TGIF: What Is Capitalism?

So, what is capitalism? The answer will depend on who's being asked. Language, like markets, basic law, and customs, is a spontaneous order. No one plans it. Words drift in their meaning in ways that probably can’t be fully explained. Language is a tool that people use to think and communicate, so it’s adapted according to needs, changing circumstances, and even confusion.

That doesn’t mean we can say nothing about words like capitalism. My views on that word have changed over the years; I once contributed to a book called Markets, Not Capitalism. The book was meant to show that the free market differs from capitalism. Is it right? Again, that depends on how one defines capitalism. As far as I can tell, most people who dislike capitalism also dislike the idea of a market-based society. Some prominent pro-market thinkers, Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek among them, disliked the word for a variety of reasons. 

At any rate, the word is not going away. Since no one controls the language, we should put communication before personal preferences. Let's define our terms clearly and then talk about reality.

Despite variation in the definition of capitalism, most people would agree that market orientation is at its heart. They evaluate the market differently, but it is the market that they are evaluating. So we have some common ground, even as we disagree over whether capitalism is a good or bad social arrangement or whether it conceptually includes or excludes a given practice.

I, along with many others, consider capitalism to be the social arrangement in which people are free to engage in the production and exchange of goods and services, typically for money. Left unmolested, that is what people do. Those activities generate prices, which reflect supply and demand and guide further action. To live is to act, which is to aim at ends by deploying means, which is to value. The root of this never-ending process is the wish to sustain life and to live in a particular way. (See the work of Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, and Ayn Rand for details.)

The institution of interpersonal exchange logically has presuppositions. It stands on a foundation. It presupposes that persons own themselves and the things they nonaggressively obtain; it also presupposes the security of contracts. These things can be violated in practice, but they are departures from the logic of the system. Historical capitalism developed over a thousand years as persons, their property (including their bodies), their contracts, and their enterprises came to be more and more respected—that is, as political power decentralized and, consequently, diminished, thanks in part to jurisdictional competition, that is, the power to vote with one's feet. (People disliked paying taxes for war and having their trade and investments disrupted.) Growing religious toleration played an important role in this process of individual liberation and spreading cooperation.

Where property and contracts became more secure, per capita wealth dramatically increased, setting an example for others. As Adam Smith put it, “Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.”

This is not to say that injustice and aggression disappeared abruptly and completely. Of course, it did not. Who could have expected that? It would take time. Another way of saying this is that capitalism—to be clear, that means laissez-faire or free-market capitalism—was not fully achieved anywhere. It still hasn't been. But it would be wrong to attribute the great wealth generated by capitalism to injustice such as slavery and conquest. Advanced civilizations of the past conquered, plundered, and enslaved, but they did not produce astonishing, sustained, and widespread wealth. Capitalism and classical liberalism in Western Europe and America did something different, something special.

Societies can be judged by how close they came to achieving capitalism. We can distinguish particular practices and institutions as either capitalist or anticapitalist. It follows that crony capitalism, state capitalism, and political capitalism, etc., are not capitalist variations but moves away from capitalism (that is, from self-ownership, property rights, contract, and free exchange). Those labels are contradictions in terms because they entail limits on peaceful, productive market interaction. The predatory, which supposedly acts in the name of the collective, in effect makes itself the senior part-owner of what was or should have been private property. The system is no longer a fully market system, even if people who own capital ask for the intervention. Thus free-market capitalism is a redundancy.

For example, a political arrangement in which slavery and slave markets exist does not qualify as capitalism. Why not? Because in that basic respect, the arrangement does not fully embody self-ownership, property rights (which flow from self-ownership), and free exchange. Southern slave holders claimed that "their" slaves were property, but that was a category error because persons can be property owners, not property. Good Lockeans, the abolitionists called the slave holders "man stealers." 

Similarly, a political system in which politicians and bureaucrats may interfere with people’s property and free exchange through taxation, regulation, trade barriers, subsidies, government ownership, etc., should not be called capitalist. It would be a mixture of capitalism and interventionism or socialism.

We can sum up by saying that only laissez-faire capitalism—the consistent separation of state and economy—qualifies as real capitalism. Anything less than laissez faire is less than capitalism. The government cannot regulate an economy, which is an abstraction. What it can do is restrict real individuals in their peaceful, productive market interactions. Restriction requires the use or threat of aggressive force and violence. In contrast, a capitalist society is a humane society.

Call it what you will, the system that respects our freedom to engage in mutually beneficial market relations—and its prerequisites—is worth defending against its Classic Marxist and Marxist Lite detractors, who have to distort categories like “exploitation” to make their spurious case. Capitalism, despite not being fully embraced, ushered in an era of unprecedented personal freedom and sustained, widespread wealth. Capitalism is anti-exploitationism.

(I have not reinvented the wheel. Thus related reading: “The European Miracle” by Ralph Raico, “Reconsidering Gabriel Kolko: A Half-Century Perspective” by Robert L. Bradley Jr. and Roger Donway, "Capitalism, Socialism, and 'The Middle Way': A Taxonomy" by Bradley and Donway, "Beyond 'The Money-Making Personality': Notes toward a Theory of Capitalist Orthopraxy" by Roger Donway (Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 21:1 July 2021) and The Libertarian Mind by David Boaz (especially chapter 2: "The Roots of Libertarianism.")

TGIF: Immigration and Free Association

Immigration. Despite other headline-grabbing news, this issue persists.

How could it not? Trump's masked goon squad, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), abducts peaceful people off the streets, from their workplaces, and from Home Depot parking lots, then shuttles them without due process to detention centers, including the ominously named Alligator Alcatraz, and prepares to deport them to third countries deficient, shall we say, in their devotion to individual rights. Many detainees have been unable to contact family and attorneys. Even American citizens have been swept up, subjecting them to the trauma of confinement until they demonstrate that they "belong here." Trump's quota of 3,000 detainees per day creates the most perverse of incentives for ICE agents. He reportedly has berated ICE because the arrest numbers are too low.

Need I say that this should not be happening in America, and Americans should not forget that it is happening? Fortunately, some glimmers of hope penetrate the dark clouds. The latest to come to my attention is the reported bad morale among ICE agents. Apparently, they don't enjoy "arresting gardeners." Why don't they quit?

Moreover, recent polls indicate that a growing number of Americans dislike how Trump is handling immigration. Naively, they seem surprised that Trump did not confine his hunt to real criminals (that is, murderers, muggers, rapists, thieves, etc.) but is going after people who hold jobs, live normal lives, behave neighborly, and bother no one. (And, alas, pay taxes.) We're also seeing federal district judges smack down ICE raids and Trump's autocratic bid to rewrite the Constitution on birthright citizenship. (See the 14th Amendment.)

For example, ABC reported the other day, "A Los Angeles federal judge issued a pair of temporary restraining orders today limiting the ability of U.S. immigration-enforcement agents to detain people absent reasonable suspicion beyond merely their race, ethnicity or occupation, while also requiring that detainees be given access to legal counsel." (Emphasis added.) No profiling, that is. It's a start. Yet it still might be good policy for people with accents and darker skin tones to avoid Home Depot parking lots, car washes, restaurant kitchens, and farms. 

We can hope that future generations will look back on this terror with shock and shame.

I've heard it said that libertarians should favor government control of immigration in principle (and so such roundups) because free movement constitutes "forced integration." Specifically, it has been said that laws against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations violate our freedom of association and, hence, a property owner's right to exclude immigrants, among others. Freedom of association, of course, should be respected, and it logically includes the freedom not to associate, or the freedom to exclude, even when it takes irrational and bigoted forms. Freedom must be defended—even when it is exercised obnoxiously. Absolutely true.

But would open borders increase coercion in America by prohibiting discrimination and exclusion? Before I answer that question, let me pose another one. If all the antidiscrimination laws were repealed tomorrow, would the libertarian restrictionists withdraw their opposition to open borders? I think not. 

As a practical matter, free immigration under today's laws would not effectively compel individuals to associate. Open-borders champion Bryan Caplan explains why in his newest collection of blog posts, Pro-Market and Pro-Business: Essays on Laissez Faire ("Association, Exclusion, Liberty, and the Status Quo").

Caplan writes,

One of my conservative friends keeps telling me that, “The right to associate is the right to exclude.” As a libertarian, I agree.  But the subtext of his slogan is that libertarians focus far too much on government regulations that abridge the freedom of association—and far too little on government regulations that abridge the freedom of exclusion. His claim, in fact, is that the only feasible way to protect the freedom to exclude is to restrict the freedom to associate. Since discrimination laws make it impossible for voluntary contracts to keep foreigners out of a neighborhood, for example, it’s OK for immigration laws to keep foreigners out of the country entirely.

