What To Root For On Election Night

Posted on November 5, 2012 by Dude Where's My Freedom?

Tomorrow is not going to be a particularly good day for those who love freedom and desire individual liberty.  Either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, both collectivists hostile to the principles of freedom and liberty will be elected President, an office that comes closer and closer to a despot every year.

But just because both candidates are losers worthy of scorn and ridicule doesn’t mean there aren’t a few semi-realistic occurrences that we can root for.  I will be watching election coverage tomorrow, while hoping for the following outcomes.

1.  A respectable showing by Gary Johnson.  I voted for Gary Johnson.  No, he is not perfect, but he’s as close to Ron Paul as we’re probably ever going to get.  I would like to see him do well.  In a similar way, the libertarian party as a whole is far from perfect, but I would like to see it do well.  The Johnson campaign has been advertising that if Gary receives greater than 5% of the vote, it will mean matching funds and greater ballot access for the LP in future elections.  I have not researched this, but if true, that would absolutely be positive news.

2.  Low turnout.  The voter turnout numbers are not discussed very loudly by the mainstream media, and for good reasons.  The media has become the fourth branch of government, and as such, works very hard to perpetuate the myth that the American government is absolutely perfect and benevolent and totally representative of what the population wants and desires.  The powers that be want you to believe that “we are the government” and that it’s totally within our power to change everything and make it great.  So, they are reluctant to report the fact that quite a few people don’t vote.  According to Wikipedia, voter turnout has been between 50-60% in most recent presidential elections (we actually went under 50% in 1996).  The fewer people who actually vote, the less of a case these state-apologists have.  If only 50% of the public votes, and the winner receives less than 50% of the vote, then that means less than one of every four Americans actually voted for the President.  Hardly a “popular mandate.”

3.  Partisan gridlock.  Largely ignorant members of the general public often decry “partisan politics.”  In pathetic displays of populism, various candidates for various offices promise to promote bipartisanship.  Of course, those of us who want less government understand that gridlock is desireable.  Two different parties occupying different branches of the government, thus preventing the government from “getting anything done,” is absolutely a good thing.  If Romney wins, root for the Democrats to keep the Senate.  If Obama wins, root for the Republicans to take the senate.  In any case, single-party rule is the worst possible outcome.  I want a “do-nothing Congress” that refuses to support the President’s agenda, and a power-mad President who refuses to go along with anything Congress proposes.  Let them spend all their time battling each other, and they will have less time to battle the public.

Posted in News Commentary | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Broken Election Fallacy

Posted on November 2, 2012 by Dude Where's My Freedom?

Over the past week, the mainstream media has been wholly obsessed with the effects of Hurricane Sandy in the northeast, complete with the usual troop of Keynesian economists telling us that although loss of life is always tragic, this hurricane will surely provide long-term economic benefits as the region is forced to rebuild.  As a result, the pro-freedom websites and Austrian school economists have been hard at work thoroughly discrediting the incredibly foolish broken window fallacy.

It is clear that rebuilding from hurricane damage will in fact increase construction spending, that much is seen.  But the unseen includes everything that might have been purchased instead of new construction and repairs had the hurricane not occurred.

Stories about the hurricane have somewhat pushed aside the former top-story and media obsession, a disaster of a somewhat different nature, but equally extreme in magnitude, the U.S. presidential election.  Yes, in this election, we have seen the perfect storm of economic illiteracy, corporatism, and an utter disregard of human rights.  We’ve also seen nonstop media coverage, and hundreds of millions of dollars donated to and then spent by the two campaigns.  All of that spending is seen.  But, in context of the broken window fallacy, I find myself asking, what about the unseen?

Isn’t a Presidential election between two men who agree on 99% of the important issues a complete waste of time, effort, and money?  Think of the actual, relevant news stories that could have been reported on had the media not been wasting all this effort on the election.  Think of what the hundreds of millions of dollars in donated funds might have purchased.  Think of the opportunity cost of the time spent by all of the intelligent people in the country caring about this meaningless exercise.  Think of that which is unseen.

Posted in News Commentary | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Storm Economics in One Lesson | Laissez-Faire Bookstore

Posted on October 31, 2012 by Dude Where's My Freedom?

Storm Economics in One Lesson | Laissez-Faire Bookstore.

This amazing article by Jeffrey Tucker explodes, like, five fallacies in one essay.  Every time there’s a natural disaster, the economic know-nothings come out in force to spew nonsense about how it will be good for the economy, and how price gouging is terrible, and other anti-freedom garbage.  Read the whole thing, it is well worth your time.

Posted in Blog Link | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Legalize. Don’t Tax. Don’t Regulate.

Posted on October 29, 2012 by Dude Where's My Freedom?

An advertisement against Measures 82 and 83. Much of the opposition has come from the Indian casinos, who naturally, are not in favor of competition.

One of the most appealing aspects of libertarian political philosophy is that it demands the legalization of all victimless crimes.  Those within the liberty movement celebrate as legalization of various currently prohibited activities (drugs, gambling, prostitution) tends to slowly gain in popularity and social acceptance.  The amount of “legalization” measures on various state ballots seems to increase each election cycle, and the votes are starting to get closer and closer.

A lot of the growing popularity of legalization comes from those who self-identify as liberals or leftists.  Drug legalization is considered a “social issue” and libertarians are often characterized as “fiscally conservative, socially liberal.”  Usually, the freedom movement welcomes those on the left with open arms to work towards the common cause of increasing personal freedom by legalizing currently outlawed social “vices.”

As tempting as it may be to reach out and build alliances, we must always keep in mind that self-described liberals are in fact statists, and are not necessarily interested in freedom as the ultimate end.  Spend some time searching around the Internet for arguments in favor of legalizing drugs, gambling, or prostitution and you will often find arguments based entirely on three words.  Words that should cause any libertarian to recoil in horror:  “Tax and regulate.”

Many “social liberals” advance what they deem to be a “practical” argument in favor of legalization.  They are appalled at the existence of black markets, where, much to their dismay, goods and services are exchanged freely between individuals without government involvement.  This, of course, is a state of affairs that absolutely must not be allowed to continue.  When the social liberal looks at legalization, he sees an opportunity to expand the reach of the state.  They tout all of the additional money that the government could be collecting in taxes if only it was able to steal 35% of the profits of the drug trade.  They look at the various fees that could be charged and licenses that could be required for people to buy to operate a casino.  They look at the potential votes that could be controlled through a sex worker’s union.

Those in the liberty movement must be careful to avoid the temptation of accepting these government interventions for the sake of coalition building.  We do not want the legalization of marijuana as a method of increasing the revenues of the state.  We want it because we have the right to our own bodies.

Here in Oregon, we have a ballot measure coming up in November that is popularly referred to as a bill for “legalized gambling.”  At first, I was excited to hear that such a measure was up for a vote.  As a libertarian, I am absolutely in favor of legalized gambling, as gambling is willing trade between two individuals which the government has absolutely no right to forbid.  However, upon closer inspection, this measure is actually just another government money and power grab.  Here is an excerpt from the summary of the bill:

Under the Ballot Measure amendment, a privately-owned casino may be allowed to operate in this state, only if, all of the following criteria are satisfied: (i) The privately-owned casino must be approved by a separate statewide initiative; (ii) The privately-owned casino must be located in an incorporated city and the electors of that incorporated city must approve the casinos development; (iii) The privately-owned casino must be owned and operated by a taxpaying corporation that is incorporated in Oregon; (iv) The privately-owned casino may not be located within 60 miles of a tribal casino that was operating on reservation land on January 1, 2011; and finally, (v) The privately-owned casino must pay twenty-five (25) percent of its adjusted gross revenues to the State of Oregon. Eighty percent of each payment must be deposited into the Oregon State Lottery Fund and 20 percent must be deposited into a fund established by Ballot Measure yy (IRR 38)

Got all that?  Does this bill sound to you like it increases personal freedom in any meaningful capacity?  Of course not.  In fact, the casino company that was largely behind this bill made no mention of personal freedom and natural rights in its advertising campaign (that has since been suspended because polling indicates the measure is likely to fail).  The advertising campaign was mainly focused on how many jobs the proposed casino would create (an easily identifiable Keynesian fallacy) and how the casino would be paying 20% of its revenues to the schools (won’t somebody think of the children?)

This bill does nothing to increase the natural right to free trade.  Rather, it merely codifies that gambling is something the government has every right to restrict in whatever way it so chooses.  This is an unacceptable compromise.  I personally chose to leave this measure blank on my ballot.  A yes vote might suggest that I am okay with all of the freedom-restricting specifics of the bill.  A no vote might imply that I somehow agree that gambling should be forbidden.  Both options on this measure represent an oppressive state interfering with the natural rights of its citizens, therefore I could not in good conscience vote on this measure at all.

As the message of liberty spreads and legalization initiatives grow, we must be wary of statists who attempt to hijack pro-freedom initiatives and subvert them for their own specific special interests.  Legalization is a moral issue.  Drugs, gambling, and prostitution should be legalized because we own our own bodies and therefore have the natural right to decide how we choose to use them.  They should not be legalized as a method of increasing the power of the state, or the size of its tax-base.  When liberals say “Legalize, tax, and regulate,” we must speak loudly and clearly that the first is great, but the last two are unacceptable.  The last thing our society needs is more taxes or more regulations.

Posted in General Theory | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Republican Rape Dilemma – Mark Davis – [page]

Posted on October 26, 2012 by Dude Where's My Freedom?

The Republican Rape Dilemma – Mark Davis – [page].

Libertarians are on both sides of the “abortion issue.”  The point of this post is not to take sides on the issue of whether or not abortion should be legal or not.  But this article makes an excellent point, that the “exception for rape or incest” issue is a red herring.

If someone is truly pro-life, the only tolerated exception should be to save the life of the mother.  Period.  End of story.  It is time for pro-life conservatives to stand up and own this issue, and not be afraid of the left yelling and screaming about them being “anti-woman.”  If life truly begins at conception, then the extreme emotional distress for the mother of bringing an unwanted child to term is tragic, but is not a justification to kill the child.

I stand in support of Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, not because I necessarily agree with their positions, but because their positions are ideologically consistent, and having ideologically consistent positions is what led me to become a libertarian in the first place.  It is the pathetic fake-conservatives like Mitt Romney, who claim to be pro-life, but are willing to let a fetus be murdered if the woman might be emotionally bothered by it, who are pathetic, hypocritical cowards worthy of scorn.

Posted in News Link | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Outsourcing Is Good

Posted on October 25, 2012 by Dude Where's My Freedom?

This excellent short video by the Cato Institute does an excellent job describing how outsourcing benefits Americans.  Very relevant to the recent posts on labor markets, as well as the economic nonsense being peddled by the two Presidential candidates.

Posted in Video Link | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Why Not “Equal Pay for Equal Goods?”

Posted on October 24, 2012 by Dude Where's My Freedom?

Now that we’ve established that labor markets aren’t special, it’s time to extend this reasoning to the “equal pay for equal work” discussion.

If labor is a good that is exchanged just like any other, than we can easily make an analogy to the terms of exchange for labor and the terms of exchange for a good, say, tires.  As we know, Chinese-made tires are much cheaper than American-made tires, a fact which greatly upsets Barack Obama.  It upsets him so much that he had to impose draconian tariffs on Chinese tires, in a vain effort to “save American jobs.”

But wait a second… why should Chinese tires cost less than American tires?  Isn’t that discrimination?  Isn’t it wrong that Chinese tires aren’t paid as much for their services as American tires are?  Shouldn’t we punish people who arbitrarily pay less for Chinese tires solely because they know that the Chinese tire will accept these lower wages?

The absurdity of this comparison reflects the absurdity of the “equal pay” mindset.  Of course employers will pay as little for labor as they possibly can, just like how consumers will obviously pay as little for tires as they possibly can.  This is how the market works.

Of course, some employers will choose to pay everyone equally, even if they could get away with not doing so, because such a decision profits them in other ways.  It may create good publicity, or it may merely create a psychic profit in the sense that the employer will feel better about himself for not discriminating.  This also happens with consumers.  Some hyper-nationalists, presumably, are willing to pay more for American-made tires because it makes them feel good too (I assume Obama is in this category).

But that doesn’t change the fact that the actions are morally equivalent.  Any time you pay less money for Chinese-made goods, you are discriminating against those goods solely based on their nationality.  How despicable of you!

Posted in General Theory | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Labor Markets Aren’t Special

Posted on October 22, 2012 by Dude Where's My Freedom?

The laws of economics are universal.  They apply to all markets, everywhere, at all times.  At times, governments or other hostile forces may restrict certain markets in particular ways to cause them to be unique, but the general laws still apply.  This is true regardless of the size of the market, the location of the market, the variety of the market, or the market’s relation to the “common man.”

The labor market is unique in that it likely to be the only market on which the “common man” will be a seller, rather than a buyer, of goods.  However, this distinction is irrelevant in terms of economic laws and principles.  The state has successfully convinced the layman that this distinction makes labor markets a special subset of economics, where the typical laws of supply and demand no longer apply.  Labor markets are not only safe from the negative consequences of state interference, but they actually benefit from it, say the socialists.  Sure, price controls may not work and may cause negative consequences in the market for raw materials, but such measures are necessary in the labor market in order to prevent the exploitation of the worker by nefarious capitalists.

Of course, this is all nonsense.  The labor market functions like any other.  It is responsive to interference in the same way any other market would be.  Let’s examine a few basic principles of economics and relate them to the labor market:

1.  Exchange occurs for mutual benefit.  This is true of any market in the absence of coercion.  To suggest that an employer can “exploit” an employee by offering as low of a wage as possible makes about as much sense as suggesting that a football fan can “exploit” the Dallas Cowboys by refusing to pay anything but an exceptionally low price for tickets.  The suggestion that this principle does not apply to labor markets because a job is a “necessity,” is false.  The division of labor is a relatively recent phenomenon in the grand scheme of human history.  Anyone who feels “exploited” by their employer is free to return to this level of human existence, that is to say, subsisting on what you can hunt or gather.

2.  Price floors create a surplus of supply.  Products are sold at a price above their market value, therefore supply greatly exceeds demand.  This is a relatively well understood principle that is rarely argued with when referring to markets for physical goods.  By this same reasoning, we can clearly state that a minimum wage creates unemployment.  A minimum wage is a price floor on labor.  It causes the supply of labor to greatly exceed the demand, resulting in a surplus of labor, which manifests itself in unemployed workers.  Somehow, people continue to deny this simple economic truth.  They come up with a myriad of excuses as to why labor markets are special and do not respond to supply and demand in the same way as a market for wheat or corn would.  This, of course, is false.

3.  Price ceilings create a surplus of demand.  Of course, the opposite affect is also true.  This one does not come into play as often, but could in terms of proposed regulations on CEO pay.

4.  In any transaction, both parties will desire to maximize their profits and minimize their expenses.  Capitalists, entrepreneurs, and business owners are universally vilified as greedy.  They are decried for their desire to lower wages whenever possible, and keep as much income for themselves.  Of course, the average minimum-wage employee behaves in the exact same way.  They would, and often do, seek to maximize their wages by any means possible.  Conversely, they also celebrate when economic conditions allow them to pay less for the things they buy.  The only difference is that the capitalist and the “common man” are on different sides of various exchanges.  The owner of a gas station profits most when the price of gas is high, and the cost of providing gas (part of which is represented in the salaries of gas station employees) is low.  Meanwhile, the gas station employee would prefer that the price of gas be very low (because he is a consumer of gas) and that his wages (which represent a cost to the gas station owner) be very high.  Both parties are primarily concerned with their own self-interest.  Yet the owner is seen as villainous, and the employee is seen as a victim of oppression.

As an extension of this, consider the question of outsourcing.  It is considered morally despicable for an employer to “ship jobs overseas.”  They are presumed to be excessively greedy and without compassion.  Yet, the reason the employer does this is because Chinese labor is cheaper than American labor.  Outsourcing allows him to minimize his costs.  Of course, the “common man” who decries outsourcing, engages in the exact same behavior anytime he purchases manufactured goods that were produced in China.  Consumers universally seem to prefer low-cost Chinese goods to high-cost American ones.  Yet somehow, this is not considered reprehensible behavior.  While the leftists may protest Apple headquarters and criticize the executives for purchasing low-cost Chinese labor, nobody ever thinks to protest an Apple store and criticize the customers for purchasing low-cost Chinese manufactured goods.  Why the lack of consistency?

Many contentious political issues of our day are excessively muddled by statist rhetoric designed to obscure basic economic truths.  The fact of the matter is that in terms of economics, the exchange between a business owner and a laborer is no different than a baker exchanging bread for a farmer’s apples.  The basic economic laws apply equally to both transactions.  Seeing the labor markets as “just another market” will do much to increase one’s understanding of why free markets are beneficial to the welfare of humanity as a whole.

Posted in General Theory | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

What Would Bastiat Do?

Posted on October 20, 2012 by Dude Where's My Freedom?

In relation to the “equal pay for equal work” discussion, this quote seems relevant:

“Socialism, like the old policy from which it emanates, confounds Government and society. And so, every time we object to a thing being done by Government, it concludes that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of education by the State — then we are against education altogether. We object to a State religion — then we would have no religion at all. We object to an equality which is brought about by the State then we are against equality, etc., etc. They might as well accuse us of wishing men not to eat, because we object to the cultivation of corn by the State.” – Frederic Bastiat

Once again, the issue at hand is not “should women receive equal pay or not?” but rather “will government mandates demanding equal pay actually benefit women or not?”  Mitt Romney had an excellent opportunity to address this issue, and completely failed to do so.

Posted in Quotes | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Milton Friedman on “Equal Pay for Equal Work” (What Romney Should Have Said)

Posted on October 19, 2012 by Dude Where's My Freedom?

This video has made the rounds in the libertarian circles for quite some time, but seems particularly relevant today.

Hearing clips from the Presidential debates merely makes me far more regretful that Ron Paul is not appearing in them.  Every so often, a question comes up where someone who actually believed in freedom and free markets could hit one out of the park, and strike a blow against big government statism and the conventional wisdom of modern politics.

The “Equal Pay for Equal Work” question was one of these moments.  You can almost hear Mitt Romney’s internal dialogue working here:  “Oh crap.  Quick, make it clear that you agree with her that women should be paid equal so you don’t seem like a sexist.  But wait, you can’t just say that you agree with Obama, because that would run the risk of exposing the fact that you actually agree with him about darn near everything and the difference between the two of you is minimal.  Just stammer for a while and drop some useless platitudes.  Oh crap, what did you just say?  Binders?  Really?  ABORT!  ABORT!”

If Romney actually had testicles, he could have attempted to deliver a free-market argument that the best way to truly achieve gender equality is NOT to pass new government laws, but to let the free market work its magic.  He could have channeled his inner Milton Friedman (who is not exactly some extreme libertarian himself) and challenged conventional wisdom.  Of course, he didn’t do that.  Either because he’s afraid to say something that might “rock the boat,” or (more likely), because he literally doesn’t believe Friedman’s argument.  In his heart, Romney is not a libertarian, but a statist.  He agrees that it is the purpose of government to solve these types of problems.

In any case, Friedman is actually correct here.  “Equal Pay for Equal Work” laws have the same effect on women that the minimum wage has on unskilled labor.  It artificially drives up prices, thereby resulting in greater unemployment.  All the sexist hiring managers out there, if forced by government decree to provide equal pay, will just not hire women.

But don’t worry, I’m sure if that were to happen, Obama (and Romney) would be quick to propose new affirmative action laws to force them to.  Every government “solution” simply creates another problem…. for which we get even more government “solutions.”

Posted in Video Link | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments