Analytics

Wednesday, September 2, 2015

Miscellany: 9/02/15

Quote of the Day
In politics an absurdity is not a handicap.
Napoleon Bonaparte

Tweet of the Day
Image of the Day
Syrian toddler war refugee, drowned off Turkish shore on the way to Greece
Courtesy of Reuters

via Independent Institute

India and Economic Liberalization



Facebook Corner

(National Review). "Honesty requires us to acknowledge that had President Obama endorsed exactly the same policies and rhetoric, the reaction from the Trumpkins would have been little short of nuclear." -- Charles C. W. Cooke
 Exactly correct. Back in 2008, John McCain was brutally attacked early in the early primaries for his 2 early votes on the Bush tax cuts, for campagin finance reform, his pro-immigration stance, etc. We saw Romney fending off his position flip-flops from earlier Massachusetts campaigns. Romney in 2012 took hits over being the godfather of ObamaCare.

 What have we seen from Trump? Here is a guy who has advocated single-payer health care, while the GOP fought against HillaryCare and ObamaCare. This is a guy who has switched political parties more often than he changes underwear, who is on videotape praising his likely 2016 opponent Hillary Clinton and her husband, who has admitted to buying political favors from Democrats.

 Even worse, less than 3 years ago, Trump is on the record blaming Romney's self-deportation (i.e., prevent aliens from getting jobs) as mean-spirited and maniacal, while he has proposed a mass deportation, throwing out families with children who have never lived elsewhere.

 This is the party of Lincoln, who explicitly rejected the Know-Nothings (anti-immigrants) and fended off anti-immigrant policy until WWI. There were no immigration quotas from the Western Hemisphere until 1965. The Southern border was essentially unregulated until 1924. Hoover and FDR scapegoated Mexicans during the Depression, including over 1M Mexican-American citizens. However, given manpower issues during the subsequent WWII and Korea interventions, the US introduced a temporary work permit Bracero problem (1942-1964); the program reduced arrests by 95%. Nativists and unions pressured JFK/LBJ to shut down the successful temporary work program, which is largely responsible for the status quo. I'll note that Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, and McCain favored immigration reform. Trump's policies are radically different from and inconsistent with the history of the GOP.

 Any legitimate immigration system must treat the disease, not the symptoms. This minimally means a robust open-ended temporary work permit program consistent with labor resource requirements as well as an overhall of the obsolete quota systems, the exploitative H-1B program, etc. Trump will never consider it because he's economically illiterate.

(Drudge Report). TRUMP: Jeb Should Lead By 'Speaking English While In The United States'...
 Why is Trump so threatened by people speaking a foreign language? Is it jealousy because as an uneducated monolinguist, Bush might say something he doesn't understand (like joto, puta or chingate)? (I went to high school in south Texas...) Jeb is too much of a gentleman. (As a fourth-generation Franco-American (my ancestors came from Quebec), my dominant first tongue through early kindergarten was French; I've also picked up some Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese.)

 I'll tell you what, you know-nothing demagogue: you first start talking English rather than speaking in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdI3Gsplm_Y

(Pro-Life Libertarians). This page is called Pro-Life Libertarians, and as such we've tried to focus on Pro-Life topics. What do you think when we cover other topics of interest to Libertarians? What are your favorite libertarian topics? Should this page only cover abortion?
If you look at some pro-life sites like LifeSiteNews they've expanded to look at culturally conservative issues like State intervention in the institution of marriage and family. We could talk about things that Statist intervention in public education encouraging sexual behavior, a sexually obsessed culture which exacerbates the abortion holocaust, not to mention 2 of 5 births now are illegitimate.

(FEE). Free trade helps both the rich and the poor.
Secret trade agreements smell more like cartels than free trade. It's all in the usage of the term. Few will call NAFTA free trade. I hate Bernie Sanders but must get those that speak of free trade to tell me what their definition is.
Don't be an idiot! Of course, we should declare unilateral free trade. I agree managed trade is not free trade, but one must always judge a trade deal by how consumers on both sides have access to a greater variety and price competition of goods and services. A generation after NAFTA, Canada and Mexico are two of our biggest trade partners; we have more efficient, integrated economies with the law of comparative advantage at play.
But it's not really free trade when we're the only ones that abide by trade laws. Nice in theory, not so much in practice.
Economically ignorant and trite observation. Our dollars on imports would have value insofar as they can be used on American goods and services. It is utterly INSANE to deprive American consumers of the competition and variety of goods and services under allegations of "cheating". That deprives us of a better standard of living. The trade wars you suggest are lose-lose propositions. For example, New Zealand 30 years ago opened their agricultural markets, eliminated (UNLIKE THE US) subsidies--and yet New Zealand's agricultural economy has flourished. So much for your debunked belief that we abide by free trade principles.

(National Review). The comparison is shocking.
National Review is promoting knowingly false propaganda; this CIS bullshit has been thoroughly debunked.

via National Review
Where are voter protection laws? This is out-and-out fraud; colleges are costly; there's evidence the supply is exceeding the demand for positions requiring college education. Junior is not going to find a great-paying basket-weaving job to pay off that high 5-figure college loan guaranteed by the taxpayer. Maybe that French lit major can practice her accent as a waitress in a French restaurant or serving coffee drinks at Starbucks. We need to recognize economically ignorant professional political whores like Sanders futilely believe that they can plan for the future instead of the reality of a dynamic labor market.

(IPI). BREAKING: Override of ‪#‎SB1229‬ fails, 68-34, 9 voting present. Needed 71 votes. [Basically a large public union wanted arbitration (almost always in favor of union interests) versus negotiating in good faith with fiscal conservative Gov. Rauner. State finances are rapidly deteriorating, including pensions that are only about 40% funded. Gov. Rauner vetoed the bill; technically, the Dems could have overridden the veto on a partyline vote.]
 Well. I hope Illinoisans like their tax hike to pay for all the welfare that's gonna be needed to support State retirees when Rauner rapes their retirement pension and renders the 20-30 years of their life meaningless. Glad 9 scumbags voted present. Even that's a lie politicians tell. If you don't vote for or against you're not present. You're non existent
We need the 68 political whores who sold their integrity for corrupt unions against taxpayers to be held responsible.

via Catholic Libertarians
So do you support their "right" to marriage?
 Everyone has the right to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't interfere with that same right of others. Any two people can form a relationship and call themselves married but what the gay marriage debate is about is getting sanction and benefits from the government and forcing others to acknowledge that marriage, which is a violation of the axiom above.
I think a more focused response is to discuss equal protection in the context of negative rights--i.e., your natural rights (to life, liberty, property) without interference from the State or others. Positive rights are things government must do in your behalf--a potentially unlimited number of things, like guaranteed food, shelter, schooling, retirement, etc. In order to do these things, the State has to compromise the property rights of others.

 The point is that marriage is not a positive right guaranteed by the State. For example, I'm a lifelong bachelor (not necessarily intentional). The State has no obligation to find me a mate; if it did, it would infringe upon the liberty of some unfortunate woman. I see marriage as a social institution which is independent of the State. 

 I think you are making a broad statement that the government should not be subsidizing relationships, which means privatizing marriage. The State does not confer rights. 

 You were really saying that gays, just like straights, have freedom to associate and call their relationships "marriages"; they also have the right to organize their own communities. They do not have a right to impose their agenda on other, larger communities,

(Catholic Libertarians). "The real question is not can you be a Catholic and a Libertarian, the real question is how can a Catholic be anything else?" —Great article outlining the libertarian Catholicism issue by issue.
http://traditium.org/2015/09/01/what-the-question-isnt-can-a-catholic-be-a-libertarian/
‪#‎libertarian‬ ‪#‎Catholic‬ h/t Traditium
Blandrew seems to be quite upset these days...

 All kidding aside, great piece! Very informative to me, and I'm sure others, who are new to libertarianism and despite my faith, have never spent the time to read the catechism. I agreed with almost everything with one exception. I would like some further explanation and discussion on the topic of foreign wars for any who are willing.