Some otherwise-libertarians make the same argument. Since we are not free to exclude foreigners from our personal affairs, we must not let them in.

That prompts Caplan's question: "To what extent do existing policies that restrict freedom of association and exclusion actually bind? In other words, how different would the modern U.S. look if people were free to live, work, and play anywhere if and only if the property owner consented?" He responds:

Let’s start with exclusion.  Many existing laws restrict the right to refuse to hire workers and serve customers. In real estate, restrictive covenants and home owners’ associations are common, but if you try to use them for racial exclusion, courts won’t enforce them.  Single-gender clubs also occasionally face lawsuits.

I’m against all of these limitations on the right to exclude, but how much do they actually change behavior in the modern U.S.?

His answer: "Only slightly, for a long list of reasons."

Among his reasons are: businesses want money too badly to exclude people without good cause; most people frown on exclusion and would feel funny about a business that practiced it; and alternative methods of exclusion are available, such as "high prices..., dress codes..., and educational credentials." Where there's a will, there's a way.

"I don’t deny, he says, "that laws against exclusion occasionally have important effects.  But their main effect in the modern U.S. economy isn’t to reduce exclusion, but to pressure businesses" to find workarounds.

So much for the consequences of mostly paper violations of freedom of exclusion. What about the consequences of government limits on free association, that is, immigration control? Remember, border restrictions prevent Americans from selling to, renting to, buying from, employing, befriending, dating, and marrying would-be immigrants.

"Indeed," Caplan responds, "they [border restrictions] probably have a bigger effect than all other regulations combined."

It’s simple. Billions of people around the world live on a few dollars a day or less.  Under open borders, tens of millions of them would migrate to the U.S. every year.  Remember: Even if you’re an illiterate peasant from Bangladesh, credit markets and/or employers would be happy to front the money for airfare.

This immigration flow wouldn’t stabilize until real estate prices massively increased and low-skilled wages drastically declined. The U.S. population could easily increase by 50% in a decade. New cities would blanket the country. The level of output would skyrocket—and its composition would rapidly change, too. Whether you love this vision or hate it, you can’t deny that free association would radically and rapidly reshape the face of America.

The upshot: "restrictions on the right to associate are massive, and there is enormous pent-up demand to migrate. Hundreds of millions of people want to move here, landlords want to rent to them, employers want to hire them—but the law won’t allow it.... While restrictions on exclusion are occasionally irksome, they rarely ruin lives. Immigration laws, in contrast, usually condemn their victims to life—and often early death—in the Third World."

Like free trade, free immigration is overwhelmingly win-win.

 

Bryan Caplan and Me

 I sat down recently for a chat with my old friend Bryan Caplan.

TGIF: Israel and Jabotinsky's Iron Wall

Vladimir (Ze'ev) Jabotinsky (1880-1940) was a key figure in the development of the Zionist movement, which led to the founding of Israel in 1948. After breaking from mainline Zionism, Jabotinsky, born in Odessa (Ukraine), established Revisionist Zionism, a more openly militant version.

 What is Revisionist Zionism? Even fellow Zionists saw similarities with fascism. According to Ramzy Baroud and Romana Rubeo, "Before the opportunistic alliance between Germany’s Nazi leader, Adolf Hitler, and Italy’s fascist dictator, Benito Mussolini, in 1936,... a degree of affinity existed between Zionist and Fascist leaders in Rome." Baroud and Rubeo went on:

Vladimir Jabotinsky, the founder of Revisionist Zionism, of which Israel’s current Likud party and other right and far-right groups are the offspring, saw in Italy “a spiritual homeland.”

“All my views on nationalism, the state, and society were developed during those years under Italian influence,” Jabotinsky wrote in his autobiography, referring to his ideological formation years in Italy.

In return, Mussolini had expressly spoken in support of Zionism and of Jabotinsky in particular: “For Zionism to succeed, you need to have a Jewish State with a Jewish flag, and Jewish language. The person who understands that is your fascist, Jabotinsky,” Mussolini said ... in November 1934.

TGIF: Liberty Requires Nationwide Injunctions

The government is always a threat. This we must never forget.

In that light, I want to examine the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. CASA, the 6-3 decision that sided with the Trump administration's position that a federal district court exceeded its congressional authority when it issued a temporary nationwide, or universal, injunction against Trump's executive order redefining the post-Civil War 14th Amendment clause that affirms birthright citizenship.

The Supreme Court did not rule on the legality of that executive order. Rather, it ruled that the district court's temporary injunction against a "likely illegal" government action can apply only to the plaintiffs in the particular case and to no one else.

I will not comment on the ruling as a constitutional lawyer because I am not a constitutional lawyer (or any other kind of lawyer). Rather, I will look at the ruling as a libertarian, that is, as someone who believes that individual rights predate any government, as the Declaration of Independence states, and that, therefore, tight limits on government power are good. In general, when a federal district court rules that the government may not do something, pending final disposition of the case, that is a win for our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which we theoretically celebrate today, July 4. Of course, under the American system, the executive branch may appeal federal court rulings it does not like to the next judicial level. Whatever the outcome, one of the parties may then ask the Supreme Court for a final ruling.

In certain cases, a lower court can issue a temporary preliminary injunction against a government action if the plaintiff persuades the judge that the executive branch has "likely" exceeded its delegated power and that the exercise of such power (say, deportation) would significantly harm the plaintiff. The injunction stays the government's hand pending appeal. The issue in Trump v. CASA is whether an injunction issued against Trump's ordered reversal of the Constitution on birthright citizenship applies to everyone in the country or only to the parties that brought the case.

Regardless of the current law or the legal history, a libertarian knows what the law ought to be. A preliminary injunction against the exercise of a particular power should apply nationwide. How could it be otherwise? The executive branch has two chances to reverse the lower court, but in the meantime, it should be barred from exercising the power. In other words, the presumption of liberty must be paramount. Any burden should be on the executive who wishes to restrict the activities and status of peaceful individuals. That burden should never be on the people.

Without nationwide injunctions, we could end up with a constitutional provision that applies to one or two people but not to anyone else. A president satisfied with that situation would abstain from appealing precisely to avoid an adverse nationwide ruling. That would be screwy. In effect, we'd have more than one constitution.

To address the situation, every potentially affected individual in the country would have to bring his own case. Think of the cost! Alternatively, affected individuals could potentially combine in a class-action suit, but neither of these is a good solution. Before filing a suit, a class must fulfill certification requirements, and that is no sure thing. Certification could be challenged by the defendant, that is, the president. (Other workarounds exist, but they have similar problems.)

The basic objection to the ruling is that barring nationwide injunctions substantially and unreasonably raises the cost of public challenges to government power. That is wrong on principle. The presumption of liberty dictates that such a burden should always be the government's. 

In Dependent on D.C.: The Rise of Federal Control over the Lives of Ordinary Americans (2003), Charlotte A. Twight deployed history and theory to show that, over many years, the U.S. government has systematically made the public's ability to monitor and challenge the government prohibitively expensive. So much for "democracy."

As I've written about Twight's book:

Twight’s thesis is that the people who run the government have a long list of ways to raise the “political transaction costs” that the taxpayers would have to overcome to keep the state in check....

As Twight puts it: [Political transaction costs] “are the costs to each of us of perceiving, and acting upon our assessment of, the net costs of particular governmental actions and authority.” Besides the inevitable and built-in transaction costs entailed by government, there are also “contrived” costs, that is, those “deliberately created by government officials to increase our costs of assessing and responding to government policies.” The array of devices to raise these costs ranges from needless complexity and secrecy to outright lying. These devices have one thing in common: they obscure the government’s activities, making it difficult to impossible to see what the state is up to. As a result, most people perceive that even trying to lift the government’s veil is essentially futile.

Trump's team contends that nationwide injunctions grind its agenda to a halt, possibly for years, as cases wend their way through the appeals process. That's good, no matter who the president is. But if that's a problem, it should be addressed by changing the procedures according to which "urgent" cases headed to the Supreme Court are expedited.

The U.S. Constitution was theoretically intended to limit government power on behalf of a free society. How has that worked out? (For a fuller story, see my America's Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited.) As things now stand, a president can get away with unilaterally amending the Constitution. Something's wrong here.

The upshot is that the ruling in Trump v. CASA is a blow to freedom. Trump again shows his disdain for individual rights and the rule of law. Six justices have his back.

(See Ilya Somin's "A Bad Decision on Nationwide Injunctions.")

TGIF: The US Empire's 72-Year War on Iran

The likely temporary Israel-Iran ceasefire notwithstanding, if you need proof of how despicable Donald Trump is, consider this:

When asked last week if he would ask Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to stop bombing Iran, which had already said it would stop retaliating for Israeli attacks, Trump said, “I think it’s very hard to make that request right now. If somebody is winning, it’s a little bit harder to do that [than] if somebody’s losing. But we’re ready, willing and able, and we’ve been speaking to Iran. Israel is doing well, in terms of war, and… Iran is doing less well. It’s a little bit hard to get somebody to stop.”

