Don Boudreaux on markets.
----------------------------------------
Many opponents of markets find the open quest for profits in market economies to be unethical or unaesthetic, and they blame markets. What these opponents miss is the fact that the self-interest that is typically – and even the greed that is sometimes – on display in markets is not created by commercial markets. Commercial markets are merely a forum in which individuals act on these motivations. One of most profound errors committed by market opponents is to suppose that when activities are transferred from commercial markets into the realm of politics human imperfections and self-interest are replaced by superhuman perfection and altruism. But as Buchanan argues, it’s naive to suppose that the mere shifting of activities from one resource-allocation forum to another changes the underlying human motivations. (And such shifting certainly does not change the underlying human cognitive limitations.)
So profit seeking occurs in political settings no less than in market settings. But the kinds of information and constraints in political settings differ greatly from those in market settings. Therefore, the kinds of actions taken in one setting, and the consequences of those actions, differ from the actions and consequences in the other setting. One important difference is that in markets, profits are earned only through voluntary payments while in politics profits are typically extracted by forcibly transferring property from the politically weak to the politically strong. The fact that such transfers are not overtly called “profit seeking” – and the fact that political activities are camouflaged with public-interest rhetoric – doesn’t change the underlying reality.
In summary, in the market Smith profits only by building a better mousetrap or by devising a process that reduces the amount of resources used to build a familiar mousetrap. (Smith might do so directly, as a mousetrap producer, or indirectly, as someone who secures the financing for a mousetrap producer.) In politics, Jones typically profits by confiscating mousetraps from Smith or from Smith’s customers, or by confiscating the inputs that Smith would otherwise use to make mousetraps.
Thursday, August 17, 2017
Putting the KKK, Nazis, and White Supremacists in perspective
The KKK, Nazis, and White Supremacists hold unacceptable
views, both economic and social. If they
got their way, they would probably kill a lot of people, regiment peoples’
lives, and make the economy inefficient.
Killing people speaks for itself.
Regimentation reduces freedom.
A less efficient economy would come about due to harmful regulation and excessive government control. Both imply a lower standard of living and less freedom. An inefficient economy implies fewer resources for the things we want, including health care. Less effective health care implies a higher mortality rate.
Bernie Sanders and his followers hold unacceptable views, both economic and social. If they got their way, they would not kill people, but would regiment peoples’ lives, and make the economy inefficient (Socialism is inefficient).
Regimentation reduces freedom.
A less efficient economy would come about due to harmful regulation and excessive government control. Both imply a lower standard of living and less freedom. An inefficient economy implies fewer resources for the things we want, including health care. Less effective health care implies a higher mortality rate.
Who should we fear most? Bernie Sanders and his followers. Why? Because they have political clout and may gain power. The KKK, Nazis, and White Supremacists are so offensive that there is no risk of their gaining political clout and power.
Killing people speaks for itself.
Regimentation reduces freedom.
A less efficient economy would come about due to harmful regulation and excessive government control. Both imply a lower standard of living and less freedom. An inefficient economy implies fewer resources for the things we want, including health care. Less effective health care implies a higher mortality rate.
Bernie Sanders and his followers hold unacceptable views, both economic and social. If they got their way, they would not kill people, but would regiment peoples’ lives, and make the economy inefficient (Socialism is inefficient).
Regimentation reduces freedom.
A less efficient economy would come about due to harmful regulation and excessive government control. Both imply a lower standard of living and less freedom. An inefficient economy implies fewer resources for the things we want, including health care. Less effective health care implies a higher mortality rate.
Who should we fear most? Bernie Sanders and his followers. Why? Because they have political clout and may gain power. The KKK, Nazis, and White Supremacists are so offensive that there is no risk of their gaining political clout and power.
Wednesday, August 16, 2017
The tendency of emotion to rule over intellect, and the failure to appreciate freedom
This is a test.
QUESTIONS
1. Group A’s right to speak is protected under the First Amendment and this is desirable.
a. True or false?
2. Group B’s right to speak is protected under the First Amendment and this is desirable.
a. True of false?
3. Group A wants to hold a peaceful rally to “speak”. Group A should be allowed to do so.
a. True or false?
4. Group B wants to protest peacefully at Group A’s rally. Group B should be allowed to do so.
a. True or false.
5. The rally and protest go forward and neither group physically attacks the other. This is the way it is supposed to be.
a. True or false.
6. The rally and protest go forward and Group A physically attacks Group B without physical provocation. Group B acts defensively only. Group A attackers have caused the violence, have committed a crime and should be prosecuted. Group B defenders have not committed a crime and should not be prosecuted.
a. True or false.
7. The rally and protest go forward and Group B physically attacks Group A without physical provocation. Group A acts defensively only. Group B attackers have caused the violence, have committed a crime and should be prosecuted. Group A defenders have not committed a crime and should not be prosecuted.
a. True or false.
8. The rally and protest go forward and Group A physically attacks Group B without physical provocation. Group B acts defensively at first, but then attacks Group A when unnecessary for defensive purposes. Group A and B attackers have caused the violence, have committed a crime and should be prosecuted.
a. True or false.
9. The rally and protest go forward and Group B physically attacks Group A without physical provocation. Group A acts defensively at first, but then attacks Group B when unnecessary for defensive purposes. Group A and B attackers have caused the violence, have committed a crime and should be prosecuted.
a. True or false.
10. Is it necessary to know what the two groups are to answer these questions?
a. Yes or No.
ANSWERS
1. True.
2. True.
3. True.
4. True.
5. True.
6. True.
7. True.
8. True.
9. True.
10. No.
If you did not answer all these questions correctly, either you are emotional at the expense of your intellect or you do not appreciate freedom.
Sunday, August 13, 2017
The Anti-Gun Crowd: Figures Don't Lie, But Liars Figure
Here is a good, and unfortunately typical, example of how the anti-gun crowd plays loose with the truth presented by John Lott, of the Crime Prevention Research Center.
JL is on target.
------------------------------------
A frequent claim by gun control advocates is that the National Research Council (NRC) 2005 report, “Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review,” has “debunked,” “emphatically rejected,” “disproved,” or failed to support research showing that right-to-carry laws reduce crime. It is not too surprising that gun control advocates and the media like to point to their interpretation of the NRC report because the studies that look at the data for the US normally find strong support for right-to-carry laws reducing violent crime. Here are a couple such quotes by Professor John Donohue. I was just given a copy of part of Donohue’s report from June this year.
“Despite some initial claims that RTC laws could actually reduce violent crime, the 2004 report of a special committee the National Research Council (“NRC”; with only one dissenter out of 16 committee members) emphatically rejected this conclusion based on the committee’s review of the then-current information with data through 2000″ (emphasis added). John Donohue, Expert Report in Flanagan v. Becerra, United States District Court (C.D. Cal.), Case No. 2:16-cv-06164-JAK-AS, June 1, 2017. Donohue was an expert for the state of California.
“The National Academy of Sciences convened a panel of talented experts who spent two years looking at John Lott’s work, Gary Kleck’s work. They came before the committee, testified, fifteen to one in that panel of sixteen, they concluded the scientific evidence does not support the more guns, less crime proposition. The lone dissenter was someone who was not an econometrician, who admitted in his dissent that he wished he knew more econometrics, and who had previously testified as an expert witness on behalf of the execrable NRA.” John Donohue, Intelligence Squared debate October 28, 2008 at the 38:00 minute mark. The debate was carried nationally on National Public Radio.
What is ignored by gun control advocates in discussions of the NRC report is that the report studied over 100 different types of gun control proposal and that it didn’t reach a conclusion on any of them and only called for more research. Yet, no gun control advocates would say that the NRC debunked their favorite gun control laws.
JL is on target.
------------------------------------
A frequent claim by gun control advocates is that the National Research Council (NRC) 2005 report, “Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review,” has “debunked,” “emphatically rejected,” “disproved,” or failed to support research showing that right-to-carry laws reduce crime. It is not too surprising that gun control advocates and the media like to point to their interpretation of the NRC report because the studies that look at the data for the US normally find strong support for right-to-carry laws reducing violent crime. Here are a couple such quotes by Professor John Donohue. I was just given a copy of part of Donohue’s report from June this year.
“Despite some initial claims that RTC laws could actually reduce violent crime, the 2004 report of a special committee the National Research Council (“NRC”; with only one dissenter out of 16 committee members) emphatically rejected this conclusion based on the committee’s review of the then-current information with data through 2000″ (emphasis added). John Donohue, Expert Report in Flanagan v. Becerra, United States District Court (C.D. Cal.), Case No. 2:16-cv-06164-JAK-AS, June 1, 2017. Donohue was an expert for the state of California.
“The National Academy of Sciences convened a panel of talented experts who spent two years looking at John Lott’s work, Gary Kleck’s work. They came before the committee, testified, fifteen to one in that panel of sixteen, they concluded the scientific evidence does not support the more guns, less crime proposition. The lone dissenter was someone who was not an econometrician, who admitted in his dissent that he wished he knew more econometrics, and who had previously testified as an expert witness on behalf of the execrable NRA.” John Donohue, Intelligence Squared debate October 28, 2008 at the 38:00 minute mark. The debate was carried nationally on National Public Radio.
In fact, it would be more accurate to say that the panel didn’t reach any conclusion on right-to-carry, just as it didn’t reach any conclusion on any of the other policies, and that they merely called for more research.
The conclusion of chapter 6 noted: “Thus, the committee concludes that with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates.” It ended with a call for more research: “If further headway is to be made on this question, new analytical approaches and data sets will need to be used.”
The conclusion of chapter 6 noted: “Thus, the committee concludes that with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates.” It ended with a call for more research: “If further headway is to be made on this question, new analytical approaches and data sets will need to be used.”
