Quote of the Day
When I was a boy of fourteen,my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around.
But when I got to be twenty-one,
I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.
Mark Twain
Pro-Liberty Thought of the Day
Image of the Day
 |
| Via LFC |
 |
| Courtesy of Cato Institute |
I occasionally do markups (e.g., with MTP transcripts in my signature Sunday Talk Soup segments), in part inspired by Mark Perry of Carpe Diem whom often does some markups of clueless "progressive" talking points. I recommend Ryan McMaken's markup of Cardinal Archbishop Maradiaga of Honduras's speech, which essentially argues the term "Catholic libertarianism" is oxymoronic. I have had a few comments about Maradiaga in a few related exchanges in my FB Corner segment over the past week. I don't think I've seen Tom Woods tackle this speech yet, but based on a related search, Woods seems to be familiar with Maradiaga's leftist beliefs in the past.
At the risk of leaving out other comments I haven't had a chance to review, Morse's succinct post (see image below) notes: (1) Libertarianism is rooted in Catholic theology; (2) Libertarianism is the best way to help the poor. Morse discusses a theme you constantly hear libertarians mock: "But who will build the roads?" As any familiar reader knows, thousands of miles of privately-operated toll roads and turnpikes existed before essentially getting squeezed out by the government by the early twentieth century. (Of course, there is no such thing as a "free" road; gasoline taxes not only fund road operations, but "progressive" politicians raid the lockbox to subsidize mass transit for users. In a similar context, we can hear the "progressive" object: "But who will feed the poor?" In past writings, I have made reference to Dickens' "A Christmas Carol": when confronted for a contribution to help the poor on the occasion, he notes "My taxes go to pay for the prisons and the poorhouses." (Given generally lower charitable contributions of social liberals/progressives--Biden, for instance, gave negligibly until he became VP--it's clear that "progressives" think they've done their part by forcing others at the point of a gun to give to government "trickle-down" charity.) As I've noted several times in this blog, we have private sector charities, fraternal societies, etc.; Jesus did not agitate for political change; He shunned a political mandate. He spoke of individual responsibility for helping out the less fortunate: "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full." Does anyone not see a parallel for what I regard the hypocritical "progressive populist"? (It's even worse because when the self-serving government takes its cut of legal plunder, very little remains for the people whom truly could use the money...) So when Francis and Maradiaga become shills for legal plunder and praise the profession of plunderers, they overlook the salient concept of free will: there is no responsibility or honor in holding the gun or being looted at the point of a gun.
I'm not going to review McMaken's markups in detail here, but I'll draw attention to his discussion that "progressives" are picking and choosing papal writings, and there is some disingenuous bait-and-switching going on: "Thus, they ignore the fact that Catholic Social Teaching--the modern doctrine that a bureaucratic state should redistribute political privilege and wealth--is quite distinct from doctrines commanding concern for the poor." And Maradiaga has no understanding whatsoever of the history of economics and not only confuses capitalism with a corrupt bargain between a minority of politically connected capitalists and the State. Maradiaga also confounds the free market with mixed and authoritarian economies and the nature of poverty in an historical context or across economic models: "Inequality is far less today than it was before industrialization and the rise of bourgeois liberalism (aka, libertarianism.) If we were to compare the incomes of the ruling class in Spain, for example, in the 16th century, with the incomes of the average peasant, we would quickly find that the modern era looks like a utopia by comparison. Moreover, the poor of an industrialized, globalized, and relatively free market country today have access to better health care, housing, and food than even the nobility of old. In modern comparisons among free and unfree economies, we also find that the poor are better off in more free economies." And Bob Murphy and others have noted that we saw lessening consumer inequality, rising incomes, and a higher standard of living during the Gilded Age (without a strong central government pursuing redistributionist policies).
Maradiaga said,
“This economy kills” (53) This in fact is the most provocative economy- critical statement of Pope Francis in Evangelii Gaudium. Certain economic circles in industrialized countries thereupon criticized in turn the Pope saying, “The Church despises the Rich.” And they argue: Already from the Gospel and from the Acts of the Apostles, Christian Faith does not at all promote a positive attitude towards the market, towards competition, towards riches and luxury. The goods gathered on earth by the Christians meet with reservation. Wherever property is suspect, entrepreneurship and profit maximization cannot flourish. In this connection the Catholic Social Teaching and the social encyclicals of the late Popes were attacked. They would show a problematic concept of private property. Francis’s view would be shaped by the difficult economic history in Argentina and by the post-Marxist theology of liberation. Francis would not recognize that poverty and inequality have been reduced thanks to market economy reforms. He would furthermore ignore that today, thanks to the successful growth of a capitalist economy, the number of people suffering from hunger and thirst is far smaller than some twenty years ago. The Pope would be naïve and unable to see that to overcome poverty, market economy and capitalism were absolute indispensable.I have made some related arguments. But what the pope and this piece of work are ignoring is that free market policies result in win-win economic growth: it's one thing to remind the economic successful of their moral obligations to voluntarily share their surplus with the less fortunate. It's delusional to confound government theft with alms; the Church, by allying itself with Statist propagandists, loses her independence and her moral authority. The free market promotes competition for the consumer and lower consumer inequality (many of the poor have mass-produced conveniences: plumbing, electricity, etc.), greater variety and lower prices through free trade. Allowing the poor to stretch their limited resources is a good thing. We libertarians also promote sound money policy; for example, today's central bankers ignore growing food and energy inflation; college costs have nearly quadrupled over the past generation. Businesses and assets generally hold up well under inflation. Inflation devalues savings for people on fixed or limited income and debts at the expense of creditors. If a rich investor finds a profitable way of producing better, cheaper goods and services, generating good jobs in the process, who cares?
