952549922024-02-05T06:14:00.000-06:002024-02-05T06:14:02.125-06:00An Anti-Semite's Idea?Did anti-Semites think this up? Let's put the wretched survivors of the Nazi Judeocide where their presence will necessarily disrupt a predominantly Arab-Muslim population by 1) encroaching on land the Palestinians and their ancestors have lived on for many generations and 2) setting up a new nation-state dedicated <i>only to</i> <i>the world's</i> Jewish people and in which non-Jews at best would be second-class citizens.<div><br /></div><div>That's what the Jewish anti-Zionists asked from the start.</div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/atom.xml" title="Atom feed">Atom</a></div>Sheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-85144229908731504392024-02-02T06:05:00.002-06:002024-02-02T10:16:47.979-06:00TGIF: Autocracy -- Boo! Democracy -- Hiss!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAmo2deYHPIFLJRWlluliuRRkG8tXYK7SyyQdQjgVdOe2tKDtcjCDh2gAiv_XNxquf5fLqIb75A0-WOBDZ3C2AjRxObqc0dHyDSVQgNsVNXsHDSB34TJkNGJb7SLcwfWhdqiwYwc_J8T7MHXJU9XCwxwjuogCrsbyhAEdx1eNoxV31WI3n1gMBYw/s640/Your_Vote_Counts_Badge%20ed.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="619" data-original-width="640" height="310" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAmo2deYHPIFLJRWlluliuRRkG8tXYK7SyyQdQjgVdOe2tKDtcjCDh2gAiv_XNxquf5fLqIb75A0-WOBDZ3C2AjRxObqc0dHyDSVQgNsVNXsHDSB34TJkNGJb7SLcwfWhdqiwYwc_J8T7MHXJU9XCwxwjuogCrsbyhAEdx1eNoxV31WI3n1gMBYw/s320/Your_Vote_Counts_Badge%20ed.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p style="padding-left: 40px;">Here's why democracy is a dubious idea. Government decisions are high stakes. It decides matters of war and peace, prosperity and poverty, freedom or oppression. Yet we let incompetent people steer the ship of state. Most voters are ignorant and process what little information they have in biased and irrational ways. They fall prey to propaganda and demagogues. They are conformists and don't even try to vote their interests. Democracy is the political equivalent of drunk driving.</p><p style="text-align: right;">--<a href="https://youtu.be/jVrypaExhkY?si=RKi81Yt7AZkYqjH_">Jason Brennan</a>, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Audible-Democracy-A-Guided-Tour/dp/B0BX4L1B2P/ref=sr_1_3?crid=3QO4XI8SWL184&keywords=jason+brennan&qid=1706540466&sprefix=jason+brennan%2Caps%2C224&sr=8-3"><em>Democracy: A Guided Tour</em></a></p><p>Well, we're into another out-of-control presidential election year. I'm sure everyone is thinking what I'm thinking: someone wake me when it's over.</p><p>This will not be my idea of fun. For good political news, we'll have to look to Javier Milei in Argentina (fingers crossed), assuming dethroned cronies and so-called labor leaders don't run him out of Buenos Aires on a rail.</p><p>Unless lightning strikes, the presidential race will be dominated by the execrable Biden and Trump -- and what could be more depressing than that? Thank goodness my one vote wouldn't count. Biden has been a blowhard weathervane since he was a whiz-kid senator. (In another life I was a newspaper reporter in Delaware.) Trump won't shut up until someone gives him a shot of sodium pentothal. Both are ethically challenged, and neither understands a whit about individual freedom.</p><p>Between the tribalism of party politics and the predictably woeful condition of monopoly governance, does anyone need any further demonstration that democracy stinks? What would it take? Why do people put up with it? I know why. Because they think the only alternative to democracy is autocracy. That's drummed into them in the government schools. Everyone learned that Churchill said democracy is the worst system -- except for the rest. But he rigged the competition. "The rest" did not include the only real alternative: the system of consent, cooperation, and contract. That's the free market, rooted in individual -- not collective or national -- self-ownership, private property, free exchange, and free enterprise. There's the winner, Winnie.</p><p>Democracy is a scam perpetuated by rulers who want to deflect blame and anger by persuading the people that since <em>they</em> rule, they must be at fault for any shortcomings. It long ago morphed into a cult with articles of faith like "Every vote counts." It can't withstand scrutiny.</p><p>Most people wouldn't want to live in a pure direct democracy where they voted on all legislation. For one thing, they know the time demand would drive them crazy. But just as important, most of them know that they are not qualified. The government today has its tentacles in virtually every part of life. No one can be well-informed about, much less expert in, virtually everything. But that's what would be called for. Sure, people could consult experts. Um, which experts? (Other moral and epistemological objections, such as coercion and tacit knowledge, also apply.)</p><p>Representative democracy is supposed to address that problem, but it just kicks the can down the road. Instead of knowing everything about everything (or even a lot about a lot), the people only have to know which candidate fills the bill. That theory doesn't even look good on paper. </p><p>To make things even more absurd, legislators theoretically represent large groups of people. Does that mean they should solicit their constituents' opinions? We've already seen that the constituents are unqualified. The alternative is for representatives to act on behalf of what they <em>believe</em> their diverse and largely ignorant constituents <em>should</em> want. No problem there, right? Wrong. </p><p>Of course, while people speak solemnly about their responsibility as citizens, everyone knows his or her single vote won't make a difference in the election outcome. So where is the incentive to educate oneself in light of the huge costs if it is to be done correctly? People don't normally perform futile acts at great expense.</p><p>Think of the most serious-minded officeholder that you know of. Do you really believe that person is qualified to fulfill the de facto job description -- to, in Jason Bennan's words, "decide matters of war and peace, prosperity and poverty, freedom or oppression"? That's why most people vote for candidates who wear the same color cap and jersey as they do. How did they choose that color? In most cases, through a collection of social and economic biases.</p><p>I know: a constitution is supposed to protect basic rights from the legislature by placing them off limits. But how has that worked out since 1789?</p><p>As for the market alternative, what about negative spillovers from market transactions, like pollution? We must always ask: compared to what? Does democracy have no spillovers? Those who vote for the winning candidates are not the only ones who bear the burdens of their choices. Others do too. Many other people who didn't vote for the winners will pay higher taxes, suffer unemployment from the minimum wage, go without unaffordable homes in desirable places because of regulation, and die or see loved ones die in foreign wars. At least the market contains powerful profit incentives to "internalize the externalities." You cannot say that about the government. (I recommend once again David Friedman's essay <a href="http://daviddfriedman.com/Academic/mps_iceland_talk/Iceland%20MP%20talk.htm">"Do We Need Government?"</a> Here's <a href="https://fee.org/resources/tgif-government-failure/">my take</a>.)</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/atom.xml" title="Atom feed">Atom</a></div>Sheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-29127564595341492882024-01-29T06:45:00.003-06:002024-01-29T07:42:11.128-06:00Looking for a Good Cause?The problem for (not <i>with</i>) the younger generations is that all the good social causes have been taken and substantially addressed. (Of course, nothing can be perfect.) But hold on: one good cause <i>is</i> left: political-economic individualism. Looking for a good cause to enlist in? There you go.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/atom.xml" title="Atom feed">Atom</a></div>Sheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-78575468472869613562024-01-26T12:56:00.004-06:002024-01-29T04:10:01.552-06:00Palestine and Israel: What's It All About?<p>Current events aside, the fundamental reason to favor the Palestinian cause over the Zionist project is <em>not</em> that the Israelis are Western and the Palestinians are not. That's knee-jerk woke "decolonial" claptrap, which does the Palestinians no favors. There's nothing inherently wrong with being Western, just as there's nothing inherently right with being Eastern, Southern, or whatever. Regions are neither virtuous nor vicious. From time immemorial, non-Westerners have been as brutal, domineering, and interested in slave-holding/trading as Westerners. Slavery was the uncontroversial norm for millennia everywhere -- including in the pre-Columbian West. It still exists in Asia. So the non-West gets no points on that count. On the other hand, the ultimately successful antislavery campaign arose in the West in the 19th century, not somewhere else. You don't hear much about that. Kudos to the British and the founders of the North American antislavery societies. </p><p>No, the fundamental reason to side with the Palestinian cause is that the right to private property in land is legitimate. Sorry, socialists. For the most part, Palestinians had their land taken by force, as Zionist leader and first Israeli president David Ben-Gurion acknowledged. Today's troubles flow from that.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/atom.xml" title="Atom feed">Atom</a></div>Sheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-83636875315027071362024-01-26T05:59:00.003-06:002024-01-26T07:19:10.305-06:00TGIF: Without the State, Who'd Drag Us into Other People's Wars?<p><em>This article was posted shortly before the International Court of Justice ruled provisionally that Israel's Gaza military operation can plausibly be described as acts outlawed by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The ICJ ordered Israel to take all actions possible to prevent the acts forbidden by the convention. But the court did not order a ceasefire. A full ruling will come later. The complaint against Israel had been filed by the Republic of South Africa.</em></p><p>What’s more off-putting than seeing U.S. government officials and their spokesmen trying to wriggle out of embarrassing questions about American support for Israel’s continuing atrocities against the people of the Gaza Strip? That's the location of just the latest conflict into which we Americans have been dragged by our caring rulers without our consent. The previous one, in Ukraine, is still going on, though largely forgotten. Isn't the state a wonderful thing? </p><p>Theoretically, it's illegal for the U.S. government to give weapons to governments that will use them to violate people's rights. But that is exactly what the U.S. government has done for Israel over many decades. Hence the U.S. government's bobbing and weaving over Israel's unambiguous war crimes. Our "public servants" have to evade. What else can they do? They can’t acknowledge that Israel's policy is to systematically kill, maim, and starve large numbers of innocent noncombatants and to destroy their homes and society. Still, those officials can’t deny it outright either because, given what we mere citizens can easily learn from a variety of credible sources online, they would look like the know-nothing damn fools they are. So they subtly acknowledge the crimes by politely suggesting that Israel try not to kill so many noncombatants, even as they insist Israel's army remains the most moral army in the world. (<a href="https://youtu.be/EuN9GPPIfFo?si=b9wmd7an1mso9ijt">Here is a video</a> summary of the horrors that the U.S. government is abetting in Gaza.)</p><p>Why should Americans be forced to underwrite this nightmare for Gazans or other foreign conflicts? It certainly doesn't protect Americans -- on the contrary. (See 9/11.) What makes it worse is that the forced assistance is crucial to the aggression. Israel could not continue to destroy Gaza if the U.S. government stopped sending ammunition, population-annihilating bombs, and spare parts. <em>We Americans make the massive war crimes possible</em>.</p><p>And it could get worse by bringing more direct U.S. intervention. The U.S. government is bombing Yemen -- without a congressional declaration of war. (Not that it would make the bombing better.) The U.S. military is also striking Iranian-backed militias in Syria and Iraq because they have hit U.S. forces. But why are U.S. forces in Syria and Iraq? Why is Iran a player in Iraq? Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. </p><p>Even though we haven't consented to any of this -- individually, I mean, not by majority vote -- it's a shameful mark on the country. No doubt, some aggrieved people, who perhaps have lost children and parents in the onslaught, want vengeance. Like Osama bin Laden, they think the American people control U.S. foreign policy. Who can blame them for thinking that? American rulers, by bragging about democracy, say that all the time. It's absurd, but that fallacy is not confined to jihadists. American and Israeli politicians annihilate people for acts they did not commit or consent to.</p><p>This all adds up to a strong indictment against government per se. What other organization can steal our money and use it to help destroy other societies in our name without consent? Embroiling us in foreign conflicts is one of the government's tools, with many benefits to the political class and its clients. Although people with bad intentions will be attracted to that power, interventionism will be tragically misguided even when well-intended, as perhaps it often is. The interventionists can never really know what they are doing. Unintended consequences will abound, and optimistic predictions will quickly turn sour. No constitution could permanently curb, much less abolish that power because every constitution will have to be interpreted. Who do you think will do the interpreting?</p><p>What can conscientious objectors do? Stopping traffic at rush hour doesn’t work. Closing down railway terminals and sitting in at government offices are no better. Your meager one vote is impotent. In the short term, I see no way out. Over the long term? Try to convince enough people that we can't afford government either monetarily or morally.</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/atom.xml" title="Atom feed">Atom</a></div>Sheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-44077501506636464572024-01-19T04:04:00.003-06:002024-01-19T04:11:55.870-06:00TGIF: Milei at Davos<p>\Javier Milei, the newly elected president of Argentina, spoke the other day at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The WEF is essentially a group of people who want world affairs centrally planned by political authorities. They are hardly advocates of laissez-faire free enterprise and individual liberty. Milei, on the other hand, is. He describes himself as a libertarian, an unabashed advocate of the free market, and even a Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist. <a href="https://www.outono.net/elentir/2024/01/18/mileis-great-speech-in-davos-against-the-socialism-and-the-bloody-abortion-agenda/">Milei's speech</a> has to be unlike any speech given at a WEF meeting. It would shine bright even if today's political landscape were not as bleak as it is. As a public service, I present it below. (You can watch <a href="https://youtu.be/8DYQQf1KjYo?si=Wgr4gp2SWVTTnB6z">here</a>.)</p><p>Good afternoon, thank you very much: today I am here to tell you that The West is in danger, it is in danger because those, who are supposed to defend the values of the West, find themselves co-opted by a vision of the world which – inexorably – leads to socialism, consequently to poverty.</p><p><span></span></p><a name='more'></a>Unfortunately, in recent decades, motivated by some right-thinking desires to help others and others by the desire to belong to a privileged caste, the main leaders of the Western world have abandoned the model of freedom, for different versions of what we call collectivism.<p></p><p>We are here to tell you that collectivist experiments are never the solution to the problems that afflict the citizens of the world, but – on the contrary – they are their cause. Believe me, there is no one better than us Argentinians to testify to these two issues.</p><p>When we adopted the model of freedom – back in 1860 – in 35 years we became the first world power, while when we embraced collectivism, over the last 100 years, we saw how Our citizens began to systematically become poorer, falling to 140th place in the world. But before we can give this discussion, it will be important that – first – we see the data that supports why free enterprise capitalism is not only a possible system to end poverty, in the world, but it is the only system – morally desirable – to achieve it.</p><p>If we consider the history of economic progress we can see how from year zero to approximately the year 1800, the world's GDP per capita practically remained constant throughout the reference period. If one looks at a graph of the evolution of economic growth, throughout the history of humanity, one would be seeing a graph with the shape of a hockey stick, an exponential function, which remained constant, for 90 percent of the time, and shoots up exponentially starting in the 19th century. The only exception to this history of stagnation occurred at the end of the 15th century, with the discovery of America. But apart from this exception, throughout the entire period, between the year zero and the year 1800, GDP per capita, at a global level, remained stagnant.</p><p>Now, not only does capitalism generate an explosion of wealth, from the moment it was adopted as an economic system, but if one analyzes the data what is observed is that growth has been accelerating, throughout the entire period.</p><p>Throughout the entire period – from year zero to 1800 – the growth rate of GDP per capita remained stable at around 0.02 percent annually. That is, practically no growth; Starting in the 19th century with the Industrial Revolution, the growth rate increased to 0.66 percent. At that rate, to double GDP per capita, it would need to grow for 107 years.</p><p>Now, if we look at the period between 1900 and 1950, the growth rate accelerates to 1.66 percent annually. We no longer need 107 years to double GDP per capita, but 66. And if we take the period – between 1950 and 2000 – we see that the growth rate was 2.1 percent annually, which would result in just 33 years we could double the world's GDP per capita. This trend, far from stopping, remains alive, even today. If we take the period, between 2000 and 2023, the growth rate accelerated again to 3 percent annually, which implies that We could double our GDP per capita in the world in just 23 years.</p><p>Now, when the GDP per capita is studied, from the year 1800 to today, what is observed is that, after the Industrial Revolution, the world's GDP per capita multiplied by more than 15 times, generating an explosion of wealth that lifted 90 percent of the world's population out of poverty.</p><p>We must never forget that by the year 1800, about 95 percent of the world's population lived in the most extreme poverty; while that number fell to 5 percent by 2020, prior to the pandemic.</p><p>The conclusion is obvious: far from being the cause of our problems, free enterprise capitalism, as an economic system, is the only tool we have to end hunger, poverty and homelessness, throughout the entire planet. The empirical evidence is unquestionable.</p><p>Therefore, as there is no doubt that free market capitalism is superior – in productive terms – the leftist doxa has attacked capitalism for its questions of morality, for being – according to them – their detractors, which is unfair.</p><p>They say that capitalism is bad because it is individualistic and that collectivism is good because it is altruistic, with others. Consequently they fight for social justice, but this concept that – since the First World – has been fashionable, in recent times, in my country it is a constant of political discourse, for more than 80 years. The problem is that social justice is not fair, but it also does not contribute to the general well-being; Quite the contrary, it is an intrinsically unjust idea because it is violent; It is unfair because the State is financed through taxes and taxes are collected coercively. Can any of us say that we pay taxes voluntarily? Which means that the State is financed through coercion and the greater the tax burden, the greater the coercion, the less freedom.</p><p>Those who promote social justice start from the idea that the entire economy is a cake that can be distributed in a different way, but that cake is not given, it is wealth that is generated, in what – for example – Israel Kirzner calls a market discovery process. If the good or service that a company offers is not desired, that company goes bankrupt unless it adapts to what the market is demanding. If it generates a good quality product at a good, attractive price, it will do well and it will produce more.</p><p>So the market is a process of discovery, in which the capitalist finds the right direction along the way, but if the State punishes the capitalist for being successful and blocks him in this discovery process, it destroys his incentives and the consequences of that are that it will produce less and the cake will be smaller, generating harm to society as a whole.</p><p>Collectivism, by inhibiting these discovery processes and making the appropriation of what is discovered difficult, ties the entrepreneur's hands and makes it impossible for him to produce better goods and offer better services at a better price. How can it be, then, that academia, international organizations, politics and economic theory demonize an economic system that has not only lifted 90 percent of the world's population out of the most extreme poverty ... and does it faster and faster, but is also fair and morally superior?</p><p>Thanks to free enterprise capitalism, today, the world is at its best. There has never been, in the entire history of humanity, a time of greater prosperity than the one we live in today. The world today is freer, richer, more peaceful and more prosperous, than any other time in our history. This is true for everyone, but particularly for those countries that are free, where they respect economic freedom and property rights of individuals. Because those countries that are free are 12 times richer than the repressed ones. The lowest decile of the distribution of free countries lives better than 90 percent of the population of repressed countries, [and poverty is 25 times lower, and extreme poverty is 50 times lower]. And if that were not enough, citizens of free countries live 25 percent longer than citizens of repressed countries.</p><p>Now, to understand what we come to defend it is important to define what we are talking about when we talk about libertarianism. To define it, I return to the words of the greatest hero of the ideas of freedom, from Argentina, Professor Alberto Benegas Lynch Jr. who says: “libertarianism is the unrestricted respect for the life project of others, based on the principle of non-aggression, in defense of the right to life, liberty and property, whose fundamental institutions are private property, markets free of state intervention, free competition, division of labor and social cooperation [in which success is achieved only by serving others with goods of better quality or at a better price].”</p><p>In other words, the capitalist is a social benefactor who, far from appropriating other people's wealth, contributes to the general well-being. Ultimately, a successful businessman is a hero.</p><p>This is the model that we are proposing for the Argentina of the future. A model based on the fundamental principles of libertarianism: the defense of life, liberty and property.</p><p>Now, if free enterprise capitalism and economic freedom have been extraordinary tools to end poverty in the world; and we find ourselves today in the best moment in the history of humanity, why do I say then that the West is in danger?</p><p>I say that the West is in danger precisely because in those countries that should defend the values of the free market, private property, and the other institutions of libertarianism, sectors of the political and economic establishment, some, due to errors in their theoretical framework and others due to ambition for power, are undermining the foundations of libertarianism, opening the doors to socialism and potentially condemning us to poverty, misery and stagnation.</p><p>Because it should never be forgotten that socialism is always and everywhere an impoverishing phenomenon that failed in all the countries it was attempted. It was an economic failure. It was a failure socially. It was a cultural failure. And he also murdered more than 100 million human beings.</p><p>The essential problem of the West today is that we not only must confront those who, even after the fall of the wall and the overwhelming empirical evidence, continue to fight for impoverishing socialism; but also to our own leaders, thinkers and academics who, protected by a wrong theoretical framework, undermine the foundations of the system that has given us the greatest expansion of wealth and prosperity in our history.</p><p>The theoretical framework to which I am referring is that of neoclassical economic theory, which designs an instrument that, unintentionally, ends up being functional to the interference of the state, socialism, and the degradation of society. The problem with neoclassicals is that since the model they fell in love with does not map against reality, they attribute the error to supposed market failures instead of reviewing the premises of their model.</p><p>Under the pretext of an alleged market failure, regulations are introduced that only generate distortions in the price system, which impede economic calculation, and consequently savings, investment and growth.</p><p>This problem essentially lies in the fact that not even supposedly libertarian economists understand what the market is, since if it were understood it would quickly be seen that it is impossible for something like market failures to exist.</p><p>The market is not a supply and demand curve on a graph. The market is a mechanism of social cooperation where people exchange voluntarily. Therefore, given that definition, market failure is an oxymoron. There is no market failure.</p><p>If transactions are voluntary, the only context in which there can be a market failure is if there is coercion. And the only one with the capacity to coerce in a generalized way is the state that has a monopoly on violence. Consequently, if someone considers that there is a market failure, I would recommend that they check if there is state intervention in the medium. And if they find that there is no state intervention in the medium, I suggest that they do it again, the analysis, because it is definitely wrong. Market failures do not exist.</p><p>An example of the supposed market failures that neoclassicals describe are the concentrated structures of the economy. However, without functions that present increasing returns to scale, whose counterparts are the concentrated structures of the economy, we would not be able to explain economic growth from the year 1800 to today.</p><p>Look how interesting. From the year 1800 onwards, with the population multiplying more than 8 or 9 times, the per capita product grew more than 15 times. There are increasing returns, that brought extreme poverty from 95% to 5%. However, this presence of increasing returns implies concentrated structures, what would be called a monopoly.</p><p>How can it be that something that has generated so much well-being for the neoclassical theorist is a market failure? Neoclassical economists, get out of the box. When the model fails, you don't have to get angry with reality, you have to get angry with the model and change it.</p><p>The dilemma faced by the neo-classical model is that they say they want to perfect the functioning of the market by attacking what they consider failures, but by doing so they not only open the doors to socialism, but also threaten economic growth.</p><p>For example, regulating monopolies, destroying their profits, and destroying increasing returns would automatically destroy economic growth.</p><p>In other words, every time you want to correct a supposed market failure, inexorably, because you don't know what the market is or because you have fallen in love with a failed model, you are opening the doors to socialism and are condemning people to poverty.</p><p>However, in the face of the theoretical demonstration that state intervention is harmful, and the empirical evidence that it failed - because it could not be otherwise - the solution that the collectivists will propose does not It is not more freedom but it is more regulation, generating a downward spiral of regulations until we are all poorer and the lives of all of us depend on a bureaucrat sitting in a luxury office.</p><p>Given the resounding failure of collectivist models and the undeniable advances of the free world, socialists were forced to change their agenda. They left behind the class struggle based on the economic system to replace it with other supposed social conflicts that are equally harmful to community life and economic growth.</p><p>The first of these new battles was the ridiculous and unnatural fight between man and woman.</p><p>Libertarianism already establishes equality between the sexes. The foundation stone of our creed says that all men are created equal, that we all have the same inalienable rights granted by the creator, among which are life, liberty and property.</p><p>The only thing that this agenda of radical feminism has become is greater intervention by the state to hinder the economic process, giving work to bureaucrats who do not contribute anything to society, be it in the format of women's ministries or international organizations dedicated to promoting this agenda.</p><p>Another conflict that socialists raise is that of man against nature. They maintain that human beings damage the planet and that it must be protected at all costs, even going so far as to advocate for population control mechanisms or in the bloody agenda of abortion.</p><p>Unfortunately, these harmful ideas have strongly permeated our society. Neo-Marxists have known how to co-opt the common sense of the West. They achieved this thanks to the appropriation of the media, culture, universities, and yes, also international organizations.</p><p>Luckily, there are more and more of us who dare to raise our voices. Because we see that, if we do not fight these ideas head-on, the only possible destiny is that we will increasingly have more state, more regulation, more socialism, more poverty, less freedom, and, consequently, a worse standard of living.</p><p>The West, unfortunately, has already begun to go down this path. I know that to many it may sound ridiculous to propose that the West has turned to socialism. But it is only ridiculous to the extent that one restricts oneself to the traditional economic definition of socialism, which establishes that it is an economic system where the state is the owner of the means of production.</p><p>This definition should be, for us, updated to present circumstances. Today states do not need to directly control the means of production to control every aspect of individuals' lives.</p><p>With tools such as monetary creation, debt, subsidies, interest rate control, price controls and regulations to correct supposed “market failures”, they can control the destinies of millions of human beings.</p><p>This is how we get to the point where, with different names or forms, a good part of the political offers generally accepted in most Western countries are collectivist variants.</p><p>Whether they openly declare themselves communists, fascists, nazis, socialists, social democrats, national socialists, Christian democrats, neo-Keynesians, progressives, populists, nationalists or globalists.</p><p>Deep down there are no substantive differences: they all maintain that the state must direct all aspects of individuals' lives. They all defend a model contrary to the one that led humanity to the most spectacular progress in its history.</p><p>We come here today to invite other Western countries to return to the path of prosperity. Economic freedom, limited government and unrestricted respect for private property are essential elements for economic growth.</p><p>This phenomenon of impoverishment that collectivism produces is not a fantasy. Nor is fatalism. It is a reality that we Argentines know very well.</p><p>Because we already lived it. We've already been through this. Because as I said before, since we decided to abandon the model of freedom that had made us rich, we are trapped in a downward spiral where we are poorer every day.</p><p>We already lived it. And we are here to warn you about what can happen if the Western countries that became rich with the model of freedom continue on this path of servitude.</p><p>The Argentine case is the empirical demonstration that it does not matter how rich you are, how many natural resources you have, it does not matter how trained the population is, nor how educated it is, nor how many gold bars there are in the coffers of the central bank.</p><p>If measures are adopted that hinder the free functioning of markets, free competition, free pricing systems, if trade is hindered, if private property is attacked, the only destiny possible is poverty.</p><p>Finally, I want to leave a message to all the businessmen present here and to those who are watching us from all corners of the planet.</p><p>Do not let yourselves be intimidated by the political caste or by the parasites who live off the state. Do not surrender to a political class that only wants to remain in power and maintain its privileges.</p><p>You are social benefactors. You are heroes. You are the creators of the most extraordinary period of prosperity we have ever experienced. Let no one tell you that your ambition is immoral. If you make money it is because you offer a better product at a better price, thus contributing to general well-being.</p><p>Do not give in to the advance of the state. The state is not the solution. The state is the problem itself.</p><p>You are the true protagonists of this story, and know that starting today, you have an unwavering ally in the Argentine Republic.</p><p>Thank you very much and long live freedom, [dammit].</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/atom.xml" title="Atom feed">Atom</a></div>Sheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-89746399513336589562024-01-12T04:36:00.001-06:002024-01-12T04:36:10.898-06:00TGIF: Smells Like Genocide<p>If it looks like genocide, sounds like genocide, and smells like genocide, chances are it's genocide. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will rule provisionally on whether that is what Israel is committing against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip. The Republic of South Africa filed the complaint, which is ironic because Israel was a staunch ally of South Africa's former apartheid regime.</p><p>The official complaint is welcome, but thanks to social media, each of us already has ample evidence from a large variety of sources showing Israel's assault on the Gazans. Just watch the abundant video evidence that has accumulated since October 7, when Hamas fighters and perhaps other Gazans committed unspeakable atrocities against Israeli civilians after breaking through the fence that has kept them in an open-air prison for many years.</p><p>Since that horrible day, the Israeli Defense Force has brutally and indiscriminately pounded the 2.3 million people, about half of whom are children, who live in that 25x5-mile, densely populated strip. The conservatively estimated death toll -- there must be many victims under the rubble -- now stands at over 23,000, about half of whom are kids. Hundreds of thousands of residences have been destroyed or damaged. People have been displaced. Infrastructure and medical facilities have been rendered inoperable. Gaza resembles nearly Hiroshima after the U.S. government dropped the atomic bomb.</p><p>Moreover, one need not advocate strictly limited government (or no government at all) to be appalled at the U.S. government's complicity in that genocide, a word I do not use casually and have, I think, never written before.</p><p><a href="https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf">The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide</a>, adopted after the Nazi nightmare, formally defines as genocide several "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, <em>as such</em>." (My emphasis.) Those acts are:</p><p style="padding-left: 40px;">(a) Killing members of the group;<br />(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;<br />(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;<br />(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;<br />(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.</p><p>Israel argues that it is not killing Gazans indiscriminately <em>because</em> they are members of a particular ethnic or religious group; rather it tries to minimize collateral damage while rooting out lethal Hamas and its infrastructure. But is that credible? So many babies, toddlers, elderly, and seriously ill have been killed or maimed, so many homes, hospitals, and sanitation facilities destroyed.</p><p>South Africa's 84-page <a href="https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf">application to the ICJ</a> is a well-documented comprehensive paper and bill of indictment against the state of Israel's conduct. In great detail and with much background, it enumerates both the Israeli government's genocidal actions and the many public statements made by Israeli civilian and military officials that declare in no uncertain terms their intention to do what is defined as genocide under the international convention. Israel is a signatory to that convention, as is the United States.</p><p>At this stage, South Africa is requesting an immediate provisional order for a cessation of Israel's onslaught while the merits of its case are considered.</p><p>South Africa's application states:</p><p style="padding-left: 40px;">South Africa <em>unequivocally condemns all violations of international law by all parties, including the direct targeting of Israeli civilians and other nationals and hostage-taking by Hamas and other Palestinian armed group</em>s. No armed attack on a State’s territory no matter how serious — even an attack involving atrocity crimes — can, however, provide any possible justification for, or defence to, breaches of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ..., whether as a matter of law or morality. [My emphasis.]</p><p>Note the condemnation of Hamas for its atrocities. It goes on:</p><p style="padding-left: 40px;">The acts and omissions by Israel complained of by South Africa are genocidal in character because they are intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group, that being the part of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip.... The acts in question include killing Palestinians in Gaza, causing them serious bodily and mental harm, and inflicting on them conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction.</p><p>This threat to the Palestinians has not passed, says the application, so a provisional cease-and-desist order is imperative right now:</p><p style="padding-left: 40px;">...Israel has engaged in, is engaging in and risks further engaging in genocidal acts against the Palestinian people in Gaza. Those acts include killing them, causing them serious mental and bodily harm and deliberately inflicting on them conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction as a group. Repeated statements by Israeli State representatives, including at the highest levels, by the Israeli President, Prime Minister, and Minister of Defence, express genocidal intent. That intent is also properly to be inferred from the nature and conduct of Israel’s military operation in Gaza, having regard inter alia to Israel’s failure to provide or ensure essential food, water, medicine, fuel, shelter and other humanitarian assistance for the besieged and blockaded Palestinian people, which has pushed them to the brink of famine. It is also clear from the nature, scope and extent of Israel’s military attacks on Gaza, which have involved the sustained bombardment over more than 11 weeks of one of the most densely populated places in the world, forcing the evacuation of 1.9 million people or 85% of the population of Gaza from their homes and herding them into ever smaller areas, without adequate shelter, in which they continue to be attacked, killed and harmed.</p><p>As of the filing in late December,</p><p style="padding-left: 40px;">Israel has now killed in excess of 21,110 named Palestinians, including over 7,729 children — with over 7,780 others missing, presumed dead under the rubble — and has injured over 55,243 other Palestinians, causing them severe bodily and mental harm. Israel has also laid waste to vast areas of Gaza, including entire neighbourhoods, and has damaged or destroyed in excess of 355,000 Palestinian homes, alongside extensive tracts of agricultural land, bakeries, schools, universities, businesses, places of worship, cemeteries, cultural and archaeological sites, municipal and court buildings, and critical infrastructure, including water and sanitation facilities and electricity networks, while pursuing a relentless assault on the Palestinian medical and healthcare system. Israel has reduced and is continuing to reduce Gaza to rubble, killing, harming and destroying its people, and creating conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction as a group.</p><p>And no end is in sight. The Israeli government has said the attack will go on for months, even a year. The <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@middleeasteye/video/7320211222589213984">Israeli ambassador to the UK</a>, Tzipi Hotovely, said on television that "every school, every mosque, and every second house has an access to a tunnel...and of course ammunition." When asked if that meant all of Gaza should be destroyed, she responded, "Do you have another solution how to destroy the underground tunnel city?"</p><p>That was just the latest in the many official Israeli statements -- from the prime minister and president on down -- indicating that the target of the onslaught is the entire population of Gaza, whether by bombing or by systematic deprivation of food, water, fuel, and medical supplies. (Even ambulances have been attacked.) Those statements are documented in the South African application because they demonstrate the Israeli government's genocidal intention. As a South African representative told the ICJ on Thursday, "The evidence of genocidal intent is not only chilling, it is also overwhelming and incontrovertible."</p><p>This death, injury, starvation, dehydration, and utter destruction of homes and infrastructure is perpetrated by a nation whose most devout supporters worldwide believe it has a holy mission to be a "light to nations." (Isaiah 42:6, 49:6, and 60:3) Yet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rallied his troops by <a href="https://jweekly.com/2023/11/02/comparing-hamas-to-amalek-our-biblical-nemesis-will-ultimately-hurt-israel/">invoking</a> the biblical story of the divinely commanded Israeli destruction of the Amalekite men, women, and children. Before the ICJ, Israel tried to explain that invocation by fully quoting Netanyahu, who told the troops, "The IDF is the most moral army in the world, and IDF does everything to avoid harming the uninvolved...." But the Israeli leaders have indicated repeatedly that <em>no </em>Gazans are uninvolved.</p><p>While the application was filed against Israel, the U.S. government -- for obvious reasons -- should not regard itself as off the hook: the genocide convention also prohibits "complicity in genocide." Moreover, a complaint has been filed in another court, the International Criminal Court, against President Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin for their role in helping Israel. Moreover, the prohibitions in the genocide convention have counterparts in U.S. law.</p><p>The Biden administration opposes South Africa's application, though it admits it has not investigated the matter. Revealingly perhaps, an Israeli government spokesman dismissed South Africa as an <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9Y12La20Rs">"advocate for the devil."</a></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/atom.xml" title="Atom feed">Atom</a></div>Sheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-21735693095030826782024-01-11T05:33:00.001-06:002024-01-11T05:33:54.939-06:00Discussing Gaza on Kibbe on Liberty Matt Kibbe and I talked about the emergency in Gaza on his podcast. Watch <a href="https://youtu.be/KGMhUrtB0-c?si=zykjiTTBEroBmGKT">here</a>.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/atom.xml" title="Atom feed">Atom</a></div>Sheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-91259897856238709802024-01-09T04:33:00.002-06:002024-01-09T05:16:43.460-06:00Conversation on Israeli Genocide I discussed matters related to Israel's genocidal attack on the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip with Saifedean Ammous. The podcast is <a href="https://saifedean.com/podcast/203-coming-to-palestine-with-sheldon-richman">here</a>.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/atom.xml" title="Atom feed">Atom</a></div>Sheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-6582743886770663472024-01-05T05:40:00.001-06:002024-01-05T05:40:21.264-06:00TGIF: The Right to Move<p>If people individually own themselves and have a right to be free of aggressive force, then they have a right to change their location in ways consistent with other people's rights. Whether you call this moving around <em>relocating</em>, <em>emigrating</em>, or <em>immigrating</em>, doesn't much matter. The default position is that each individual may rightfully move to somewhere else permanently or temporarily.</p><p>Inside the United States, nobody questions this. People freely move from state to state, etc., sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently. They need no one's permission.</p><p>Why should things be different when we talk about countries rather than smaller jurisdictions and when the individuals who do the moving are not recognized as citizens of the destination country? An opponent of the freedom to move might begin by rejecting self-ownership and nonaggression, so the argument with him would take place at that basic level. But what if the opponent of the freedom to move espouses support for self-ownership and nonaggression? That's a different kettle of fish.</p><p>Remarkably, both kinds of opponents make a similar case for why government control of the borders is necessary. Starting from a different basis, they agree on the alleged need for coercive social engineering by politicians and bureaucrats, who might be pursuing agendas that most people would want no part of.</p><p>We often hear it said that just as no one has a right to enter your home without your permission, so no one has a right to enter the country without the permission of the purported equivalent of the owner. That owner is said to be "the people," in whose name the government claims to act. The truth of the matter is different.</p><p>I can see a collectivist taking this shaky position, but an individualist advocate of self-ownership? A country isn't a home. It's not a country club either. Homes and country clubs are rooted in private property and voluntary contract. But a country is not. The view that a country is owned at all has been the basis of collectivism and tyranny.</p><p>A property owner may decide he doesn't want someone or some group to enter his property. Fine. But by what right does he impose his rule on other property owners? It does not matter if a majority of property owners and others likes his rules. The dissenting minority -- individuals with rights -- might welcome newcomers as potential employees, employers, tenants, landlords, customers, sellers, friends, romantic partners, or what have you. Majorities shouldn't be able to nullify the rights of dissenters or those of aspiring migrants.</p><p>Relocation in itself violates no rights. If a rights violation occurs, that should be dealt with, not the relocation. We can always imagine dire emergencies -- "Let justice be done though the heavens fall" is a dubious principle -- but this does not justify routine militarized border control, walls and fences, internal checkpoints, employment databases, etc. By definition, dire emergencies are the exception. The words "Show me your papers" should make Americans (and everyone else) cringe.</p><p>People today, like in the past, imagine that they see signs of cultural decline and threats to democracy from foreign-born newcomers. When I hear the latter fear expressed, I want to reply sardonically, "We're capable of growing our own anti-freedom voters, thank you. We need no help from foreigners." Seriously, though, who can be sure how immigrants will vote in the future, especially if their alternatives include a strong freedom party that welcomes newcomers? Meanwhile, let's work on shifting the public's business from the flawed democratic arena to the realm of private property, contract, and social cooperation in the free market.</p><p>As for the wish to protect the culture from change, nothing so surely spells tyranny. Imagine what would have to be done to carry out such a plan. Who would you want to run the cultural ministry? It wouldn't work, of course, but trying would be a road to hell. Besides, do you want to live in a place without a constant flow of new restaurants? And why stop at the change that originates outside the country? What about the sometimes radical change that occurs from domestic sources?</p><p>The logic of immigration control ought to worry every freedom advocate -- for we can ask, as noted, why stop at national borders? Why not control movement between states, counties, cities, towns, and neighborhoods? (Maybe I shouldn't given anyone ideas.) If you can't accomplish a goal through voluntary exchange, then leave it alone.</p><p>That control mentality blinds people. As <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Open-Borders-Science-Ethics-Immigration/dp/1250316960">Bryan Caplan</a> points out, when poor people move to rich places, their productivity skyrockets, so they make not only themselves better off, but also the people around them. Yes, some unskilled high-school dropouts would see some decline in income because of competition from new workers who speak little English. Change -- progress -- always has a relatively small short-term downside for a few people. But even they, and most certainly their children and grandchildren, will be better off: more goods, lower prices, more employees, more employers, and a larger variety of offerings, not to mention fresh energy and cultural stimulation.</p><p>Remember the ever-present potential for gains from trade! Despite the impression given by demagogues, <a href="https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/why-legal-immigration-nearly-impossible">we have nothing resembling open borders</a>, and the problems at the U.S.-Mexican line are the <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/want-to-solve-the-border-crisis-legalize-immigration">homemade product of U.S. anti-immigration policy</a>.</p><p>As Oscar W. Cooley and Paul L. Poirot wrote in a 1951 Foundation for Economic Education pamphlet, <a href="https://fee.org/media/4184/0611cooley_piorot.pdf">"The Freedom to Move"</a>:</p><p style="padding-left: 40px;">Can we hope to explain the blessings of freedom to foreign people while we deny them the freedom to cross our boundaries? To advertise America as the “land of the free,” and to pose as the world champion of freedom in the contest with communism, is hypocritical, if at the same time we deny the freedom of immigration as well as the freedom of trade. And we may be sure that our neighbors overseas are not blind to this hypocrisy.</p><p style="padding-left: 40px;">A community operating on the competitive basis of the free market will welcome any willing newcomer for his potential productivity, whether he brings capital goods or merely a willingness to work. Capital and labor then attract each other, in a kind of growth that spells healthy progress and prosperity in that community. That principle seems to be well recognized and accepted by those who support the activities of a local chamber of commerce. Why do we not dare risk the same attitude as applied to national immigration policy?</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/atom.xml" title="Atom feed">Atom</a></div>Sheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-21594132306230046632023-12-22T05:31:00.005-06:002023-12-22T05:31:27.833-06:00TGIF: Beware Elitists in Populist Clothing<p>We're led to believe that today's political struggles are largely a contest between populists and elitists. But something besides libertarians is missing from that simple tale: the elitists in populist clothing, or elitist populists. We have no better example than a conversation the other day between the leading "right" populist Tucker Carlson and the leading "left" populist Glenn Greenwald. (The quotation marks are to indicate that these tribal labels <a href="https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/tgif-package-deal/">are seriously problematic</a>.)</p><p>To their credit, Carlson and Greenwald consistently defend a noninterventionist foreign policy and free speech. However, advocates of full individual liberty should take care because these pundits voice positions that seriously trash individual liberty. See their views on the free movement of people and goods across national boundaries. Voluntary exchange is not a priority for Carlson and Greenwald.</p><p>Even knowing this, I was unprepared for what they would say. Carlson <a href="https://youtu.be/Cw9cB3Ti1gs?si=Gc6RGLMTQeUESkP_&t=1690">offered this</a> (at 28;10):</p><p style="padding-left: 40px;">I think a lot of people have awakened to the now-demonstrable fact that libertarian economics was a scam perpetrated by the beneficiaries of the economic system that they were defending. So they created this whole intellectual framework to justify the private-equity culture that's hollowed out the country.... I think you need to ask, Does this economic system produce a lot of Dollar Stores? And if it does, it's not a system that you want because it degrades people and it makes their lives worse and it increases exponentially the amount of ugliness in your society. And anything that increases ugliness is evil. Let's just start there. So if it's such a good system, why do we have all these Dollar Stores?... If you have a Dollar Store, you're degraded. And any town that has a Dollar Store does not get better. It gets worse. And the people who live there lead lives that are worse. The counterargument, to the extent there is one, oh they buy cheaper stuff. Great. But they become more unhappy.... [The Dollar Store] is also a metaphor for your total lack of control over where you live and over the imposition of aggressively in-you-face ugly structures that send one message to you: which is you mean nothing; you are a consumer, not a human being or a citizen."</p><p>There you have it. The market is an exploitative scam, and the Dollar Store, which many of us regard as a godsend, is an ugly, degrading, and dehumanizing snare. Who knew?</p><p>Where to start? Libertarian -- in other words, consistent free-market -- economics is a self-serving scam? Really? Got proof? Were Menger, Böhm-Bawerk, Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Kirzner, Sowell, Williams, Buchanan, Rothbard, etc. actually members of a cabal that was getting rich at our expense? Is Carlson having a laugh?</p><p>He would have been on firmer ground if had said that libertarian economics is used as a cover for elitist government interventions. But libertarians have said this roughly forever.</p><p>"So they created this whole intellectual framework to justify the private-equity culture that's hollowed out the country." This is pretentious rubbish. We must always distinguish market institutions in themselves from the distorted monstrosities created by social engineers through government control. The market for private equity -- otherwise known as private property in the means of production -- is not the problem. It's indispensable for raising the living standards of eight billion people. The problem is privilege: goodies and influence bestowed by the state. How could Carlson not know that?</p><p>Now we get to that alleged symbol of ugly American modernity and degradation: the Dollar Store. This is too silly to require an answer. He doesn't the stores are just physically unsightly. Actually, they're not. He means that the very idea is ugly and destructive of good things. Has he asked people who shop there? Do they see it as symbolic of a lack of control? He would have had a point had he lamented that such stores are valued because the government central bank sucks the purchasing power out of the dollar by printing money. Or he might have noted that without the Federal Reserve, <em>more</em> stuff would cost only a dollar. (HT: Bob Murphy.)</p><p>Lest you think that Carlson's complaint is about 21st century America, understand that the first "five and dime" store -- officially, F.W. "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._W._Woolworth_Company">Woolworth's</a> Great Five Cent Store" -- opened in Utica, New York, in 1879. Children of the 1950s like me fondly remember the Woolworth as a cheerful fixture on the avenue. I don't recall being treated as a "mere consumer," whatever that means. (The Woolworth lunch counter in the Jim Crow South was a different story, but that's not what Carlson has in mind.) Woolworth soon had competitors, such as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._T._Grant">W.T. Grant</a>.</p><p>Carlson's elitism is undisguised when he expresses his disdain for the Dollar Store and the people who welcome them. I'm quite sure he and his fellow millionaires don't shop there.</p><p>If you expected some pushback from Greenwald, you would have been disappointed. He laughingly recalled how he got into trouble for suggesting that Carlson and Donald Trump's one-time gray eminence Steve Bannon "are a lot more socialist in a certain limited sense than a lot of people who claim that title." He's right. That's because, he added, "you [Carlson] are focused so much on the welfare of ordinary people." I'm not seeing much focus on ordinary people.</p><p>As to Carlson's point about ugliness, Greenwald elaborated:</p><p style="padding-left: 40px;">You go to anywhere in the world. You go to Western Europe and you see these structures that people spent 200 years building just for the sheer beauty of it and you go into nature and you see beauty like it never exists. And you go to developing countries and you see a kind of dedication to buildings even that are designed to be inspiring to stimulate things in the human soul. And then you go to places in the United States where our infrastructure is falling apart, where our new structures are designed to be as ugly as possible. And it's a very difficult thing to do to communicate the spiritual components of our politics.</p><p>Has it occurred to Greenwald that those beautiful old European structures were built <em>by</em> ordinary people <em>for</em> the government-privileged aristocracy? (HT: <a href="https://www.econlib.org/are-dollar-stores-bad-for-people-who-buy-from-them/">David Henderson</a>) Greenwald apparently sees no beauty in the fact that the market-oriented West (despite abundant government intervention for its cronies) brought the first mass production for ordinary people in history. The upper classes of the not-too-distant past would envy the middle and lower classes over what they consume every day. You might expect that to thrill a populist -- but not these delusional champions of ordinary people.</p><p>Finally, Greenwald writes that "ultimately politics does have no purpose other than to elevate the happiness of our citizenry." But he doesn't lift a finger to defend this position, which is fraught with difficulties not least because of human differences and the universal need for individual freedom. To name just one, since the state is founded on aggressive force, what does Greenwald have planned for those of us whose happiness requires that the politicians and bureaucrats stop stealing from us and stop trying to manage society? Wouldn't it be better for the government to stay out of the happiness business and to respect freedom of association? </p><p>No doubt Carlson and Greenwald favor a foreign policy of nonintervention for some good reasons that libertarians also embrace. But they favor it for a bad reason as well. Instead of favoring the taxpayers keeping <em>their own </em>money, Carlson and Greenwald want to spend the Pentagon's huge budget on a gigantic, compulsory, inflationary, wealth-destroying, coldly bureaucratic, intrusive, and condescending welfare state if not outright government ownership and control. </p><p>Individual liberty? What's that?</p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><a href="http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/atom.xml" title="Atom feed">Atom</a></div>Sheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.com0