leftlibertarian.org

(Hat tip: Max Jones 2006-11-10.)

Today’s question comes via Lorna Grisby and Mark Guarino

Playing the role of a rap Casanova, Federline, who is seeking sole custody of his kids with Britney Spears, leaned into the crowd to touch the hands of women who were reaching toward him. Several songs into the set, he referenced his breakup with Spears. Hey, I see a lot of fine ladies in here, said the rapper. You know I’m a free man, right, ladies? You wanna dance with a pimp?

A: No.

“We stole the Air Force’s eagle, the Navy’s anchor and the Army’s rope. On the seventh day, God rested. We overran his perimeter and we’ve been running the globe ever since.” — seen on various t-shirts, etc.

Happy 231st birthday to the United States Marine Corps and to all of my brothers and sisters in arms who have served, are serving, or will serve in its ranks.

To those of you in harm’s way at this very moment: Hold on. Watch each others’ backs. Bring yourselves and your buddies home in one piece. As you’ve probably noticed, it’s a royal clusterfuck back here — but we’re trying to get things straightened out for your safe return.

First to fight for right and FREEDOM
And to keep our honor clean

Okay, for maybe the last post for a while on monetary issues, I'm going to admit my fundamental geekiness. I was (and still am to a small extent) a fantasy role playing geek, with AD&D being my first love. How's this relevant to monetary policy, you ask? Well, read on, I'll get to it at the end.

When talking about inflation, it's important to realize that it can, and has, happened from natural (well, relatively) processes. Let's return to the island. Remember the scenario where the chief exclusively finds the new obsidian coins? Well, how about he just finds a fissure, with hundreds of pieces, just slightly larger than the coins, of obsidian? If he spends a little time, he'll be able to turn them into hundreds of coins that he can use in trade. In doing so, he will gain the same benefit that the first piggies to the Fed's trough get today. What's more, we can't really fault him for his actions - he's merely just using his property in the way he best sees fit.

This is equivalent to what happened to Spain when it (ahem) found all that gold in the new world. It brought it back and was able to use it as money in Europe.

Which ties into the conclusion directly, but I want to stay in the New world when the Spanish arrived. When the Spanish came to the center of the Aztec civilization, they noticed a fairly well-developed market economy that worked somewhat differently from their model. Most importantly for this discussion is the money that was in use. Cocoa beans, cotton handkerchiefs, gold, goose quills, copper, and thin pieces of tin, were ALL in use in the market as MONEY!

Some observers claim that this demonstrates a fairly undeveloped economy - but I argue that it reflected an economy where the local state had as yet discovered the utility of forcing a uniform monetary standard. It seems that in Europe, the Middle East, and even the Far East that states generally understood that creating a uniform money base was a necessary step to creating a state money monopoly - or at least the two were inextricably linked, whatever their relationship was.

And now we get back to my geekiness. AD&D had a very interesting monetary system involving several different types of metal, mainly gold, silver, and copper. Who knew what a startlingly useful model this provides! Such a system would be much more robust and stable, much like the Aztec system was. Any sudden influx of say, newly discovered gold that was turned into gold coins, would quickly be assimilated into the system by people revaluing the exchange rate between these different types of money. Sure, the discoverer would get some benefits during the initial lag period, but it would quickly resolve itself and most people would be diversified enough in their monetary holdings that it wouldn't be a major setback. A continuous inflation of one type of money taken to extreme, would lead to it being phased out as money. Meanwhile, the economy at large would continue on with minimal interruption, using the other independent forms of existing money.

To me, this seems like the natural state of a free market - several different, competing forms of money, that are independent of each other in their value designation. As such, it seems somewhat shortsighted for any free-market proponent to argue for "the gold standard" as the only viable method or even logical outcome of the market. A decentralized, redundant, monetary system is the most robust system, and therefore the one most likely to arise in a true free market. In such a system, there would likely be a range of money, from LETS to gold, with some (likely gold) being generally more marketable and more valuable in general, but in specific areas, due to local culture, custom or belief, something else will be.

(Link via Catallarchy 2006-11-09.)

Defenders of intellectual enclosure almost always point to the pharmaceutical industry in order to defend patent laws on consequentialist grounds. The idea is that it’s very risky to invest money into new drugs, since new drugs take years of expensive new research and development, which often fails to pan out a marketable new drug. If the successful avenues of research weren’t so very lucrative, then pharmaceutical companies would not be pursuing nearly as much new research as they do. So, therefore, you shouldn’t undermine the patent restrictions that make successful new drugs so very profitable to develop. Here’s a typical example from Greg Mankiw’s Blog, in light of the election results:

My interpretation: The Dems will likely give us lower drug prices and less research into new drugs. Good news if you plan to be sick soon. Bad news if you plan to be sick in the more distant future.

—Greg Mankiw (2006-11-09): Dems and Drugs

Whether or not this is empirically true, if Mankiw intends to provide some guide to policy, then it requires you to know somehow or another what the right amount of money to devote to new drug research would be. (It’s silly to claim that a policy will prevent enough money going to new drug research if you have no idea what would count as enough.)

So, here’s the problem, and the open question. The most efficient level of investment in new drug research is probably greater than zero. And it’s certainly less than infinite: my resources aren’t infinite and neither are yours, and each of us needs many things in life besides research into new drugs. But beyond that, patent advocates pretty much never say anything at all about what the right amount of money to spend is, or how they would know what it is.

So—in the absence of free, competitive bargaining by drug-takers with drug-makers over how much the new drugs are worth to the would-be customers—just how do you calculate what the most efficient level of investment in new drug research would be?

So looks like the Democrats picked up some major street cred the other night. Yay for them.

I’m still not entirely comfortable with the fact that I voted a straight Dem ticket, mostly because I feel I lack a sufficiently rigorous philosophical basis for doing so. I feel that voting undercuts my spiritual separation from the State. Also, while there’s no doubt that rejecting Republicans was the moral way forward and that divided government is likely better than a one-party legislative and executive branch, Democrats still agree on far too much with them: corporatism, drug laws, substantive change in Iraq, police militarization, etc. Their disagreements are either trivial or procedural.

So don’t let down your guard yet. I’m hopeful Dems will roll back some of the more egregious offenses of the Bush Admin, but I’m not holding my breath. Such a development would fly in the face of American political history.

We’ll see. In the meantime: AGORA! ANARCHY! ACTION!

Tags: democrats

Dear libertarian Republicans,

It’s been some time since I’ve used the term “libertarian Republicans” without quote marks around “libertarian,” but Tuesday’s election results opened a window of opportunity for reconciliation between the libertarian movement and its errant Republican offshoot — a window that I hope both sides will hold open and use for the purpose of friendly communication and mutual support. For now, at least, I’m removing the quote marks, in the hope that libertarian Republicans will re-evaluate their priorities, place principle before party, and exploit the golden opportunity which the 2006 elections have placed before them.

Most of you, I suspect, are less than happy with what transpired on Tuesday. You shouldn’t be. Yes, the Republican Party took a beating — a beating it deserved in spades. But if you look at the results, what Americans rejected was NOT the residual libertarian strain in Republican thought, but the corruption and statism recently displayed in Republican action.

To put a finer point on it, libertarian Republican casualties on Tuesday were the exception, not the rule. Toby Nixon, Ken Lindell and others were taken down by stray shots; they were not the ones in the voters’ sights.

Ron Paul handily won re-election versus an NRA-endorsed opponent.

At least two known friends of libertarianism in the GOP — Butch Otter in Idaho and Sarah Palin in Alaska — are now governors-elect of their states.

Of 12 states with initiatives on the ballot to rein in government abuse of eminent domain, nine passed them.

Anti-war-on-drugs measures passed in numerous localities, and although they failed at the state level, they garnered considerable support (and who, ten years ago, would have dared dream that they’d make the ballot, let alone command the votes of double-digit percentages of the electorate)?

What did libertarian Republicans lose on Tuesday?

You lost some “friends” who had exploited the libertarian label but who never deserved it. J.D. Hayworth in Arizona. George Allen in Virginia. Jim Talent in Missouri. In losing them, you lost … baggage. These were folks you never should have been in bed with in the first place — and in your hearts you know I’m right. Know-Nothingism, Mrs. Grundyism, crony “capitalism” and jingoism may make for a nice wave to ride in the short term, but the undertow’s a bitch when that wave collapses. Thank your lucky stars that for the most part those who got sucked under were the ones who deserved it — and that they didn’t take the whole libertarian Republican movement down with them.

Right now, libertarian Republicans are the only faction in the GOP left standing. Everyone else has been drowned in the deluge or is still cowering on the beach, coughing up water and trying to figure out what the hell hit them. You guys are the only ones left with any credibility, any muscle, any ideas that resonate with the public. If the Republican Party has a future, YOU ARE IT.

I’d like to talk to you about the Libertarian Party for a minute. No, I’m not going to ask you to desert the GOP for the LP — some of you may do exactly that, and you’ll be welcomed with open arms if you do, but I’m going to take it as given that you’re not ready to give up on the Republican Party, at least yet. And I’m going to tell you how the LP has made your position more tenable — how Libertarian candidates put you in the catbird seat.

Get set for the whining to start, guys, because it’s coming. Your fellow Republicans are looking for people to blame, and in the next week or so they’re going to find two scapegoats: Frank Gilmour of Missouri and Stan Jones of Montana. Both of these gentlemen ran for US Senate on the Libertarian Party’s ticket. Both of them lost — and both of them garnered more votes than their Republican opponents (Jim Talent and Conrad Burns) lost by.

Your wounded friends are going to tell you that those damn Libertarians cost the GOP control of the US Senate. To the extent that I can speak for the LP (which is minimal), I’ll answer that accusation: You’re right. We did cost the GOP control of the US Senate. Now, do you want to straighten up, fly right and start earning those votes back, or do you want to wander in the desert for another 40 years like you did from the 1950s to the 1990s — if you survive, which is unlikely? Those are the two choices the GOP has. There are no others. Blaming the LP for the GOP’s failures may feel good, but it isn’t going to accomplish anything productive.

Like I said, libertarian Republicans, this moment is YOURS. What are you going to do with it?

If you walk away from the GOP, it will circle the drain for awhile before disappearing into the sewer of history, and the Libertarian Party will be left with the challenge of trying to become America’s second political party. I can think of worse things, but I doubt that your minds are turned in that direction.

If you continue to give the anti-libertarian elements in your party the support that they’ve never deserved, that they’ve never earned and that they’ve continually betrayed, you’ll go down with them. I sincerely hope you won’t do that. Your movement needs you more than you need your party.

The third alternative is to GO ON THE OFFENSIVE. There’s never been a more opportune time to do so. A libertarian takeover of leadership within the GOP is the only thing that can possibly save it. Yes, your party will take some more losses in 2008. That’s inevitable. But you can minimize those losses, hold the line in 2010, and lead a Republican resurgence in 2012 and beyond.

Mind you, I’m not talking about signing on with placeholders and fakes like Pence and Shadegg until the old “Play for K Street” crowd gets itself reorganized. I’m talking about a full-court press to take over the congressional minority leadership with the most libertarian Republicans you can find. House Minority Leader Ron Paul. House Minority Whip David Dreier. Senate Minority Leader Judd Gregg. Insert your own names, but make sure that you’re sponsoring a real revolution, not just new wallpaper.

In the past, libertarian Republicans have freely applied the carrot, but hardly ever the stick. You’ve stuck with a party that has betrayed you time and again. Sometimes you’ve kept your silence; sometimes you’ve even cooperated in the charade. On Tuesday, the American people — with a little help from the Libertarian Party in places — applied the stick, hard. Are you going to whine and rub your asses … or are you going to make the most of the opportunity?

For liberty,
Tom Knapp

A few weeks ago I bought a copy of the new Haruki Murakami book Blind Willow, Sleeping Woman. I have never been a Murakami devotee. I bought a copy of The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle in paperback and started reading it. After about 100 pages, I stopped for some reason. I am now ashamed to say that, until recently, I was not compelled to pick it up again.

A number of people whose opinions I value had made glowing recommendations of Murakami’s work. I knew there must be something there worth exploring, but I do not have a lot of free time for pleasure reading, and most of my reading for the past couple of years has been of the non-fiction variety.

I bought Blind Willow, Sleeping Woman thinking that I might find it easier to digest Murakami in short story form. I had just finished Daniel Handler’s Adverbs, a book I absolutely abhorred. I found reading Murakami’s short stories a welcome, refreshing change and quickly found myself falling in love with some of the stories.

But all of that is merely the background for this story, which is a story of life imitating art or one of those weird psychic sort of things that happens sometimes or maybe it is just a random coincidence…I don’t know.

About halfway through reading Blind Willow, Sleeping Woman I encountered the story "Tony Takitani." (I understand the story had previously been published in the New Yorker.) "Tony Takitani" is a stark, sad story of a man who lives a very lonely existence until he meets a woman and falls in love. They marry and are very happy together, except for one thing: she is addicted to buying clothes. I won’t give away any more of the plot, but I will add that the story possesses a certain bleak minimalism that I found very profound. I am a big fan of Raymond Carver’s writing — I would consider him one of my favorite writers — and something about this (and other) Murakami stories reminded me a lot of Carver’s work.

I had just finished the story late one Saturday night when I went upstairs and turned on the television. I was absently scanning through the online channel guide while thinking about the story I had just finished when I thought I saw the words "Tony Takitani." I had scrolled past the Sundance Channel, but I went back to see if my eyes were deceiving me. They were not. Sure enough, the Sundance Channel had a movie titled "Tony Takitani" scheduled for the wee hours of Sunday morning. I read the brief online description of the movie, and there was no doubt it was a movie based on the Murakami story I had just finished!

I set the DVR to record the movie and watched it later on Sunday. The film is very faithful to the original story, and it perfectly captures the minimalism Murakami conveys in writing. It even contains a haunting soundtrack by Ryuichi Sakamoto that perfectly matches the tone of the film.

I thought it was very, very weird that the events occurred as they did. In truth, it probably is not all that strange. I am sure the powers that be at Sundance knew the Murakami book had recently been released and timed the airing of what would otherwise be a somewhat obscure Japanese film so people who were reading or had just read the story would recognize it. But, still, the whole series of events strikes me as something that might actually occur in one of Murakami’s stories or novels.

As a prologue to all of this, I have since started The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle again and have become totally absorbed by it this time around. I’m not sure now why I had trouble getting into it before.

Powered by Qumana

Vache Folle:

The kind of person who even wants to be a political leader is probably too disturbed to be permitted to live among decent human beings.

Roderick Long:

I’m glad to see the Republicans get trounced as they deserve. And divided government is one step closer to no government.

mushin no shin:

…now when people ask me, “just how backwards and bigoted is Tennessee?”, I can just point to a recent poll and say “oh… about 80%”.

I may be the only person I know that will actually miss the mudslinging, name-calling advertisements, though.  I was really enjoying them…the nastier the better. 

Powered by Qumana

To everyone that "encouraged" me to vote today — especially those of you who ran around my workplace in a manic fervor asking "Did you vote? Did you vote?" — I offer South Ambulance performing their incredibly delicious song "Die 5times Times5." (Thanks to Maundering for the link.)

Powered by Qumana

I will break my self-imposed silence here by offering a quote from someone with whom I completely and totally agree…

Brad Spangler, Why I will NOT be voting:

I am an anarchist revolutionary. My goal is the abolition of the State. No matter how gradual or non-violent my methods may be, I can not deny my fundamental nature as a revolutionary. It is my duty to my own values, to my own integrity and to my own “soul” if you will, that I resist the seductive allure of attempting to ameliorate the evil of the state by participating in its evil myself — for to do so is to ultimately strengthen it, my enemy. Instead, I must stand outside it to the best of my ability in order that I myself do not lose my own sense of perspective, grow too comfortable with oppression and ultimately abandon long term efforts to destroy this monster.

The MLL Anti-Electorate Manifesto (.pdf)

Or, if you prefer, a more cynical, sarcastic tone that suits my mood right now:

(Via Movementarian via BK Marcus)

I’d like to remind everyone that if you don’t vote, then you won’t get your chance to force others around. In fact, you’d have no right to complain when people forced you around, because you forfeited your opportunity to defend yourself or force them to do what you want.

In many other countries citizens don’t get the chance to force others around, imagine not having that ability. It is a shame so many eligible voters here do not take an hour out of their day to go and get their beliefs enforced. If more people did that we would surely have a more Utopic society.

Remember, thousands of people have sacrificed their lives so you can have the right to force their children to fight for that right.

Powered by Qumana