These are some of the essential arguments which libertarianism economic circles raised against EG of the Pope.
I wish that the pope and Maradiaga would engage in more than copy-and-paste straw man rhetoric and actually study economics before condemning them from backgrounds in Argentina and Honduras, neither an example of free market principles. I also wish that the pope would take on the morally hazardous policies of the modern "progressive" state, which I find undermines human dignity.
 |
| Via JSB Morse |
(Independent Institute). “The Blue-State Path to Inequality: States That Emphasize Redistribution Above Growth Have a Wider Gap Between Lower and Higher Incomes.” Senior Fellow Richard K. Vedder Op-Ed in "The Wall Street Journal"http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=4994
Thanks for the response! However, we're not on the same page...I'm not questioning the truth that welfare statism does not overcome poverty. It doesn't. In that sense, I don't even disagree with the conclusion that this article draws.
What I am saying is that the methods used in this article to prove this authors point are shoddy, lazy, dubious, etc. He has to prove that liberal policy is what is causing the income inequalities, and he does not do that.
All this article says is: states that are blue have higher inequality. Therefore blue = inequality. A kindergartner can see that and draw that conclusion. But a kindergartner may also conclude that the sun rises *because* the rooster crows. Economists need to be held to a higher standard than kindergartners. They need to prove that there is a connection between Blue and Inequality.
As a person who agrees with the general conclusion that this article is trying to put forward, I am disappointed with the level of evidence and reasoning here. Apparently this was put into the Wall Street Journal? If I was a reasonable person who disagreed with the conclusion drawn in this article, I would easily tear it to shreds by pointing to the lack of evidence of causality.
I'm trying to give a heads up that this is not a good article to show to opponents of the free market, etc. because this makes our viewpoint look really weak.
The point is that "progressive" policies are inversely related to economic growth and directly related to economic uncertainty, whereas economic growth tends to link to reduced consumer inequality, rising wages and a higher standard of living. Whereas I understand the point that public policy is just one factor related to economic outcomes and the data may be circumstantial, it is suggestive of the delusional aspects of megalomaniac policy.
(Reason). Reason's Nick Gillespie's talks with the author of a new bio of thre Koch Brothers. Daniel Schulman writes for Mother Jones but he's fair to the libertarian billionaires (though not uncritical) and explains why the scare establishment Republicans as much as lefty progressives. http://reason.com/reasontv/2014/06/06/sons-of-wichita-qampa-with-daniel-schulm [Note: I embedded this video in yesterday's post.]
Flooding political campaigns to buy elections so you can control politicians is NOT supporting the free market
Here we go again. The myth of buying elections. The Dems try to buy popularity by trying to bribe most voters at the expense of those whom are taxed the most. Rich people like Mitt Romney and Michael Bloomberg did not get in politics for personal enrichment. The Kochs have not tried to buy elections--you can count the number of libertarian lawmakers on one hand. They don't even rate among the top 40 contributors. They have contributed millions to think tanks and universities. What part of the video did you listen to? The part that said that they were against crony capitalism, that they were socially liberal and anti-war? And what did all their money amount to in 2012? The Senate and White House are still controlled by neo-fascists. Was billionaire Ross Perot able to buy the Presidency in the 1990's? Were Romney's millions in 2008 enough to wrestle the nomination from an old man whose campaign resources were so low that he was riding coach and carrying his own luggage in airports?
(Justin Amash). I voted yes on the Garrett of NJ Amendment to #HR4660, which prohibits funding in the bill from being used by the Department of Justice to pursue litigation for violations of the Fair Housing Act based on "disparate impact" (i.e., practices that statistically have different results among different groups of people, even if there is no intent to improperly discriminate). Rather than simply prohibiting intentional discrimination based on certain protected traits, the new February 2013 rule applying the disparate impact doctrine effectively mandates equalized outcomes for everyone, which ironically means the rule itself compels intentional discrimination. The amendment was agreed to 216-190.
Its no regulations on corporations. Corps. do whatever they want. They own Congress and the Judiciary and the "regulatory" agencies. We have a corptocracy / oligarchy. MONEY RULES. Not ethics or fairness or the public good.
Economic illiterate "progressive" trolls. Government is a monopoly. First of all, almost everything you've discussed is subject to lawsuit, regardless of the inefficacy of failed government regulators. If and when any business gets good margins, it attracts competition like flies. As for things like sweatshops, they tend to be higher paying in the local economy, often with bleak alternatives.
(Bastiat Institute). ""Martin said it was 'truly frightening' that Phillips will be forced to submit quarterly reports to the government disclosing whether he turned away any wedding cake business...Phillips...told me he’s not going to create any new policies...'I don’t plan on giving up my faith and changing because of that'...The controversy started in 2012 when a gay couple asked Phillips to make their wedding cake. Phillips politely declined"
The fascists don't understand that we have a Constitution based on negative liberties/rights, i.e., the government or others cannot infringe on our unalienable rights, vs. positive liberties/rights, things the government or others must do on our behalf. To force a businessman to make a transaction is the moral equivalent of slavery to the State.
I Found a Few More Proposal Videos
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Glenn McCoy via IPI |
Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street Band, "Candy's Room". Let's face it: the Boss' pedestrian politics suck, but this is one of the greatest rock songs (if not the greatest) ever recorded. The passionate lyrics, the stark imagery, the sparkling guitar work, the driving percussion: sheer artistic genius. As good as B2R is/was, this track is on a whole new level of performance, and I'm not sure anything he's recorded since then has ever approached that level.