Of course, Trump could have done more than request. He could have told Netanyahu that the transfer of American tax money, bombs, missiles, planes, arms, and spare parts would end at once if he did not stop the war. Trump did not do that. Instead, he made light of the question. That's despicable.

To say the least, Trump has a thing about Iran. That is likely explained in part by the 1979 Islamic revolution, which overthrew the American- and Israeli-backed dictator-monarch, and the taking of hostages in the American embassy. However, history did not begin in 1979. The U.S. government had helped abuse the Iranians long before that. A more suitable date on which to begin the story is August 15, 1953. That is when the CIA and British operatives ousted the democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, and restored the autocratic Shah of Iran to power. Mosaddegh, among other things, had nationalized the oil industry to the detriment of British oil interests.

March 22, 2026, Update: It has come to my attention that the coup story is wrong. For details see this. We live and learn.

It so happens that in 2014, when the Obama administration was negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran (the JCPOA) and congressional Democrats and Republicans were trying to undermine the interim agreement that had been agreed to, my old friend Marc Joffe and I wrote an article in the Guardian detailing the U.S. government's long abuse of Iran. Here are highlights from that article.

Congressional hostility toward Iran is rooted in a black-and-white worldview that runs as follows: the United States and Israel are liberal democracies that defend individual rights and human dignity, whereas Iran is a despotic theocratic regime that sponsors terrorism and would do anything within its power to wipe Israel off the map.

The world is rarely black and white, and conflicts are usually not resolved until each side understands the other's point of view. With that in mind, it may be worth pondering some inconvenient truths that would cause a fair-minded Iranian to doubt congressional wisdom.

The assertion that US policies are driven by a concern for human rights is not consistent with the history of US-Iran relations.

That may have been (and still may be) news to many Americans, but it should not have been. It wasn't news to the Iranians. The U.S. government has been aligned with brutal regimes all over the world for a long time. You can look it up. No need to go through the larger record here. The history of U.S.-Iran relations makes the point.

As the CIA now admits, [the U.S. government] overthrew a democratically elected Iranian government in 1953 and restored Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi to power. For the next quarter century, until the 1979 Islamic revolution, the US government supported the autocratic Shah—whose regime also enjoyed close relations with Israel.

The Shah's secret police—Savak—became increasingly brutal, ultimately detaining without trial and torturing tens of thousands of Iranian citizens. By the 1970s, the regime's brutality had been well documented in the west.

In 1976 the International Commission of Jurists in Geneva reported: "There is abundant evidence showing the systematic use of impermissible methods of psychological and physical torture of political suspects during interrogation."

Yet successive US administrations supported the Shah until the very end and then shielded him from prosecution after his overthrow.

Not only did the United States impose and support a regime that tortured innocent Iranians, there is also evidence that the CIA assisted Savak. A 1980 report on CBS's 60 Minutes documented close ties between these two organizations.

Joffe and I pointed out that this "adds perspective to the US embassy hostage-taking drama that stretched over the last 444 days of the Carter administration. Many in Iran believed that US embassy staff had aided and abetted Savak and were thus fair targets for retaliation. One need not condone the hostage-taking to understand that it was not merely an unprovoked, sadistic act." The 66 American embassy personnel were not seized by militant students until months after the revolution, when President Jimmy Carter admitted the Shah to the United States for medical treatment and presumably political refuge. The students were backed by the new ruler, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

That was not the end of the story. Americans might have forgotten the U.S. role in Iraq's savage war on Iran.

It is now well known that the Reagan administration helped Iraq with "intelligence and military support" after Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and launched a brutal eight-year war. "[I]t was the express policy of Reagan to ensure an Iraqi victory in the war, whatever the cost," Shane Harris and Matthew M Aid wrote in Foreign Policy magazine last year. With the administration's knowledge,

Note well: "Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, killing thousands. Declassified government records show that the Reagan administration, represented by special envoy Donald Rumsfeld, helped Saddam's military produce and deploy these awful weapons of mass destruction, which included biological as well as chemical agents."

Got that? The U.S. government provided WMD to Saddam Hussein for use against Iran. Iran's ruler refused to permit his military to produce chemical weapons for retaliation. (In 2003 the U.S. military invaded Iraq supposedly over WMD that Saddam had gotten rid of years earlier.)

To add injury to injury:

In 1988, while the war was in progress, a US warship, the USS Vincennes, shot down an Iranian civilian aircraft over the Persian Gulf, killing all 290 aboard, including 66 children. The captain of the ship said it was under assault by Iranian gunboats at the time and that the Airbus A300 was misidentified as an attacking F-14 Tomcat. Iran countered that flight 655 left Iran the same time every day. Witnesses with Italy's navy and on a nearby US warship said that at the time it was shot down, the airliner was climbing. In 1996 the United States settled an Iranian claim against it at the International Court of Justice for $131.8m. While it was appropriate for the US government to accept responsibility, it could not make up for the Iranian people's losses: more innocent lives were snuffed out by this attack than were killed in the Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland.

President George H. W. Bush, however, refused to apologize for the tragedy. As Bush I put it: "I'll never apologize for the United States of America, ever. I don't care what the facts are." Sensitive, yes?

The new century signaled no diminution in American belligerence toward Iran—not even after the 9/11 attacks, which presented an opportunity for rapprochement with the Islamic Republic.

Despite Iran's efforts to cooperate with the United States after 9/11 (the Shiite regime opposed both the Sunni Taliban and al-Qaida in next-door Afghanistan to the east), President [George W.] Bush in 2002 included Iran as a member of the "axis of evil" along with North Korea and Iraq. The following year, the United States overthrew Saddam Hussein and occupied Iraq—placing US forces on both Iran's western and eastern flanks. Finally, in 2011, Iranian forces captured a US surveillance drone that was flying well within its air space—about 140 miles from the Afghanistan border.

Thus, "far from being innocent, US policy toward Iran appears downright hostile when viewed from the other side. Rather than continuing to tell ourselves tales, it is time we embrace the truth about our relations with Iran, which even American and Israeli intelligence agencies say is not building a nuclear weapon. We have a historic chance to end the destructive cold war with Iran, which, like it or not, will remain a major power in the Middle East. It would be a tragedy if Congress were to sabotage this opportunity."

Congressional obstruction notwithstanding, Obama, working with the other Security Council members, Germany, and the rest of the European Union, finalized the nuclear agreement with Iran, which imposed an additional inspections regime along with other restrictions and seemed to take war off the table. In return, Western sanctions were to be lifted, and Iran was to rejoin the world economy. In the 1990s, Iran's second and current "Supreme Leader," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa forbidding the procurement, production, or use of nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately, Trump tore up the agreement in 2018. President Joe Biden did precious little to revive his old boss's deal, but Trump presumably would have torn that up too when he returned to office this year. The U.S. government's shameful record concerning Iran continues to haunt the world. It's not over yet, no matter what Trump says.

TGIF: This Is America First

The Trump battle cry is America First. Revealingly, it is not Americans First. The former signifies, implicitly if not explicitly, national collectivism; the latter, individualism. To the extent Trump has a political worldview, it is not individualist. We cannot doubt that.

All of this is abundantly clear in his Iran policy, which is not just about Israel and Iran. This is not new. His seeming antiwar stance was an opportunistic political ploy. The Republican and Democratic wars of the 21st century were palpable fiascos, so of course he had to distance himself from them if he was to become the president. If he is good at anything, it is in finding his opponent's weakness. But what he says bears no necessary relation to what he believes.

Trump did not originally oppose America's wars. In a 2016 debate against his Republican primary opponents, he said George W. Bush had lied the country into war against Iraq, which is true. But the very next day, when confronted by an old army veteran in South Carolina, he slunk away from the charge, presumably so as not to offend the vet. In 2011, when the U.S.-led NATO assault on Libya was pending, Trump told Howard Stern that since "we" have troops in the neighborhood, they might as well take out Col. Qadaffi. Those are not good credentials for an antiwar candidate. I said from the start that he was not to be trusted.

No one should have expected America First to be linked to the freedom of individuals. Trump could have quoted John F. Kennedy's famous "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." For Trump, after himself, the nation is the only important unit. His foreign policy is of a piece with his mercurial yet steady protectionism and anti-immigrationism.

So we should not be surprised by his use of Israel to destroy Iran, which he has an obvious distaste for. It was clear in what he was saying for months before the immoral attack. The offer to negotiate over Iran's civilian nuclear program was a sham since it was always accompanied by the threat of military force. His cancellation of the solid Iranian nuclear deal during his first term was an unmistakable signal of what was to come when he thought the moment was right. As early as 2011 Trump tweeted that "America should not be pressuring Israel to show restraint against Iran." What more did we need to know?

What about MAGA? We'll have to see what happens, but I will be surprised by a wholesale jumping from the Good Ship Trump. Where would they go? Many will probably defer to Trump's claim that the imaginary Iranian bomb is a threat to America. Will MAGA follow Carlson and Bannon, or will they stick with El Presidente? We'll see.

If you have lingering doubts about Trump's honor, listen to him:

“Well, considering that I’m the one that developed ‘America First,’ and considering that the term wasn’t used until I came along [so wrong], I think I’m the one that decides [what it means]. For those people who say they want peace—you can’t have peace if Iran has a nuclear weapon. So for all of those wonderful people who don’t want to do anything about Iran having a nuclear weapon—that’s not peace.”

Who did MAGA think would be deciding, Laura Loomer and Marjorie Taylor Greene? (I don't want them to do the deciding either.)

By the way, no one really thinks Iran has or has even wanted nuclear weapons. That includes American and Israeli intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency. The ayatollah issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons as contrary to Islam long ago. That's inconvenient for Trump, so he declared that he does not care what his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, thinks.

Yet no one doubts that Israel has such weapons. Unlike Iran, it has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and thus is not subject to international inspections.

Also by the way, the surest method to encourage Iran to build a nuke is to attack the country. Nothing would be more effective than a nuclear weapon to deter a future attack, as North Korea's Kim Jong Un knows and Col. Qadaffi learned too late.

Finally, you might think someone who threw around the phrase America First would show some respect for constitutional limits on his power. But we're talking about Trump. He recognizes no limits. 

Be Careful What You Ask for

You wanted America First. You got it.

Did you think it wouldn't be conceived in national collectivist terms?

The clue's in the name. It's America First, not Americans First.

Phony Noninterventionists

Call me naive, but I increasingly suspect that much of today's "left" is not antiwar on principle. Rather, it's anti-American war because, in its view, America (not just the government) is rotten to the core: bourgeois, racist, patriarchal, heteronormative, blah, blah, blah. If left-wingers (Marxists, heavy or light) were in charge, they'd likely support foreign intervention under the right conditions, e.g., fighting apartheid in South Africa (which indeed was bad) or Pinochet (also bad) in Chile, or saving Maduro (bad too) from a middle-class uprising in Venezuela. In the 1960s and 70s the so-called radical left favored the communists in the Vietnam War. It was not just against U.S. intervention, as many libertarians were. In the 1970s Noam Chomsky supported Vietnam's intervention in Cambodia; he also favored leaving some U.S. troops in Syria. I note that Max Blumenthal has lately called for intervention against Israel (bad). (By whom I don't know.)

If the left is interventionist at home, then why wouldn't it also be interventionist abroad? It has no principled objection to government power. It just wants aggressive force put to "good" use, such as managing other people's peaceful market relations.

Libertarians are the only comprehensive noninterventionists. The "left" may want the libertarians to tag along to demonstrate that its opposition to the U.S. empire is broad-based. That would make libertarians its useful idiots. I prefer another role, as antiwar libertarians. But deep down, the "left" likely thinks the libertarians are knowing or misguided shills for what they disdainfully call "corporate America"—which they are not. The goal is freedom.

Maybe we libertarians should be called Compnons.

TGIF: Magna Carta Day

I wrote this in 2015 to mark the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, or Great Charter. In light of current events—featuring a president who aspires to unchecked power, despairs of the rule of law, and has discussed suspending the right of habeas corpus—the posting of this slightly modified version seemed appropriate. Magna Carta is remembered, somewhat fuzzily, for reining in the power of the government, for substituting the rule of law for the arbitrary rule of a man, and for a faltering step toward a decent  system of justice (presumption of innocence, burden of proof, trial by jury, and so on.) Happy Magna Carta Day this Sunday!

Sunday, June 15, is the 810th anniversary of the day in 1215 that rotten King John put his seal to the sheet of parchment known as Magna Carta at Runnymede in England. It wasn’t the first charter issued by an English monarch pledging to subordinate his power to the law (custom), yet it has had a staying power like no other in the imagination of people worldwide. This is especially ironic when you consider that at John’s request, Pope Innocent III nullified the charter just 11 days later and excommunicated the rebellious barons who forced it on him. (Further ironies: the charter had been drafted by the learned archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton, whom the Pope had selected over John’s objection, and the charter affirmed the autonomy of the church.)

With the nullification, the civil war resumed between king and landholders who had grown tired of his taxes for wars in France (which he had lost along with vast properties) and other impositions. In the end, however, the barons more or less triumphed, as John’s successors, starting with his nine-year-old son, reissued the charter, albeit in revised editions. The principle that an English king was not a law unto himself would stand. While Magna Carta did not immediately raise the curtain on a libertarian, or even classical liberal, future, it may be said to have gotten the ball rolling, even if that was no part of anyone’s intention.

As I've mentioned before, the story of Magna Carta is instructive precisely because of its unintended consequences. This has been long noted, for example, by John Millar (1735-1801), a student of Adam Smith, a figure of the Scottish Enlightenment in his own right, and author of the multivolume  An Historical View of the English Government, From the Settlement of the Saxons in Britain to the Revolution in 1688 (1787). The judge and literary critic Francis Jeffrey wrote in 1804 that Millar’s “leading principle” was that institutions evolve “spontaneously from the situation of the society.” “Instead of gazing, therefore, with stupid amazement, on the singular and diversified appearances of human manners and institutions,” Jeffrey wrote, “Mr. Millar taught his pupils to refer them all to one simple principle, and to consider them as necessary links in the great chain which connects civilized with barbarous society.” (From Mark Salber Phillips’s introduction to Liberty Fund’s 2006 edition of Millar’s book.)

Regarding Magna Carta, in book 2, chapter 1, Millar wrote, “The character of John … is universally known, as a compound of cowardice, tyranny, sloth, and imprudence. This infatuated king was involved in three great struggles, from which it would have required the abilities of his father [Henry II], or of his great grandfather [Henry I, son of William the Conqueror], to extricate himself with honour; but which, under his management, could hardly fail to terminate in ruin and disgrace.”

Those struggles were against:  the challengers to his land holdings in France, Pope Innocent III, and the rebellious barons. After his humiliating losses in France, John made peace with the pope—accepting Langton at Canterbury and, in Millar’s words, “surrendering his kingdom to the pope, and submitting to hold it as a feudatory of the church of Rome.”

But his troubles were only beginning. Millar wrote:

The contempt which this abject submission of their sovereign could not fail to excite in the breast of his subjects, together with the indignation raised by various acts of tyranny and oppression of which he was guilty, produced at length a combination of his barons, who demanded a redress of grievances, and the restoration of their ancient laws. As this appeared the most favourable conjuncture which had occurred, since the Norman conquest, for limiting the encroachments of prerogative; the nobility and principal gentry were desirous of improving it to the utmost; and their measures were planned and conducted with equal moderation and firmness.

John would have none of it, and he moved to quash the rebellion of the barons. “He endeavoured by menaces to intimidate them; and, by delusive promises, to lull them asleep, in order to gain time for breaking their confederacy.” When that failed, “he made application to the pope as his liege lord; and called upon his holiness to protect the rights of his vassal.”

War broke out, and the king, “deserted by almost all his followers,” saw the ranks of the rebels grow.

All further opposition, therefore, became impracticable. At Runnemede, a large meadow between Windsor and Staines; a place which has been rendered immortal in the page of the historian and in the song of the poet; was held that famous conference, when the barons presented, in writing, the articles of agreement upon which they insisted; and the king gave an explicit consent to their demands. The articles were then reduced into the form of a charter; to which the king affixed his great seal; and which, though it was of the same nature with the charters obtained from the preceding monarchs, yet, as it was obtained with difficulties which created more attention, and as it is extended to a greater variety of particulars, has been called, by way of distinction, the great charter of our liberties.

Millar claimed that “feudal superiority of the crown, over the nobles” had been the rule since William the Conqueror, so “it would probably have been a vain project to attempt the abolition of it.” Then what was the point of the gathering at Runnymede on June 15, 1215?

The chief aim of the nobility, therefore, in the present charter, was to prevent the sovereign from harassing and oppressing them by the undue exercise of those powers, the effects of their feudal subordination, with which he was understood to be fully invested….

The jurisdiction exercised by the king, as a feudal superior, was another source of oppression, for which a remedy was thought requisite; and several regulations were introduced, in order to facilitate the distribution of justice, to prevent the negligence, as well as to restrain the corruption, of judges: in particular, it was declared, that no count or baron should be fined unless by the judgment of his peers, and according to the quality of the offence.

Millar then made an intriguing point about Magna Carta’s application beyond the barons' concerns:

While the barons were thus labouring to secure themselves against the usurpations of the prerogative, they could not decently refuse a similar security to their own vassals; and it was no less the interest of the king to insist upon limiting the arbitrary power of the nobles, than it was their interest to insist upon limiting that of the crown. The privileges inserted in this great transaction were, upon this account, rendered more extensive, and communicated to persons of a lower rank, than might otherwise have been expected. Thus it was provided that justice should not be sold, nor unreasonably delayed, to any person. That no freeman should be imprisoned, nor his goods be distrained, unless by the judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land; and that even a villein should not, by any fine, be deprived of his carts and implements of husbandry. [Emphasis added.]

I think that king and barons were aware of the fact, articulated by Étienne de La Boétie, that since the few rule the many, the ruled have it in their power to overthrow their rulers. Therefore, “liberal” measures are sometimes necessary to pacify the many to keep them from having revolutionary thoughts or to keep particular groups (such as the rising merchant class) from shifting allegiance to another contender for power. More often than not, acts of political kindness are the result of such motives.

Thus,

It is worthy of notice, however, that though this great charter was procured by the power and influence of the nobility and dignified clergy, who, it is natural to suppose, would be chiefly attentive to their own privileges; the interest of another class of people, much inferior in rank, was not entirely overlooked: I mean the inhabitants of the trading towns. It was declared, that no aid [tribute] should be imposed upon the city of London, unless with consent of the national council; and that the liberties and immunities of this, and of all the other cities and boroughs of the kingdom, should be maintained.... The insertion of such clauses must be considered as a proof that the mercantile people were beginning to have some attention paid to them; while the shortness of these articles, and the vague manner in which they are conceived, afford an evidence equally satisfactory, that this order of men had not yet risen to great importance. [Emphasis added.]

With the Great Seal of the king affixed, copies of Magna Carta were distributed throughout the country. But, Millar wrote, “nothing could be farther from [John’s] intentions, than to fulfil the conditions of the charter."

No sooner had he obtained a bull from the pope annulling that deed, and prohibiting both the king and his subjects from paying any regard to it, than, having secretly procured a powerful supply of foreign troops, he took the field, and began without mercy to kill and destroy, and to carry devastation throughout the estates of all those who had any share in the confederacy. The barons, trusting to the promises of the king, had rashly disbanded their followers; and being in no condition to oppose the royal army, were driven to the desperate measure of applying to Lewis, the son of the French monarch, and making him an offer of the crown. The death of John, in a short time after, happened opportunely to quiet these disorders, by transmitting the sovereignty to his son Henry the third, who was then only nine years of age.

Under the prudent administration of the earl of Pembroke, the regent, the young king, in the first year of his reign, granted a new charter of liberties, at the same time that the confederated barons were promised a perpetual oblivion for the past, in case they should now return to their allegiance.

There is much more to this story, of course. Suffice it to say here that Millar draws three broad conclusions from his account.

First, he saw significance in the fact that Magna Carta was not the only charter issued by a king; as noted, others had been issued before and were issued afterward. “Taking those charters, therefore, in connexion with one another, they seem to declare, in a clear and unequivocal manner, the general and permanent sense of the nation, with respect to the rights of the crown; and they ascertain, by express and positive agreement between the king and his subjects, those terms of submission to the chief magistrate...."

Second, contrary to “common opinion,” Millar wrote, “from the Norman conquest [1066] to the time of Edward the first [reign, 1272-1307]; while the barons were exerting themselves with so much vigour, and with so much apparent success, in restraining the powers of the crown, those powers were, notwithstanding, continually advancing.”

The repeated concessions made by the sovereign, had no farther effect than to prevent his authority from increasing so rapidly as it might otherwise have done. For a proof of this we can appeal to no better authority than that of the charters themselves; from which, if examined according to their dates, it will appear, that the nobility were daily becoming more moderate in their claims; and that they submitted, in reality, to a gradual extension of the prerogative; though, by more numerous regulations, they endeavoured to avoid the wanton abuses of it. Thus, by the great charter of Henry the third, the powers of the crown are less limited than by the charter of king John; and by this last the crown vassals abandoned some important privileges with which they were invested by the charter of Henry the first. [Emphasis added.]

If Magna Carta was a key moment in the West's advancement toward liberalism, the trajectory was neither straight nor smooth. But progress was undeniably made over the long haul.

Finally, we come to the law of unintended consequences. Millar says students of history “will easily see that the parties concerned in [the procurement “these great charters”] were not actuated by the most liberal principles; and that it was not so much their intention to secure the liberties of the people at large, as to establish the privileges of a few individuals.”

He summed up:

A great tyrant on the one side, and a set of petty tyrants on the other, seem to have divided the kingdom; and the great body of the people, disregarded and oppressed on all hands, were beholden for any privileges bestowed upon them, to the jealousy of their masters; who, by limiting the authority of each other over their dependants, produced a reciprocal diminution of their power. But though the freedom of the common people was not intended in those charters, it was eventually secured to them; for when the peasantry, and other persons of low rank, were afterwards enabled, by their industry, and by the progress of arts, to emerge from their inferior and servile condition, and to acquire opulence, they were gradually admitted to the exercise of the same privileges which had been claimed by men of independent fortunes; and found themselves entitled, of course, to the benefit of that free government which was already established. The limitations of arbitrary power, which had been calculated chiefly to promote the interest of the nobles, were thus, by a change of circumstances, rendered equally advantageous to the whole community as if they had originally proceeded from the most exalted spirit of patriotism. [Emphasis added.]

The power of apparent precedent worked in the common people’s favor; a small measure of liberty was parlayed into a larger measure, despite the efforts of the privileged classes.

When the commons, in a later period, were disposed to make farther exertions, for securing their natural rights, and for extending the blessings of civil liberty, they found it a singular advantage to have an ancient written record, which had received the sanction of past ages, and to which they could appeal for ascertaining the boundaries of the prerogative. This gave weight and authority to their measures; afforded a clue to direct them in the mazes of political speculation; and encouraged them to proceed with boldness in completing a plan, the utility of which had already been put to the test of experience. The regulations, indeed, of this old canon, agreeable to the simplicity of the times, were often too vague and general to answer the purposes of regular government; but, as their aim and tendency were sufficiently apparent, it was not difficult, by a proper commentary, to bestow upon them such expansion and accommodation as might render them applicable to the circumstances of an opulent and polished nation. [Emphasis added.]

Can classical liberals today roll back government power by appealing to "an ancient written record, which had received the sanction of past ages"? That is a tall order, considering who now reigns, but we must try, mustn't we?

(Learn more about Magna Carta at Liberty Fund.)

Benevolence

I don't understand why conventional moralists often see benevolence and self-interest as being at odds. Living--action in pursuit of life-sustaining ends, that is, of values--is a challenge, even a struggle. Success is not guaranteed. "There's many a slip 'twix cup and lip." So why wouldn't reasoning pursuers of self-interest view other beings who are similarly situated with favor? Egoists should rejoice over success stories. Examples of triumph in all constructive realms should inspire because they demonstrate that success is possible in this world. This is certainly the case in a positive-sum free-market society, in which entrepreneurs constantly push back the limits of scarcity. Remember what Ludwig von Mises wrote, "The fact that my fellow man wants to acquire shoes as I do, does not make it harder for me to get shoes, but easier." In a deep sense, one person's success is another person's encouragement to succeed. Ayn Rand understood this, especially in terms of art, but her nonfiction writing did not emphasize it in the context of human relations.

We should reject the conventional refrain that if you embrace the pursuit of self-interest, you are--at best--indifferent to other people beyond purely transactional considerations.

By the way, this goes toward answering the British moral sentimentalists, such as Adam Smith and David Hume, who argued that empathy is something additional to, and moderating of, "selfishness." I contend that it is not. It's entailed in egoism. Smith and Hume were bad empiricists, as Thomas Reid pointed out.

Egoists unite! You have nothing to lose but your guilt!

TGIF: On "Public Property"

A dubious theory held by some libertarians has been knocking about. It goes something like this:

The claim that government-controlled land is actually unowned—and thus not properly subject to government rulemaking—would lead to consequences that reasonable people would find abhorrent. Therefore, in the U.S. case, such land should be regarded as owned by Americans with the government as their representative. While privatization is the best course, it is unlikely to occur anytime soon. In the meantime, the government should make policy as though it were a private owner or the agent of private owners. For example, if the politicians think that private owners would want to restrict immigration, that is, keep them off the land, the politicians should do that.

Is government-held land owned or unowned? It is not a simple question. As Simon Guenzl reminds us, some of that land was obtained from its rightful owners by force through eminent domain. Those owners or their heirs could probably be identified. But much government-held land was obtained not by theft but through preemption. Since the government forbade and continues to forbid homesteading, the land has never had private owners. Hence, no owners could be identified. (The complicated matter of the Indians must be reserved for another day.) Guenzl thus distinguishes between state-claimed land and state-seized land.

Stolen land should not be regarded as unowned; it was taken from its owners. The government took it by force (even if it paid some cash), and now it is owned (controlled) by the government—but illegitimately.

What about the never-owned land? Is it unowned? Control is at the core of ownership. The government controls the land. Therefore, it makes more sense to regard it as illegitimately owned rather than as unowned. (How to privatize state-held land is not today's topic.)

Reasonable people will agree that the consequences of treating government-held land as unowned would be substantially negative. The homeless, drug-soaked, unsanitary encampments on public parks and sidewalks have degraded life in some "progressive" big cities. Responsible, self-supporting individuals and their families can't simply walk to shops and enjoy other amenities. That should not stand. Protest demonstrations have sometimes blocked major roads, impeding ambulances and the normal conduct of life.

We may thus regard the unowned status of government-held land as seriously problematic, and I am happy to reject it. The question, then, is: having rejected that status, must we prefer that the government make policy as though it were the private owner?

I'm not sure what that means, but I can't see how it would be possible under any interpretation. Sometimes it's said to mean that the government ought to act on behalf of the true private owners. "How would private owners want the land to be used?" I've already shown that much of the land never had owners. The state would have to imagine how private owners, had they existed, would have wanted the land to be used. But how can politicians and bureaucrats know that? Maybe those imaginary owners wouldn't want schools or libraries on their land.

With government-seized land, a similar problem would confront the policymakers. Moreover, why assume that all the dispossessed owners (if alive) would want the same thing? The socialist-calculation problem is relevant here. People don't really know what they will do until they confront alternatives, prices, and opportunity costs of particular circumstances. How arrogant for the politicians to presume to know what hypothetical people would want! How realistic is "the collectivist notion of the state [making policy] that emulates the market decisions and choices of the taxpayers?" Walter Block and Anthony Gregory write. Not very, I say.

A further problem plagues this approach. Along with the federal government, state, county, and local governments have seized land under eminent domain. Why should the federal government make policy for those lower levels of government, which would also be obliged to legislate on behalf of hypothetical owners? It's an all-around mess.

So where do we go from here? Again and alas, privatization is off the table for now. (How to privatize government assets is no easy question; thankfully, I don't have to deal with it today.)

Before answering my question, I'll raise a matter that is closely related: safety. Part of what governments at all levels have done is reserve to themselves the power to safeguard the people they rule. To be sure, governments endanger us all the time, but they also protect us in various ways, however ineptly. Some police activity protects innocent people from murderers, rapists, and thieves. Politicians have a (self-)interest in this. I remember a button that libertarians sold at conventions: "Don't Steal. Government Hates Competition." Officials will tend to want to discourage private criminals from attacking us if for no other reason than they want the booty for themselves. Plus, they want to be re-elected.

Since the government has forced itself on us as our protector, it seems obligated to carry out that function (in ways that don't further violate individual rights). Here's an imperfect analogy. A pilot friend with a small plane takes you on a flight. At 10,000 feet he informs you he's about to parachute home and leave the flying to you, whom he knows can't fly. (Some friend.) I submit that this would be a serious breach. The same with a surgeon who opens his patient's chest and then decides he'd rather be playing golf.

Similarly, if the government, without notice, closed all the police departments and courts without giving us a chance to form private protection agencies, we'd be in a right fix, especially the poorest, most vulnerable parts of town.

Thus, the government owes the taxpayers protection from private aggression. Among other things, its agents may properly keep public facilities free of real threats, for example, adult strangers using a bathroom in a public school. Further, the state is obligated to forbid aggressive interference with peaceful people who use the facilities as intended. Protest demonstrations that block streets are properly banned, not because of their views, but because others have a right to use the streets too. Noisy, grossly unwashed people may be excluded from public libraries. And so on. (As always, hard cases can arise.)

But assertions of state power that have objectives other than safe and appropriate use should not be allowed to sneak in under what I call the "nondisruption principle (NDP). Immigration control is an example. The general power to restrict immigration is unrelated to keeping "public" facilities safe and usable.

Concerning "public" property, then, we have two conflicting standards for how the government should behave. The first is that it should minimize its own aggression against non-aggressors, whoever they are, and permit the maximum peaceful use of "public" facilities as they were intended to be used. If you violate no one's rights, you're okay.

The second standard is that the government should seek to represent the hypothetical owners of currently government-held land. As we've seen, that is impossible. This standard is often invoked to justify restrictions on immigration, but it could easily license state aggression regarding drugs, guns, gambling, prostitution, and religion, restrictions libertarians rightly oppose. There is no limiting principle. Once you allow the standard to control immigration, you have no grounds to oppose it in other matters. The second standard is tantamount to assuming the government legitimately owns all the property it controls.

Defenders of the second standard will try to defend their position by claiming that people who have not paid taxes in the past have no claim to use public facilities now. That proves too much. Interstate travel entails people using facilities they have not contributed to previously. Children have not paid taxes. In fact, today's taxpayers once used the facilities before they had paid any taxes. Were they free-riding? But here's another problem: people who relocate (from wherever) will, alas, soon start paying sales, excise, income, property, and gasoline taxes and hence contribute to the upkeep of the facilities, including those they'll never use.

So, is it the case, as some have said, that libertarians have nothing reasonable to say about public property except that it should be privatized—that there are no right answers in a statist world? Resoundingly, I say no.

Immigration Conversation with Jacob Hornberger

Some Recent Social Media Posts

(Check back periodically to see what I've added.)

If the choice is between a welfare state and a police state (I despise both), I know which one I would choose.

He who wills the end, wills the means. Serious immigration restriction requires police-state measures.

Simply put, if you want what others have produced, you have to offer them something they want in trade.

Border crossing without government permission is a victimless crime.

Think of all the horrible things that can happen in the absence of a total surveillance state. Is that an argument for the surveillance state?

If you can't see the difference between a Stop sign at an intersection and a Do Not Enter sign at a border, you need an eye doctor.

Libertarians don't bat an eye over law-breakers who violate no rights. But when it's a person without papers -- watch out!

Statists have long tried to scare people into supporting big government. Today even some libertarians do it. It's a topsy-turvy world.

Dear Free Speech Absolutists: I assume it's okay with you if businessmen discuss pricing strategies among themselves. It's fine by me.

What's the point of being the exceptional nation if you can't throw your weight around?

The anti-free-immigrationists know where they want to go and are prepared to pay any price in other people's freedom to get there. The questions are: why do they want to go there, and what aren't they telling us?

Life is inherently risky. In a world of nation-states, do we want a state powerful enough to address all conceivable risks? If so, what else is it likely to be capable of?

When ICE agents burst into restaurant kitchens to round up people without papers, are they trespassers? How about when agents take property by eminent domain to build border fences? Is that trespass and theft? Immigrants don't do that.

Anti-state anti-immigrationists don't hate the state enough.

The essential case for liberty has never been a matter of data. (Sorry, consequentialists.) It's been a matter of moral principle.

If drugs were legalized, more people would use "public" health services. Same if people could ride motorcycles without helmets or ride in cars without seatbelts. Should libertarians oppose those freedoms because people might use tax-funded programs?

The regime intends to rid America of all "undocumented" persons. But a free society would not have *documented* persons. That's how far down we've gone.

Welfare recipients are not aggressors. The aggressors are the tax collectors and the politicians who empower them.

Libertarian border guardians say there's no freedom to move because other people own property. (We never thought of that one!) By the same standard, there's no freedom of speech.

If capitalism is about survival of the fittest, why do capitalists mass produce inexpensive eyeglasses, hearing aids, etc.? Why do they promote the flourishing of the "unfit"?

Libertarian border guardians say there's no freedom to move because other people own property. (We never thought of that one!) By the same standard, there's no freedom of speech.

How great is this: You can get fabulously rich by providing valued goods and services to the masses. Wow!

If you had told people that [see above] a few hundred years ago, you'd have been locked up in a looney bin.

TGIF: The Worst Are Already on Top

After Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem made a fool of herself by defining habeas corpus as "a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country," Justin Amash, the libertarian former congressman, posted an apt quotation on X:

Since it is the supreme leader who alone determines the ends, his instruments [staff] must have no moral convictions of their own. They must, above all, be unreservedly committed to the person of the leader; but next to this the most important thing is that they should be completely unprincipled and literally capable of everything. They must have no ideals of their own which they want to realise, no ideas about right or wrong which might interfere with the intentions of the leader.

The quote comes from Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek, one of the most important social scientists of the 20th century. You can find the quote in Chapter 10 of Hayek's invaluable 1943 classic, The Road to Serfdom. Hayek called that chapter “Why the Worst Get on Top.”

That chapter is worth paying close attention to. Let's start by acknowledging the purpose of Hayek's book. During World War II, Hayek, who lived and taught in England, sought to counter an argument made by prominent intellectuals, namely, that if central planning works well in war, it ought to work well in peacetime. Postwar economic planning seemed inevitable.

Hayek dissented. For him, the economic case for socialism had already been demolished by Ludwig von Mises's 1922 book, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis. That book had expanded on Mises's stunning 1920 paper, "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth," which showed that since socialist planners would not have access to market prices—markets after all were to be abolished—they could not rationally plan a great industrial economy that would efficiently serve consumers.

Why couldn't the planners have access to prices? Because information-rich prices can emerge only through market exchanges. Markets must exist not only for consumer goods, but for the means of production, which for socialists was a no-no: that is, labor, land, raw materials, tools, equipment, machines, and buildings. But trade presupposes private property in the means of production, another no-no for the socialists. You cannot trade what you do not own.

In short: no private property = no trade. No trade = no prices. No prices = no rational planning. Market prices (a redundancy) reflect supply and demand; they also permit disparate things to be expressed in a common unit of account, for example, the dollar. This makes cost comparisons possible. If the planners could not engage in economic calculation through money prices, they could not devise the most efficient production strategies for the countless goods that consumers want.

Why does that matter? It matters because resources and labor are scarce. At any time, our large and varied demand exceeds supply. Many methods could be chosen to produce any particular good, but waste is contrary to our interests. We want the most efficient methods used because the fewer the inputs employed, the more outputs for consumers. Without prices, there would be no way to determine which method is most efficient and least wasteful. The planners would be like blind pilots flying in the dark with no instruments. As Mises said, socialism is impossible.

Before pointing to the late Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Venezuela, or North Korea as proof that Mises was wrong, remember that these systems existed in a world of semi-free-market prices. Worldwide socialism would be a nightmare.

In The Road to Serfdom, Hayek's critique of central planning went beyond the calculation problem. He demonstrated that if politicians took central social planning seriously, the people would have to be turned into serfs. Contrary to popular misunderstanding, he did not argue that if a society takes the first step toward the welfare state, serfdom would inevitably follow. As objectionable as it is, the welfare state is not socialism. It does not abolish private property, markets, and money.

One of Hayek's points—these were not predictions because he observed them in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and fascist Italy—was that central planning required the concentration of all power in a few hands, perhaps one set of hands. It cannot be imagined otherwise. (We're not talking about syndicalism, which has its own problems.)

For example, imagine a society that embarks sincerely on democratic socialism. (Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez take heed.) Hayek pointed out that the people and their legislature might agree 100 percent that the economy should be planned. It does not follow, however, that they will agree 100 percent on the contents of the plan. How much steel should be produced next year? How much plastic? How many refrigerators? How many cars? How many smartphones? How many dolls? Etc., etc., etc. Socialism could not repeal scarcity. Making more of X requires making less of Y. Making more producer goods requires making fewer consumer goods now. You have a problem with that? Sue God.

The chance of substantial agreement over the details of The Plan is near zero. Because of the disagreement, the legislature would be locked in endless debate with no prospect of finalizing The Plan. An unfinished plan cannot be implemented. The deadlock would be fertile ground for the emergence of a strongman. That would appeal to the people who favored action over talk. "Give us a plan!" Democratic socialism would be exposed as a chimera.

In our context, see what Donald Trump said when the U.S. Court of International Trade said that only Congress can impose tariffs: "The horrific decision stated I would have to get the approval of Congress for these Tariffs. In other words, hundreds of politicians would sit around D.C. for weeks, and even months, trying to come to a conclusion as to what to charge other Countries that are treating us unfairly.” (Emphasis added.)

Hayek would not be surprised:

We must here return for a moment to the position which precedes the suppression of democratic institutions and the creation of a totalitarian regime. In this stage it is the general demand for quick and determined government action that is the dominating element in the situation, dissatisfaction with the slow and cumbersome course of democratic procedure which makes action for action's sake the goal. It is then the man or the party who seems strong and resolute enough "to get things done" who exercises the greatest appeal.

Hayek noted that the strongman would need loyal, unquestioning lieutenants to faithfully carry out his decrees.

The chance of imposing a totalitarian regime on a whole people depends on the leader first collecting round him a group which is prepared voluntarily to submit to that totalitarian discipline which they are to impose by force upon the rest.

[The preempted socialist legislators] had, without knowing it, set themselves a task which only the ruthless, ready to disregard the barriers of accepted morals, can execute.... [Emphasis added.]

[A] numerous and strong group with fairly homogeneous views is not likely to be
formed by the best but rather by the worst elements of any society. [Emphasis added.]

The man and party best suited to impose the collectivist project will not be friendly to individual liberty or the free, spontaneous social process that liberalism calls for. Indeed, the "old" values would block their path and would have to be eliminated. In other words, a brutal program will be carried out by a brutal leader and brutal officers of the state, cheered on by worshipful followers.

As I've noted, Hayek's subject was totalitarian central planning. But I (among others) submit that similar dangers loom with any big-government interventionist system. The current U.S. regime claims the autocratic authority to do all sorts of things that violate individual liberty. It does not seek congressional authorization, and it damns the courts for obstruction.

The potential for such concentrated power has existed in the U.S. political system for a long time. Congress has repeatedly and illegally delegated broad "emergency" powers to the executive. What makes the current regime different from its predecessors is that it invokes those powers flagrantly, arbitrarily, and often. While it does not seek to impose a comprehensive plan (yet), it nevertheless has substantial plans on a variety of matters, such as international trade, domestic industry, and labor (immigration). That makes Hayek's analysis relevant.

Hayek opened the chapter with Lord Acton's famous aphorism: "All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." But Hayek went beyond Acton to suggest that power attracts the corrupt or corruptible.

A key Hayekian point is that to the extent the regime carries out its plan, which will need public support, its attitude toward common-sense morality will be lax, to say the least, if not outright disdainful.

The principle that the end justifies the means is in individualist ethics regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule; there is literally nothing which the consistent collectivist must not be prepared to do if it serves "the good of the whole", because the "good of the whole" is to him the only criterion of what ought to be done. The raison d'etat, in which collectivist ethics has found its most explicit formulation, knows no other limit than that set by expediency—the suitability of the particular act for the end in view. And what the raison d'etat affirms with respect to the relations between different countries applies equally to the relations between different individuals within the collectivist state. There can be no limit to what its citizen must not be prepared to do, no act which his conscience must prevent him from committing, if it is necessary for an end which the community has set itself or which his superiors order him to achieve.

Who would relish the chance to round up masses of peaceful "illegal" border-crossers without due process and force them onto planes bound for prisons in El Salvador, South Sudan, or Djibouti? The current U.S. regime will reward people who would enjoy that sort of work.

There is thus in the positions of power little to attract those who hold moral beliefs of the kind which in the past have guided the European peoples.... The only tastes which are satisfied are the taste for power as such, the pleasure of being obeyed and of being part of a well-functioning and immensely powerful machine to which everything else must give way.

Yet while there is little that is likely to induce men who are good by our standards to aspire to leading positions in the totalitarian machine, and much to deter them, there will be special opportunities for the ruthless and unscrupulous.... [T]he readiness to do bad things becomes a path to promotion and power. The positions in a totalitarian society in which it is necessary to practice cruelty and intimidation, deliberate deception and spying, are numerous. Neither the Gestapo nor the administration of a concentration camp, neither the Ministry of Propaganda nor the SA or SS (or their Italian or Russian counterparts) are suitable places for the exercise of humanitarian feelings. Yet it is through positions like these that the road to the highest positions in the totalitarian state leads.

It's too late to worry that the worst will get on top. He and they are already there.

 

TGIF: Maestro Trump and Drug Prices

When encountering a public problem, people tend to fall into one of two camps: one camp, the larger one, says, "There oughta be a law." The other one asks, "How has the government created or aggravated the situation?" We know which camp Maestro Trump belongs to.

Take prescription-drug prices. Because Americans pay higher prices on average for prescription drugs under patent (but not for generics) than people in other countries pay, Trump, who used to call price controls "socialist," has ordered the drug companies "to offer American consumers the most-favored-[developed-]nation lowest price." He wants private companies to lower their prices at home and raise them abroad.

Is this a command? Trump's executive order goes on: "should drug manufacturers fail to offer American consumers the most-favored-nation lowest price, my Administration will take additional aggressive action." We know what that means. "If ... significant progress towards most-favored-nation pricing for American patients is not delivered," his order says, "to the extent consistent with law,... the Secretary [of health and human services] shall propose a rulemaking plan to impose most-favored-nation pricing." Got that? Impose.

Why did Trump change his mind about price controls? Because now it fits with his demagogic populist politics of national grievance, which has served him so well. He vows to end "global freeloading" by foreigners who pay less. He believes that Americans subsidize foreigners. But do we? Good economics says otherwise. (We'll get to that.)

The Maestro seems not to realize that price controls have failed for 4,000 years! They bring shortages, reduce innovation, and cause other distortions, which the government then tries to fix by expanding its restrictions. Never mind that the government makes drugs more expensive than they would be in an unhampered market.

Prices will differ from country to country for sensible reasons. Economists call this market segmentation and price discrimination. Some people in certain circumstances are willing and able to pay more than others whose circumstances differ. We see this with airline fares and off-peak movie ticket prices. Americans are richer than other people and can afford to buy things that others couldn't and wouldn't buy at American prices. Sure, everyone prefers all prices to be lower—except his own, of course—but does that mean the government could mandate lower prices without negative consequences for all? No.

Once a modern drug is produced and sold in the rich American market at a price high enough to yield a profit and recoup the stratospheric R&D costs, the drug maker can produce additional quantities at a low marginal cost and profitably expand sales to poorer people abroad at a lower price. This is good for the foreign buyers who otherwise wouldn't have access, but it does not harm Americans: regardless of what others pay, they buy the drug because they think the benefits exceed the cost.

A government decree to make prices more equal would be harmful all around. As economist Alex Tabarrok writes, banning price discrimination "will end up hurting patients in low-income countries while delivering minimal gains to Americans. Worse, by reducing pharmaceutical profits overall, it weakens incentives to develop new drugs. In fact, in the long-run U.S. consumers are better off when poorer countries pay lower prices—just as airline price discrimination makes more routes viable for both economy and first-class passengers." Likewise, if movie theaters couldn't price-discriminate, we'd have fewer theaters and less service from surviving theaters because profitably filling seats at off-peak times would not be an option. When the government restricts profits, it restricts supply and innovation.

That we lack a fully free market today does not substantially change the analysis. We can be confident that government intervention makes medical care artificially expensive by imposing artificial costs, restricting supply, and stimulating demand. A ban on global price discrimination would hardly help improve things. We'd have fewer new drugs. (Watch Alex Tabarrok and Robert Murphy discuss this and related issues.)

This case against Trump's executive order is valid even when we acknowledge that foreign buyers of American drugs are governments that impose price controls. As many have pointed out, importing other countries' price controls makes no sense.

No discussion of drug prices is complete without noting the burdens imposed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the patent system. Bringing a drug to market costs upward of $2 billion, and most never make it. Private competitive testing and certification firms (analogous to Consumer Reports) could replace the FDA and the prescription requirement. With informed consent, people should be free to take medicines that have undergone different degrees of testing. Life is risk. The government can't change that.

Regarding the patent system, while 15-year monopoly pricing to some extent offsets the FDA burden, it should be abolished along with that agency. Because of vigorous competition, Americans pay far less for out-of-patent generic drugs than the rest of the world. Intellectual property is inconsistent with property rights because it prohibits manufacturers from using their own physical property to produce things. Unlike finite physical property, ideas aren't properly ownable: when an idea is communicated to others, the first person still retains it. Its economic value may fall, but no one has a property right in a thing's market value. For those who fear that the end of drug patents would spell the end of innovation, see Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine's Against Intellectual Property, which has a chapter on the international pharmaceutical industry.

Trump's plan to tamper with drug prices will reduce profits to "Big Pharma"—ooh, what a scary term!—impede innovation, and make everyone less healthy in the future. Drugs currently under patent may seem expensive, but as Tabarrok points out, many modern drugs reduce the need for more costly and dangerous surgeries, and most drugs are paid for through insurance policies. (The government also makes insurance artificially expensive through mandated coverage and discriminatory tax treatment.)

Moreover, as Tabarrok says, Americans get new drugs first. So, all things considered, drug prices don't look so bad after all. The moral and economic case for freeing the market is watertight, but that doesn't mean what we have now is worthless and could not become worse with more intervention. 

America's interventionist medical system must be replaced by a free market in medicine. Most of every dollar spent on medical care today is paid for or mandated by the U.S. government. Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act made a flawed system worse. Coercion, which includes medical licensing, hospital certification, and official accreditation of medical schools, should be eliminated because nothing has proved better at delivering goods and services than the competitive profit-and-loss system directed at consumer satisfaction.

TGIF: Individuals, Not America, First

Let's hear no more about America First! It's a fraud, a cover for collectivist nationalism, and a distraction from what matters. (It also looks like camouflage for Trump Family First, but let's take it at face value for now.)

On foreign policy, America First does not exclusively describe the supposed noninterventionist side of the public debate. The openly interventionist side supports meddling because, in its view, that's in "America's interest." That view is wrong and needs to be refuted, as it has been often. But that does not mean the interventionists don't believe it. Doubt their sincerity if you wish. I can't read their minds. The point is this is not a debate between those who want to promote the "national interest" and those who want to promote something else. Rather, it's a debate over what constitutes that interest and whether unilateralism or multilateralism best promotes it.

That's one problem with America First. The deeper problem is the belligerent nationalism of the movement led, but not founded by, Donald Trump. This flows from its anti-individualism. The nation is the irreducible unit, and conflict must happen. See how Trump picks fights with Canada, Mexico, Europe, China, and others with whom we have no reason for conflict. Look at his incoherent, destructive trade policies. For as long as anyone can remember, Trump's shtick has been that America has been "ripped off" and that only he can change this. What's he talking about? Since when is offering desirable goods at affordable prices a rip-off? But seeing trade as it really is would deprive Trump of his cherished trademark grievance politics. Narcissistic demagogues thrive on grievances. They don't gain votes by promising to stop the U.S. government's global bullying of others.

America is an abstraction, which means different things to different people. In one sense, it's a country but not a single organism. It's an association of individuals who have different interests built on their fundamental interest in peace and freedom. Government tampering with freedom always favors some over others. One person's subsidy is another person's burden. Which one represents the real America? Steel tariffs help steel producers (in the short term) but harm steel users, who far outnumber the producers. This is an old story. Does it have to be pointed out?

So, what is America First? It's putty in the hands of a demagogue.

"American interests" are interests as seen by the people who run the government, that is, America's rulers. They are a filter, an interpretation by interested parties. This affords abundant opportunities to pursue narrow and even personal agendas. Rulers need not have any common interest with regular people. They need votes, however, so rulers will strike the required poses, especially in election season.

America First is about power and devotion to the ruler, without whom we cannot prosper. You know the song and dance. When John F. Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country," he was properly rebuked by Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and other advocates of individual liberty. Rand called Kennedy's program of self-sacrifice "the Fascist New Frontier." They said that Americans should ask neither question. Nationalism is anti-individualism and antithetical to the ideas that motivated many people at the American founding. Trump doesn't openly ask for self-sacrifice, but it's subtly built into his agenda. He requires self-sacrifice while promising to make us rich. Fat chance.

Where is the individual in a vision of national greatness? The individual is a tool, a servant, and even a hostage—but little more. The everyday lives of regular people are expendable because, it is said, something bigger matters more. Greatness is not really for them.

Nationalist intellectuals—MAGA and otherwise—like to say that America is more than a marketplace. No one denies it, but people live a good part of their lives in the market, and its openness or closeness makes a big difference in their lives. As for the other parts of life, what makes the nationalists so sure that people cannot take care of themselves through voluntary association? Community is a good, but it should be a freely chosen community. People need meaning, but for it to be real, they need to make their own meaning. The last place to find it is in the words of a demagogue who believes his word creates truth.

When nationalists say America is more than a market, they mean the nation is more than a free association of individuals cooperating to pursue their own interests. We should reject that view. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is not a collectivist slogan. It's impeccably individualist. Jefferson didn't write "life, liberty, and the pursuit of American greatness." A contemporary of Jefferson's, Abraham Bishop, understood:

A nation which makes greatness its polestar can never be free; beneath national greatness sink individual greatness, honor, wealth and freedom. But though history, experience and reasoning confirm these ideas; yet all-powerful delusion has been able to make the people of every nation lend a helping hand in putting on their own fetters and rivetting their own chains, and in this service delusion always employs men too great to speak the truth, and yet too powerful to be doubted. Their statements are believed—their projects adopted—their ends answered and the deluded subjects of all this artifice are left to passive obedience through life, and to entail a condition of unqualified non-resistance to a ruined posterity.

Here was a prophet.