Libertarianism

Fighting the Wrong War?

This entry was posted in Capitalism Culture Domestic Terrorism Drug Laws Economics Law Libertarianism War on Terrorism World Affairs on by

Gary Becker argues that the war on drugs has failed and that alternate approaches involving legalization, regulation and high taxes might achieve current results along with other benefits without the large social and individual costs associated with the current prohibition.
Richard Posner generally agrees with Becker arguments:

If the resources used to wage the war were reallocated to other social projects, such as reducing violent crime, there would probably be a net social gain. For one thing, it is particularly costly to enforce the law against a �victimless� crime, more precisely a crime that consists of a transaction between a willing seller and a willing buyer.

In addition, he points out that:

The political source of the war on drugs is mysterious if, as I am inclined to believe, there is a legal substitute for every one of the illegal drugs:…
…it is apparent that our society has no general policy against the consumption of mind-altering substances, and there seems to be a certain arbitrariness in the choice of the subset to prohibit.

To get a sense of just how large the failure has been on a global scale check out the maps that Michael Stastny has posted from the World Drug Report 20041. Note what country is either number 1 or 2 in usage for each category. Stastny has an interesting supposition about his government:

Maybe Austrian authorities know that watching TV does more harm to your brain and health than taking drugs once in a while and that stigmatizing long-term users doesn’t help either.

So, a war on TV instead of drugs? Well, no. We do not need any increased government intervention in media. But I would accept regulation and taxation of now illegal drugs as a first step out of the current quagmire. The proper long term goal is, though, to completely remove the government from any involvement in “transactions between a willing buyer and a willing seller.”
Via Marginal Revolution where you can find more here.
1The report and the above referenced maps appear to overlook certain other popular drugs, e.g., alcohol!?

Security Freeze? Not enough!

This entry was posted in Capitalism Domestic Terrorism Economics Information Libertarianism Regulation on by

The Washington legislature is considering legislation that will give consumers the authority:

….to put a security freeze on their credit-reporting file. A security freeze lets the consumer prevent anyone from looking at his or her own credit reporting file for purposes of granting credit unless the consumer chooses to let that particular business look at the information.

This is a partial step in the right direction. It is not enough and will not as article suggests give consumers the ability to prevent identity thieves from getting credit in their names.
As I commented last month individuals must own their personal information and:

No institution, government or private, can be allowed to collect or distribute, for free or for fee, any information about an individual without that individuals specific consent on a per incident basis and if the distribution is for a fee then that individual must be compensated at a rate agreeable to the individual.

Anything less is a recipe for theft underwritten by the very governmental institutions alleged to be our protectors.

Government Failure in the Telecom Industry

This entry was posted in Capitalism Constitution Economics Government Libertarianism Regulation Technology on by

I often agree with Larry Lessig but he is off base here:

But the government also should not act as the cat’s paw for one of the most powerful industries in the nation by making competition against that industry illegal, whether from government or not. This is true, at least, when it is unclear just what kind of “good” such competition might produce.
Broadband is the perfect example. The private market has failed the US so far.

First, he is absolutely correct when we rails against government enforced monopolies which reflects the state of the telecom industry for, well, seemingly forever.
Second, though, what private market has failed us? The heavily regulated, monopolistic telecom industry? No, this is better described as a government failure.
Lessig goes on to suggest:

The solution is not to fire private enterprise; it is instead to encourage more competition.

But it is not market competition he is suggesting. It is governments entering the market.
Lynn Kiesling has a great suggestion:

A better approach would be for governments to strive to be technology neutral, focus on defining the objectives, and work (interjurisdictionally, if necessary) to reduce the transaction costs and other features of the institutional landscape that prevent robust, private competition from occurring.

This is, I think, a very polite way of saying quit mucking with the market and start clearing out the sludge that has been put in the way of effective market functioning.

Legislator Speak

This entry was posted in Business US Capitalism Constitution Economics Libertarianism Regulation on by

It is well known that legislators generally can only be trusted when they promise to take your money. They are not bashful about speaking disengenously, providing misleading information, and, for that matter, outright lying about the impacts of proposed legislation. They’ll regularly contradict themselves in the course of the same conversation.
For instance, the Illinois senate just passed a bill that says:

Working parents would be entitled to 24 hours of unpaid work leave during a school year to attend their children’s school conferences or classroom activities,

One of the sponsors, Senator Iris Martinez, touts the bill:

“I personally feel that when you have employees, and you are sensitive to their parental needs, you have a happy employee,” Martinez said. “It shows the employer cares about family. Then you have families involved in education.”
But Martinez said the legislation provides safeguards so employees don’t abuse the privilege. She said employees would have to give advance notice of their absence and would be required to provide employers with certification from an educator upon their return.

And then the lie:

“We’re making sure the employer doesn’t lose any productivity,” she said. “There are a lot of safety nets put into place.”

Uhh, let’s see: employee gets unpaid time off, there is paper work to process, but there is no productivity lost? She is probably saying this BS with a straight face.
Perhaps the Illinois house will have better sense.
Remember, when stuff like this becomes law we all pay for it through higher prices, reduced wages, and lost jobs.

The Pledge

This entry was posted in Capitalism Constitution Culture Government Law Libertarianism Politics on by

Kenneth Quinnell, in his essay Why I Don’t Say the Pledge of Allegiance states:

But the very concept of a Pledge of Allegiance is wrong in a free country.

He elaborates on this at some length and I could, and I’m sure some others might, debate some of his points.
I do, though, agree with his basic point that free individuals have no obligation to recite a pledge of allegiance.
On the other hand, there is a group who by dint of their position should recite a pledge…probably several times per day. That would be the set of government employees, elected, appointed or hired, throughout the world. Our servants: congress critters, kings and queens, premiers, secretaries of desks and states, governors, presidents, soldiers, firepersons, police, mayors, etc.
They, each and everyone, in every government job throughout the world should start their day with something like:

I pledge allegiance to the people of name your jurisdiction and swear to protect their lives, help them maintain their liberty and assist them in their pursuit of happiness.

…and repeat it frequently throughout the day and once again before going to sleep at night.