What is ignored by gun control advocates in discussions of the NRC report is that the report studied over 100 different types of gun control proposal and that it didn’t reach a conclusion on any of them and only called for more research. Yet, no gun control advocates would say that the NRC debunked their favorite gun control laws.
Saturday, August 12, 2017
Government Regulation Set Up To Help Morphs Into Restrictions That Hurt
An excerpt from Milton Friedman's "Liberalism, Old Style".
-----------------------------------------
The Interstate Commerce Commission was established to protect the public against the railroads when railroads probably did have a large element of natural monopoly. The development of highway and air transport has largely eliminated any natural monopoly element in railroads, yet instead of the abolition of the Interstate Commerce Commission, government control has been extended to these other transportation media. The ICC has become a means of protecting the railroads from the competition of trucks instead of the public from the absence of competition . . . . . In practice, the claim of natural monopoly is more often an excuse for intervention desired on other grounds than a valid justification for intervention.
-----------------------------------------
The Interstate Commerce Commission was established to protect the public against the railroads when railroads probably did have a large element of natural monopoly. The development of highway and air transport has largely eliminated any natural monopoly element in railroads, yet instead of the abolition of the Interstate Commerce Commission, government control has been extended to these other transportation media. The ICC has become a means of protecting the railroads from the competition of trucks instead of the public from the absence of competition . . . . . In practice, the claim of natural monopoly is more often an excuse for intervention desired on other grounds than a valid justification for intervention.
Wednesday, August 09, 2017
It is Time For Rod Rosenstein to Recuse Himself
Here is Jonathan Turley's column on this topic. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University
JT is on target.
---------------------------------------
Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the growing need for Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to recuse himself from the Special Counsel investigation. Rosenstein has alluded to the possible need for his recusal but continues to participate in an investigation that could have direct bearing on his own role and decision-making. If he has material evidence on obstruction, he should not delay his recusal until he receives a formal request to appear before a grand jury. His relevance to the obstruction investigation is obvious and he should not be determined questions of scope when his own conduct could fall within the jurisdiction of the Special Counsel.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is back in the news this week, with a Sunday show appearance discussing the evolving scope of the special counsel’s investigation. While the subject was hardly a surprise, the person discussing the investigation was. Rosenstein is not only the ultimate authority on the scope of the investigation, he is also clearly a witness.
There are times when multitasking is a talent, but playing the roles of investigator and witness is not one of them. Rosenstein continues to resist calls for his own recusal, despite reports that a grand jury in Washington is now pursuing the obstruction allegations against President Trump.
Reports also indicate that various FBI officials now believe that they will inevitably be called as witnesses before the grand jury investigation of special counsel Robert Mueller. Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe is among those officials.
But on the top of this list must be the man whom the White House originally tagged with the decision to fire former FBI Director James Comey and the man who reportedly clashed with the White House over its public account: Rod Rosenstein.
Rosenstein’s involvement and importance in the underlying facts are well established. The deputy attorney general’s failure to recuse himself is a glaring ethical omission in an investigation into a president’s alleged conflicts of interest in dealing with then-FBI Director James Comey. Rosenstein is now three months overdue.
I was skeptical about the appointment of a special counsel before the firing because such an appointment should be accompanied by an articulable criminal act — something missing in the vague references to “collusion” with the Russians.
My view changed after Trump fired Comey on May 9. At that point, I believed that Rosenstein was right about the need for a special counsel to assure the public that a full and independent investigation would be conducted. However, his choice of Robert Mueller was a mistake. Mueller interviewed for Comey’s job, and Trump presumably spoke to Mueller about his reasons for firing Comey.
Moreover, Mueller and Comey have a close prior professional history. Both men were involved in a historic moment during the George W. Bush administration where they stood side by side to oppose an unlawful surveillance program. It was a moment that would define the legacies of both men — and enjoin them in history.
Rosenstein magnified that error with a mandate for Mueller that is strikingly broad. Yet this week, Rosenstein assured the public that “Bob Mueller understands and I understand the specific scope of the investigation, and so no, it’s not a fishing expedition.” If so, that understanding has remained strangely unstated.
The special counsel provision found in 28 CFR 600 states that the attorney general (or in this case, the deputy attorney general) shall establish by jurisdiction of the special counsel “a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated.”
The statement given to Robert Mueller was anything but specific. It simply stated that Mueller was to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump” and “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.”
With such a sweeping mandate, the role of the deputy attorney general in the investigation is even higher than usual. Rosenstein is performing the role of the attorney general after Jeff Sessions correctly recused himself. Under the rules, Mueller is specifically allowed to investigate “any federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the special counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.”
If Mueller were to seek a broader jurisdiction to investigate new matters or “to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned,” he “shall consult with” Rosenstein, who this week referenced this power by saying that Mueller “needs to come to the acting attorney general, at this time me, for permission to expand his investigation.”
It is not clear whether Mueller had such a discussion before bringing on a team of prosecutors focused on financial fraud and foreign bribery or pursuing previous Trump transactions and business deals. If Mueller is pursuing obstruction allegations, that course will take him right over the desk of his superior: Rosenstein.
Rosenstein was consulted about firing Comey and supported the decision with a memorandum shredding the former FBI director. Moreover, when the White House initially made it sound like Rosenstein was the reason that Comey was fired (despite the fact that Trump had already decided to do so before receiving Rosenstein’s memo in support of termination), Rosenstein reportedly demanded a correction.
Rosenstein will likely be a key witness on the obstruction issue. As someone who supported the firing, he may be as important to the defense as to the prosecution in showing the independent grounds for terminating Comey. He has much at stake professionally, as shown by his adamant response to the White House spin. The grand jury might want to know why Rosenstein did not act to protect Comey or why he did not confront Trump in any suggested desire to curtail the investigation.
It is a basic rule that prosecutor should immediately recuse himself from a matter where he may be a witness. In addition to the various grounds listed in the conflicts rule, recusal is appropriate in “circumstances other than those set forth in the regulation that would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the facts to question an employee’s impartiality.” Rosenstein, who has recognized his problem as a potential witness, should have recused himself long ago.
Rosenstein clearly agreed with the recusal of Sessions (as did most of us) to avoid even an appearance of a conflict. The deputy attorney general has more than an appearance of a conflict. Not only did Rosenstein appoint someone with close ties to the main accuser of President Trump, but he himself reportedly clashed with the White House on its post-firing account on Comey. Yet, Rosenstein is reaffirming that he will continue to make decisions on the scope and resources for the investigation.
This is a major investigation with passions running high on both sides. Citizens deserve an investigation without lingering questions of bias or personal interest. While it is too late to rethink or reverse the appointment of the special counsel, Rosenstein can remove one continuing and distracting conflict by removing himself. We are now more than 90 days and waiting.
JT is on target.
---------------------------------------
Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the growing need for Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to recuse himself from the Special Counsel investigation. Rosenstein has alluded to the possible need for his recusal but continues to participate in an investigation that could have direct bearing on his own role and decision-making. If he has material evidence on obstruction, he should not delay his recusal until he receives a formal request to appear before a grand jury. His relevance to the obstruction investigation is obvious and he should not be determined questions of scope when his own conduct could fall within the jurisdiction of the Special Counsel.
There are times when multitasking is a talent, but playing the roles of investigator and witness is not one of them. Rosenstein continues to resist calls for his own recusal, despite reports that a grand jury in Washington is now pursuing the obstruction allegations against President Trump.
Reports also indicate that various FBI officials now believe that they will inevitably be called as witnesses before the grand jury investigation of special counsel Robert Mueller. Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe is among those officials.
Rosenstein’s involvement and importance in the underlying facts are well established. The deputy attorney general’s failure to recuse himself is a glaring ethical omission in an investigation into a president’s alleged conflicts of interest in dealing with then-FBI Director James Comey. Rosenstein is now three months overdue.
I was skeptical about the appointment of a special counsel before the firing because such an appointment should be accompanied by an articulable criminal act — something missing in the vague references to “collusion” with the Russians.
My view changed after Trump fired Comey on May 9. At that point, I believed that Rosenstein was right about the need for a special counsel to assure the public that a full and independent investigation would be conducted. However, his choice of Robert Mueller was a mistake. Mueller interviewed for Comey’s job, and Trump presumably spoke to Mueller about his reasons for firing Comey.
Rosenstein magnified that error with a mandate for Mueller that is strikingly broad. Yet this week, Rosenstein assured the public that “Bob Mueller understands and I understand the specific scope of the investigation, and so no, it’s not a fishing expedition.” If so, that understanding has remained strangely unstated.
The special counsel provision found in 28 CFR 600 states that the attorney general (or in this case, the deputy attorney general) shall establish by jurisdiction of the special counsel “a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated.”
The statement given to Robert Mueller was anything but specific. It simply stated that Mueller was to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump” and “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.”
If Mueller were to seek a broader jurisdiction to investigate new matters or “to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned,” he “shall consult with” Rosenstein, who this week referenced this power by saying that Mueller “needs to come to the acting attorney general, at this time me, for permission to expand his investigation.”
It is not clear whether Mueller had such a discussion before bringing on a team of prosecutors focused on financial fraud and foreign bribery or pursuing previous Trump transactions and business deals. If Mueller is pursuing obstruction allegations, that course will take him right over the desk of his superior: Rosenstein.
Rosenstein will likely be a key witness on the obstruction issue. As someone who supported the firing, he may be as important to the defense as to the prosecution in showing the independent grounds for terminating Comey. He has much at stake professionally, as shown by his adamant response to the White House spin. The grand jury might want to know why Rosenstein did not act to protect Comey or why he did not confront Trump in any suggested desire to curtail the investigation.
It is a basic rule that prosecutor should immediately recuse himself from a matter where he may be a witness. In addition to the various grounds listed in the conflicts rule, recusal is appropriate in “circumstances other than those set forth in the regulation that would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the facts to question an employee’s impartiality.” Rosenstein, who has recognized his problem as a potential witness, should have recused himself long ago.
This is a major investigation with passions running high on both sides. Citizens deserve an investigation without lingering questions of bias or personal interest. While it is too late to rethink or reverse the appointment of the special counsel, Rosenstein can remove one continuing and distracting conflict by removing himself. We are now more than 90 days and waiting.
The Insurance Compulsion
Here is a Washington Times article by Richard Rahn.
RR is on target.
---------------------------------------
Venezuela is the latest global disaster caused by socialism. Over the last couple of hundred years, virtually every variety of socialism has been tried — from communism to national socialism (Nazism) and fascism, to various varieties of “democratic socialism” — with one common characteristic — they all failed. Despite the economic failures, loss of liberty and the tens of millions of deaths resulting from the socialist experiments, it has an enduring romantic attraction. Bernie Sanders and millions of his followers call themselves socialists, without embarrassment, claiming that next time they will get it right. Many countries still have socialist parties. How can so many be so ignorant of the never-ending misery socialism has brought?
Many of those who advocate socialism not only suffer from real or studied ignorance, but a fear of not being able to fend for themselves. They fear that they cannot make a living on their own or pay their own medical bills. They fear competition. When some political type says, “The state will take care of you and give you food, shelter and medical care,” for many it becomes easier to accept the words as truth without thinking through the history, costs and consequences of such promises.
Life is scary and uncertain. Children fear the loss of their parents to protect and care for them. Part of becoming an adult is taking on the responsibility for taking care of ourselves, which means insuring as much as possible against life’s risks. Responsible adults take certain actions, such as insuring against unemployment by deferring immediate gratification and spending time, effort and money to obtain more education and job skills. Responsible adults buy medical insurance, auto insurance and homeowners insurance to protect themselves, at least partially, against events they may not be able to control.
Insurance costs money, and it is human nature to prefer that someone else pay your bills. In essence, socialism is a system in which others are forced to pay your bills no matter how irresponsible you may be. Margaret Thatcher famously pointed out that socialism works until socialist governments run out of other people’s money.
Recognizing that many will be irresponsible and not buy adequate insurance, states require people to buy auto insurance as a condition of driving on public roads. Companies that provide mortgages require those who have a mortgage to buy homeowners insurance.
The first duty of government is to protect the citizens and their property — which requires a military, police and court system. This insurance has to be paid for — and citizens are required to pay taxes for these functions. Most people, not including anarchists, believe these are necessary functions of government. So most debate is about how much to spend on these functions, not whether or not it is desirable to insure against these risks.
The real debate is about how much insurance any individual should be required to pay for versus how much should be voluntary. The socialists promise to insure the individual against almost all of life’s risks, but to do so, they have to compel people to provide whatever share of their earnings necessary to pay for all of the benefits. The demand for more benefits is never-ending. The amount required to pay for the benefits becomes so high that most individual initiative, investment and work incentives are destroyed. State monopoly agencies to provide for all the benefits have little incentive for cost control, nor do the people working within the agencies have many incentives for good “customer” service. At some point, the situation becomes so bad that the people revolt — which explains why most countries that tried socialism have rejected it in all but name.
The Chinese Communist Party still calls itself socialist, despite having largely a free-market system. A few years back during one of my trips to China, I was in a discussion about the economy with a high-ranking Chinese government official. He had been defending the supremacy of the party. I noted that during the first 30 years of communist rule, the economy had been a disaster, but three decades ago, when they turned to a market economy, with some property rights, work and investment incentives, the economy boomed. His reply: “We originally thought that we could go directly from a poor agrarian society to communism, but then we realized that first we would need to build a rich capitalistic society, which might take 100 years, before going to communism.”
The current debate about the government role in health care insurance illustrates the muddled thinking among the political class. Under Obamacare, there is a requirement that people are compelled to buy insurance from selected providers or pay a fine. Many young people saw this correctly as a bad deal for them, so they chose to pay the fine to a coercive government. Many Republicans said they would take away the purchase requirement as an unjust infringement on personal liberty — but then many quite irrationally said they would cover pre-existing conditions — which destroys any incentive to purchase insurance until one is ill. This is not insurance, but socialist income redistribution, and will lead to a fiscal disaster.
A reason to severely limit government’s role in insuring against individual risk is that history shows free markets can provide insurance for most things more efficiently and without compulsion.
RR is on target.
---------------------------------------
Venezuela is the latest global disaster caused by socialism. Over the last couple of hundred years, virtually every variety of socialism has been tried — from communism to national socialism (Nazism) and fascism, to various varieties of “democratic socialism” — with one common characteristic — they all failed. Despite the economic failures, loss of liberty and the tens of millions of deaths resulting from the socialist experiments, it has an enduring romantic attraction. Bernie Sanders and millions of his followers call themselves socialists, without embarrassment, claiming that next time they will get it right. Many countries still have socialist parties. How can so many be so ignorant of the never-ending misery socialism has brought?
Many of those who advocate socialism not only suffer from real or studied ignorance, but a fear of not being able to fend for themselves. They fear that they cannot make a living on their own or pay their own medical bills. They fear competition. When some political type says, “The state will take care of you and give you food, shelter and medical care,” for many it becomes easier to accept the words as truth without thinking through the history, costs and consequences of such promises.
Life is scary and uncertain. Children fear the loss of their parents to protect and care for them. Part of becoming an adult is taking on the responsibility for taking care of ourselves, which means insuring as much as possible against life’s risks. Responsible adults take certain actions, such as insuring against unemployment by deferring immediate gratification and spending time, effort and money to obtain more education and job skills. Responsible adults buy medical insurance, auto insurance and homeowners insurance to protect themselves, at least partially, against events they may not be able to control.
Recognizing that many will be irresponsible and not buy adequate insurance, states require people to buy auto insurance as a condition of driving on public roads. Companies that provide mortgages require those who have a mortgage to buy homeowners insurance.
The first duty of government is to protect the citizens and their property — which requires a military, police and court system. This insurance has to be paid for — and citizens are required to pay taxes for these functions. Most people, not including anarchists, believe these are necessary functions of government. So most debate is about how much to spend on these functions, not whether or not it is desirable to insure against these risks.
The Chinese Communist Party still calls itself socialist, despite having largely a free-market system. A few years back during one of my trips to China, I was in a discussion about the economy with a high-ranking Chinese government official. He had been defending the supremacy of the party. I noted that during the first 30 years of communist rule, the economy had been a disaster, but three decades ago, when they turned to a market economy, with some property rights, work and investment incentives, the economy boomed. His reply: “We originally thought that we could go directly from a poor agrarian society to communism, but then we realized that first we would need to build a rich capitalistic society, which might take 100 years, before going to communism.”
The current debate about the government role in health care insurance illustrates the muddled thinking among the political class. Under Obamacare, there is a requirement that people are compelled to buy insurance from selected providers or pay a fine. Many young people saw this correctly as a bad deal for them, so they chose to pay the fine to a coercive government. Many Republicans said they would take away the purchase requirement as an unjust infringement on personal liberty — but then many quite irrationally said they would cover pre-existing conditions — which destroys any incentive to purchase insurance until one is ill. This is not insurance, but socialist income redistribution, and will lead to a fiscal disaster.
A reason to severely limit government’s role in insuring against individual risk is that history shows free markets can provide insurance for most things more efficiently and without compulsion.
Blaming the Victim for the Consequences to the Perpetrator
Here is a link to an article by Abigail Hall about the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It has the "the United States is never right" and the "Oh, I am so vulnerable and nobody should stress me out" theme that is so popular nowadays.
Essentially, AH argues that the US should not have bombed Japan because there was more loss of Japanese lives (especially civilians) than US lives that would have been lost by invading Japan. She seems unaware that one might legitimately "price" US lives higher than Japanese lives if Japan is the aggressor.
To put this in perspective, imagine that three criminals attack you with knives intending to kill you and, in order to avoid being killed you shoot them and kill them. To be consistent, AH must argue that the preferred outcome is your death rather than theirs. AH might counter that her argument corresponds to your killing innocent bystanders instead of the attackers. That ignores the role civilians play in war and that killing innocent bystanders in a civilian attack does not prevent your death.
If you want to question the need for the atomic bombing of Japan, why not be more imaginative and claim that the US should have informed the Japanese of the bomb and scheduling a demonstration in a sparsely populated area.
Here are some excerpts from the article.
-------------------------------------------------
I remember the first time I learned about the dropping of the atomic bombs—likely because I thought I was in trouble.
I was six and in the first grade. I remember going to the school’s library and walking into the “big kid” section. While I thought myself too mature for the likes of Clifford the Big Red Dog and life lessons offered by the Bearenstain Bears, I was enticed by illustrations, which led me to a particular selection. The book was Hiroshima No Pika (which I believe translates to “The flash of Hiroshima) by Toshi Maruki.
“Why?”
I remember my mother’s answer. She told me that the Japanese wouldn’t surrender and end the war. She said that dropping the bombs was the “only way” to get them to stop.
Others on this blog have rightfully doubted this justification. It was abundantly clear to all parties involved that Japan was losing the war. In fact, the Japanese were seriously considering surrender, but wanted to retain their emperor—which they ultimately did. (MacArthur actually used the emperor’s social importance to achieve his ends during the subsequent occupation of Japan. See Chris Coyne’s After War for a good discussion.)
The often-cited number of would-be American casualties is likely highly inflated. People often suggest that half a million servicemen would have died had the U.S. invaded Japan. While we will never know for sure, the government’s own estimates from the period show much smaller casualty estimates. Scholars believe an invasion would have resulted in anywhere from 20,000 to 50,000 casualties.
Essentially, AH argues that the US should not have bombed Japan because there was more loss of Japanese lives (especially civilians) than US lives that would have been lost by invading Japan. She seems unaware that one might legitimately "price" US lives higher than Japanese lives if Japan is the aggressor.
To put this in perspective, imagine that three criminals attack you with knives intending to kill you and, in order to avoid being killed you shoot them and kill them. To be consistent, AH must argue that the preferred outcome is your death rather than theirs. AH might counter that her argument corresponds to your killing innocent bystanders instead of the attackers. That ignores the role civilians play in war and that killing innocent bystanders in a civilian attack does not prevent your death.
If you want to question the need for the atomic bombing of Japan, why not be more imaginative and claim that the US should have informed the Japanese of the bomb and scheduling a demonstration in a sparsely populated area.
Here are some excerpts from the article.
-------------------------------------------------
I remember the first time I learned about the dropping of the atomic bombs—likely because I thought I was in trouble.
I was six and in the first grade. I remember going to the school’s library and walking into the “big kid” section. While I thought myself too mature for the likes of Clifford the Big Red Dog and life lessons offered by the Bearenstain Bears, I was enticed by illustrations, which led me to a particular selection. The book was Hiroshima No Pika (which I believe translates to “The flash of Hiroshima) by Toshi Maruki.
---
Disturbed by the book’s content, I took it to my mother. I had questions. Serious questions. Was this true? Did “we” (the United States) really do this to people like Mii and her family? As tactfully as she could, she explained that, indeed, the United States had dropped atomic bombs on Japan. People died, including children and (more upsetting to me as a child) their parents. True to nature, I asked a follow up question.“Why?”
I remember my mother’s answer. She told me that the Japanese wouldn’t surrender and end the war. She said that dropping the bombs was the “only way” to get them to stop.
---
I have not asked my mother as an adult if she believes that the bombs were the “only way” to get the Japanese to surrender. Regardless of her opinion, many people believe this to be true. Indeed, this is the dominant narrative surrounding the decisions to drop the atomic bombs. If the United States hadn’t dropped the bombs, so the story goes, the Japanese would have continued fighting and hundreds of thousands of Americans would have been killed when the U.S. invaded Japan, an event scheduled for November of 1945.Others on this blog have rightfully doubted this justification. It was abundantly clear to all parties involved that Japan was losing the war. In fact, the Japanese were seriously considering surrender, but wanted to retain their emperor—which they ultimately did. (MacArthur actually used the emperor’s social importance to achieve his ends during the subsequent occupation of Japan. See Chris Coyne’s After War for a good discussion.)
The often-cited number of would-be American casualties is likely highly inflated. People often suggest that half a million servicemen would have died had the U.S. invaded Japan. While we will never know for sure, the government’s own estimates from the period show much smaller casualty estimates. Scholars believe an invasion would have resulted in anywhere from 20,000 to 50,000 casualties.
---
What is frequently absent from discussions of the bombings, issues of “necessity” and potential American casualties aside, is that most of those killed were not members of the Japanese military—but innocent civilians. By portraying the bombing as necessary to end the war, the U.S. government seeks to absolve itself from accepting the murder of thousands of men, women, and children. This article from Foreign Policy, written just last year, highlights the disconnect between the standard narrative regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the known reality.
Girls like me.
Gen. Bonner Fellers, MacArthur’s chief advisor on psychological warfare, wrote in a June 17, 1945, internal memorandum that the air war on Japan was “one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of noncombatants in all of history.” And Gen. Curtis Le May callously described the victims of the March air raid as being “scorched and boiled and baked to death.” Consider a few more statistics. The total number of U.S. military deaths in the Pacific war was slightly more than 106,000. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki alone killed roughly three times that number of civilian noncombatants.By portraying the actions of the U.S. in Hiroshima and Nagasaki as necessary, even honorable, the U.S. government is able to effectively wash its hands of any wrongdoing. Americans are able to discuss the bombing without wanting to lower their voices, eyes, and faces. When I was taught about the events at the conclusion of WWII later in school, there was little to no mention of the civilian deaths, the nefarious impacts of radiation, or the fact that the Japanese were ready to surrender prior to the bombings. These lessons stood in stark contrast to the story of Mii I had read years before. In vibrant color and pithy language, it had taught me to remember what is often forgotten—or intentionally neglected—that war is nasty, brutal, and destructive at its core. Those who bear the consequences are not always those in uniform, on warships, or in tanks, but seven-year-old girls.
Girls like me.
Sunday, August 06, 2017
Wednesday, August 02, 2017
Why I don’t take High IQ’s too seriously
After reading this blog entry, you will understand why I have never felt the obligation to contribute money to my alma mater, Columbia University.
I graduated from Columbia College, the Ivy League school at Columbia University. My class was filled with smart people – high IQ’s. As an alumnus, I receive Columbia College Today – published by the Columbia College Office of Alumni Affairs and Development for alumni, students, faculty, parents and friends of Columbia College. A few years ago, I attended the 50th class reunion.
What strikes me about too many of the people I met at Columbia is not so much how smart they are – they are smart – but what elitists they are, their lack of common sense, naivete, and how easily they pontificate on things they know little about – perhaps because they have no idea what they don’t know. They are all too willing to think that they can solve society’s problems by telling you how to live.
The following excerpt from Alumni News, by Bob Ratner, a classmate of mine and a retired Sociology professor, illustrates why I don’t take high IQ’s too seriously. As you read this excerpt, remember that visitors to Cuba do not get to decide what is shown to them and get lied to about what life in Cuba is like. Yet BR accepts what he was shown as representative and what he was told as the truth. He then lectures the rest of us, who know better. He also fails to see the adverse impact of an economy controlled by the Government, and refuses to attribute any of Cuba’s destroyed economy to Fidel’s policies and, instead, puts all the blame on Fidel’s critics. He also cannot refrain from bad-mouthing the Cubans who fled Cuba for freedom and literally created the Miami of today. What hutzpah, naivete, arrogance, pomposity, and condescension. Note the comment about Professor Mills – which suggests that at least some of the faculty suffered from the same faults.
-------------------------------------------
. . . my main reason for writing was to compliment Ken Scheffel for his remarks about Cuba in the Winter 2016-17 Class Notes (I await Part II of his reflections) and to throw in my two cents on this important subject. I have been upset by the vitriolic unbalanced criticism of Fidel Castro by some commentators in the wake of his death. His detractors seem to forget the murderous dictatorship, bolstered by United States mafia bosses, which Castro’s revolutionary movement supplanted. How, really, could Castro have led Cuba for 50 years, staved off U.S. military aggression and endured periods of economic peril, had the people not been for him? How did a poor country, made poorer by the senseless U.S. embargo, survive to achieve the heights of national literacy, free education and expert medical care? Why is Fidel lionized by so many world leaders if he was the villain depicted by his opponents, who chose exile rather than accept the necessary changes wrought by the revolution?
My first impression of Castro came in 1959 when he and his cigar-chomping confederates arrived in Jeeps and battle fatigues on the Columbia campus. One of my professors at the time was C. Wright Mills, a renowned iconoclast who was soon to write a book defending the Cuban Revolution (Listen, Yankee, 1960). I had already taken Mills’ third-year social stratification course in which (a few of you may remember) I replied, to Mills’ query about the significance of Thanksgiving, that “it was the one day of the year when all classes, low, middle and high, could eat the same bird”. It doesn’t seem quite so funny now, but it drew gales of laughter and applause back then. In the senior year seminar, Mills’ teaching favorably inclined me toward the changes taking place in Cuba.
Over the course of my career at the University of British Columbia (still Columbia, just a different country), I made two visits to Cuba, one as a member of a group of 20 North American criminologists on a study tour of the Cuban criminal justice system (1985) and the other as a participant in an international academic conference (2000). On the first visit our group was introduced to diverse examples, in action, of the courts, prisons, civil and political systems, including lengthy interviews with key officials. I asked hard questions, sometimes upsetting my U.S. colleagues, but our hosts answered with alacrity, insisting cleverly that, “There are no indiscreet questions, only indiscreet answers.”
Our tour ended with an evening dialogue with one of the many Neighborhood Committees for the Defense of the Revolution. A party militant (or “professional”) conducted the group meeting, but all of our questions were answered by the assembled villagers with gusto and apparent candor. If it was staged, they were wonderful actors. On our last day, my Canadian colleague and I visited a family at their home in Havana. The husband had once taught at my university, moved to Cuba, married and had three children, one of whom had just returned from Kiev University to help celebrate his parents’ 25th anniversary. Soon after we arrived, a party member, described by our host as a friend, knocked on the door and joined us for the full three hours. This seemed a little ominous at first, but we proceeded to have an animated discussion where no question went unanswered. Of course, I wondered about the presence of a party official at each of the two supposedly informal occasions, more than suggesting that the situations were being monitored to assure that the “wrong” messages were not conveyed to outsiders. Even so, the exchanges were frank and robust, portraying a Cuban society that was still in struggle but thankfully liberated from an ugly past.
The academic conference that I attended in 2000 came not long after the “special period,” during which Cuba suffered new privations after the loss of its bulwark Soviet Union trade partner. Now buses and taxis had returned to the streets and Cuba was no longer reeling economically, although the U.S. embargo continued. But there was ample evidence of blight; even at the convention center flustered delegates emerged from bathroom stalls that were without toilet paper, still an unaffordable luxury in many public places. Yet most of the people I spoke with told me that they loved Fidel and would fight to preserve the values enshrined by the revolution. Clearly, however, they wanted more in the way of material comforts and hoped for some relaxation of Political constraints. Developments since then have made both achievable if Fidel’s critics would relent and enable change to take a salutary course.
I hope to visit Cuba again and I urge all of you to do the same . . .before Donald either closes the door or opens it to the same old reprobates. Cheers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)