 I thought what the catechism laid out was spot on for determining what constitutes a just war. That being said, the author used sending troops to Ukraine as an example. It is my understanding that our nation has a treaty in which we vowed to help defend Ukraine in exchange for them giving up their nuclear arsenal. They did their part while we are failing to do ours. There are several Bible verses one can pull explaining the importance of keeping your word and honoring promises. 

 Syria is also used as an example, I'm assuming in reference to ISIS. As a nation with the capabilities to combat evil and defend innocence, I believe we have a moral obligation to act and not stand idly by. 

 These 2 instances in mind, I also have a different view on war strategy in the modern era. Rather than entering into long, drawn out conflicts we need to be more expeditionary and rely on Marines and SF to quickly carry out a mission and then withdraw. It is also my understanding that within our constitution there is no standing Army, that congress can only raise an army for 2yrs at a time in case of war. If this is indeed the case I am all for disbanding the Army while strengthening the Navy. Ideally this would make our overall military smaller yet more effective given our current threats world wide. 
So I am curious as to how my views fit into (or maybe don't) libertarian philosophy.
I agree that we can limit treaties to an extent and state national guard units can adequately defend the country with out a federal army. However I can't get behind isolationism in the modern world. On domestic issues, Rand Paul, for example, is great, but when it comes to his foreign policy I am a little more concerned. Now if from the founding of our nation we had taken a more libertarian or isolationist course we could continue that course, but especially after our world war 2 war economy and the cold war weapons race, we have become a super power and world leader and I think cutting all or even most ties at this point would be irresponsible. We may not like our current position but it's our reality and stepping back needs to happen at a reasonable rate.

 The mercenary idea is very interesting and while we do use mercenary groups, "contractors", they are just another echelon of the military complex you talk about. And from my time over seas I saw that complex first hand and the amount of fraud, waste, and abuse is insane. If you don't like paying taxes I would strongly recommend not going to a war zone and seeing your tax dollars actually in use. It's depressing. But this is the first I've heard of using mercenaries as you describe and it's interesting; I think I could get behind that.
Nope. First of all, "isolationism" is a smear; none of us are talking about halting trade or diplomacy. What we're saying is that we need to choose our battles wisely, principally on direct threats to national security.

 But this country has been in nearly constant war over the past century; we have 4% of the world's population, but we outspend the next 10 countries combined. We don't have the moral right or obligation or the finances and manpower to be the world's unloved policeman. It's also morally hazardous for us to act in a way that regional countries in a conflict don't resolve issues locally. ISIS does not pose an existential threat to the US. Arguing a potential threat could apply to any nation on earth; our common defense needs to focus on real, direct, not prospective threats.
Great piece! I'm a libertarian (small 'L') and a Catholic, always trying to better understand how it fits together. 

 One thing you could have added is that Democrats are just as at fault as Republicans on immigration - they don't get mad about illegals, but they have done nothing to straighten out immigration rules to let more in (Republicans actually have, just far too little). Something about trade unions and competition for low-skilled and skilled labor.
Calvin Coolidge, who I otherwise admired, signed the Johnson-Reed Act in 1924, which not only tightened a recently introduced (1921) quota system but had some racist overtones as well (e.g., Asians, Arabs and Africans) to "to preserve the ideal of American homogeneity". Until 1924 with the origin of the Border Patrol, the Southern border had been largely deregulated. Interestingly enough, there were no quotas from other Western Hemisphere countries until the 1965 Immigration Act. However, in a nativist twist in the Depression, Hoover started using immigrants as scapegoats, including Mexicans; it is estimated during the Mexican repatriation of 1929-1936, over 1.2M Mexican-American citizens were deported along with additional aliens.

 The bracero program from 1942 to 1964 helped American growers find farm workers (and to some extent, other industries like the railroads), especially given shortages under wartime conditions. The end of the program was primarily brought about by nativist and labor protectionist pressure on JFK/LBJ (also some progressive angst over alleged mistreatment of migrants).

 I disagree with the idea that the GOP has been historically nativist. The beginning of immigration restrictions began under the Wilson Administration. As Nowrasteh notes, "In an 1855 letter he wrote to Owen Lovejoy, an Illinois state representative and an abolitionist, “I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be?” Lincoln continued, “Of their principles [Know-Nothingism] I think little better than I do of those of the slavery extensionists.”

 "Lincoln divorced the new Republican Party from nativism. German voters in the Midwest were attracted to the party’s support for immigration and laws, like the Homestead Act and speedy naturalizations, that rebuked the nativists. "

 Indeed, if you look at its historically business-friendly policies, the GOP would be reluctant to obstruct American business access to labor resources or immigrant entrepreneurs. I think Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover acted under the political pressures of two depressions. If you look at Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, and McCain, they all strongly supported immigration reform. (Dole and Romney had more of a law-and-order approach of enforcing the immigration laws, but not Trumpism. )

(Mises Institute). Ryan McMaken: "Alaskans have been trying to get the 'official' name of Denali mountain changed back from 'Mt. McKinley' for decades. The Alaskans finally go their way when the Obama administration recently signed off on the change. Strangely, however, some people seem to think that we need Congress and the central government to decide what mountains should be called. Some Ohio politicians have bitterly opposed the change and demanded that Congress slap down the Alaskans and name the mountain 'McKinley' forevermore. It's swell that some Ohioans have really strong opinions about what mountains should be called 3,000 miles away in Alaska, even though a tiny percentage of Ohioans have ever set foot in Alaska, let alone been within 100 miles of Denali. But any sane country would simply shrug and say 'just call the mountain what the Alaskans want.'" https://mises.org/…/mt-mckinley-controversy-illustrates-abs…
McMaken misses the point of Obama's audacious unconstitutional violation of the rule of law and the balance of powers; he is simply dismissive of the issue and basically argues the tenth amendment. 

 The fact is that the Congress approved renaming the mountain in 1917. The law I see it, the Congress can revise the name, or Alaska could have gone to the courts to get the rename declared unconstitutional. But where in the Constitution does it say a President has the unilateral ability to edit passed laws? From my perspective, a libertarian would/should be more alarmed at the process and precedent, the accumulation of powers in the Office of the President, which seems much more of a perversion of the principles of limited government than renaming the mountain.

 I'm not surprised by Obama's action; one of my blog's signature lines is "if there's one thing Obama knows, it's symbolism". I often mock all the nonsense proclamations that Congress passes, which I term the "I love Mommy and puppy dogs" acts. 

 As for me, it's been Mt. McKinley my whole life, and I'll continue to reference it as such, the same as when MLB teams started licensing ballpark names to commercial licenses and when I lived in the Baltimore suburbs, I called BWI BWI vs. the name of a former Supreme Court justice. 

 That being said, if I knew the name was important in talking to a native Alaskan, I would, as a matter of civility, use the name of Dinali. But whether I did so had nothing to do with the arbitrary actions of the empty suit in the White House.

(Mises Institute). William L. Anderson: Obviously, when a person running a campaign based upon socialist principles is drawing attention and big crowds, we might ask just what does Sanders mean by “socialist,” and what would he do if he were elected president of the United States? To better answer that question, I am taking a closer look at what we would call the “economics” of Bernie Sanders.
Great article. Bernie understands the problems but not the actually cause because he doesn't understand how the US government allowed the FED to destroy our money supply. Many think capitalism is the problem, but only few understand that we havent had true capitalism in the past century.
Well, certainly we need to end the Fed, or at the very least repeal Humphrey-Hawkins/the second mandate, which can be discretionary, arbitrary, and unaccountable. But let's not pretend that monetary policy is the only salient factor; The government perverts the economy in several ways, including growth-cripping taxes and a nearly $2T regulatory drag on the economy, not to mention anti-trade or mercantilistic trade and anti-immigrant policies.

 The important thing is to realize that government has caused our economic policies, not the wacko leftist conspiracy of pretending businesses control the government. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that we didn't get the world's highest corporate tax rate and regulatory burden with big business pulling Congress' strings. This is just crackpot left-fascist conspiracy theory.

Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Nate Beeler via Townhall
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists

Tina Turner, "Better Be Good To Me"

Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , ,