leftlibertarian.org

Leveling the playing field isn't the same as protectionism.

George W. Bush (2006-12-20): Press conference in the White House Indian Treaty Room:

I’m inclined to believe that we need to increase in — the permanent size of both the United States Army and the United States Marines. I’ve asked Secretary Gates to determine how such an increase could take place and report back to me as quickly as possible. I know many members of Congress are interested in this issue. And I appreciate their input as we develop the specifics of the proposals. Over the coming weeks, I will not only listen to their views; we will work with them to see that this become a reality. 2006 was a difficult year for our troops and the Iraqi people. …

We enter this new year clear-eyed about the challenges in Iraq and equally clear about our purpose. Our goal remains a free and democratic Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself, and is an ally in this war on terror.

I’m not going to make predictions about what 2007 will look like in Iraq, except that it’s going to require difficult choices and additional sacrifices because the enemy is merciless and violent.

He’ll make the choices. They’ll make the sacrifices.

Further reading:

• GT 2006-05-11: Quidditative essence
• GT 2004-03-20: The War on Iraq One Year On: Countdown to Regime Change

I’m going to take a brief break from responding to George Phillies’s delegate flier, and instead make time to applaud both George and Steve Kubby for being ahead of the gradient as Libertarian responders to environmental issues.

As recently as two years ago, it seemed that Libertarians didn’t want to hear the words “global warming.” It was easier just to plug our ears and scream “junk science” because that was seemingly the only alternative to accepting the statist Left’s program for draconian government measures versus climate change.

Sure, most of the “libertarian” responses smacked of corporate welfare and crony “capitalism” rather than real free market solutions, but that was the flow it was easy to go with. I recall the particularly bellicose reaction at the Libertarian Party’s 2004 national convention when nomination contender Aaron Russo had the gall and temerity to suggest that the answer to America’s energy problems might not be another corporate welfare program in the form of handing half of Alaska over to Exxon.

The dam broke in August, 2005 when Ronald Bailey, Reason’s science correspondent, proclaimed “We’re all global warmers now.” The science is becoming pretty damn clear … and libertarians need to come up with real answers instead of continuing to pretend the old ones work.

Read George Phillies’s position paper on energy and the environment here.

Steve Kubby’s latest blog entry — which I can confirm is also a position paper, or at least the backbone of one — is on the same subject.

Congratulations to George and Steve for leading from the front on this one.

—–
Technorati Tags: Politics, Environment, libertarian, Libertarian Party, Election 2008, George Phillies, Steve Kubby
IceRocket Tags: Politics, Environment, libertarian, Libertarian Party, Election 2008, George Phillies, Steve Kubby

I was getting a bit tired of posting into the darkness, as it were. But Billy Beck pointed me to something so perfectly illustrative that I had to share: With the blessing of officials from the Village of Port Chester, the Village�s chosen developer approached Didden and his partner with an offer they couldn�t refuse. Because Didden planned to build a CVS on his property�land the developer

I received a snail mail from George Phillies yesterday: A flier apparently targeted to likely delegates to the Libertarian Party’s 2008 presidential nominating convention. I’m going to write a bit about this flier, because in my opinion it asks a lot of the right questions about what Libertarians should be seeking in a presidential candidate, and because it seems subtly aimed at skewing those questions to the disadvantage of my own preferred candidate, Steve Kubby. Some of those questions it asks explicitly, some implicitly.

The outward side of the flier, as folded for mailing (opposite the address side), reads:

Phillies 2008
The Credible Candidate
A Serious Man for Serious Times

… and thus presents us with our first implicit questions. What constitutes a — let alone the — “credible” candidate? And what constitutes a “serious” man?

As I’ve stated before, credibility as a presidential candidate and with the electorate is not something that any of the currently declared nomination-seekers possess. None of them — not George Phillies, not Steve Kubby, not Christine Smith — are sitting or former US Presidents, Vice-Presidents, US Senators, US Representatives, governors or victorious generals. Since 20% or so of American voters pulled the lever for Ross Perot in 1992, I’ll add another category, one which also does not describe any of the current contenders: “Self-made” billionaire.

Since victorious general George Washington first ascended to the office, I am unaware of any president who did not possess one or more of the aforementioned credentials, i.e. “that which gives a title to credit or confidence,” i.e. indicators of credibility.

This is not intended as an assault on George Phillies, of course. He’s not alone in being a non-credible candidate. But let’s not kid ourselves: No current contender for the LP’s presidential nomination fits within the credibility parameters established by more than two centuries’ worth of quadrennial presidential elections. On the basis of that objective fact, he cannot be considered “a” credible candidate, let alone “the” credible candidate. His credibility can only be measured subjectively and, unless someone who meets the usual tests pops up seeking the LP’s nomination, the only real standard we have is one of comparison to his opponents for the nomination.

Since George Phillies has himself set up credibility as a criterion, let’s do some comparisons:

- George Phillies has, according to his flier, “an international reputation in my field of science.” I have no doubt that that claim is true. George Phillies would make a fine science advisor to any president.

- Steve Kubby has, according to his peers, supporters and opponents, an international reputation in his field of … politics. He’s appeared alongside Mikhail Gorbachev at the Presidio. He’s negotiated, as a representative of the American Medical Marijuana Association, with Janet Reno. He’s been a key figure in international litigation on the rights of refugees.

I rather suspect that George Phillies is better known in the academic physics community than Steve Kubby is in the political community … but which type of international reputation do you think will prove more valuable in a presidential election?

- George Phillies has, according to his flier, “no scandals in my past. Open my closets: No skeletons fall out.”

- Steve Kubby, according to the US government, has no scandals in his past, either. Oh, they tried to find some. While prosecuting (and persecuting) him for his use and advocacy of medical marijuana, the feds combed through his personal and political financial records, attempting to find any indiscretion or fraud — and, finding themselves unsuccessful, dragged ridiculous accusations through open court as hopefully prejudicial innuendo … before finding themselves soundly thrashed by the facts. Kubby was clean as a whistle, and the fleas couldn’t bite him.

I have no doubt that George Phillies is clean, too — as a matter of fact, he’s someone I’d trust with my life, or with my young child’s life. But he can’t even begin to match credentials of public examination to prove that fact with Steve Kubby. Kubby’s closet has already been opened, its contents swept out and examined under a microscope.

As I previously noted, “credibility” is a relative thing in LP presidential campaigns. But, given George Phillies’ stature relative to at least one of his opponents, citing him as “the” credible candidate isn’t … well … serious.

I intend to make my analysis of George’s flier into a multi-part series. After all, I’ve so far only covered the exterior, and the first paragraph of the interior! Next time: Six questions, six answers.

As you may have heard elsewhere by now, former US Representative Bob Barr (R-GA) no longer has the “R” in front of his name. He’s become a life member of the Libertarian Party and, as of last Friday, now sits as a regional representative on the Libertarian National Committee.

This development has already generated some controversy within the party. I’d be hard put to name anything that doesn’t generate controversy within the party. I’ve participated in some “comment duels” on other blogs about the whole thing, but it’s time for a bit of a summary/wrap-up:

First off, I’m glad to have Bob Barr in the LP. This may seem counter-intuitive given my self-identification as a “left libertarian,” but I’m also “big tent.”

In Congress, Barr was sometimes among the best, and sometimes among the worst, from a pro-liberty perspective. Since leaving Congress, his work has mainly been on the issues where he pulled strongly pro-liberty. He hasn’t spent the last four years being a drug warrior or a gay-basher. He’s spent the last four years working with groups like the ACLU to roll back the USA PATRIOT Act and other anti-freedom abominations.

I don’t have any kind of Deep Throat source on whether Barr’s views on marriage, drugs, etc., have evolved in a libertarian direction. I hope they have, and I hope he says so. To the extent they may not have, I’d rather have him in the LP working on the issues we agree on, than outside the LP working on the issues we disagree on.

Questions have already been raised as to whether Barr’s affiliation with, and acceptance of a leadership position in, the LP presages a 2008 presidential campaign. This is obviously of particular interest to me, given my role as communications director for Steve Kubby’s ongoing campaign.

My initial reaction is that Barr’s acceptance of an LNC seat militates against a prospective candidacy. Since the LNC administers the nominating convention, party members would tend to take a dim view of an LNC member simultaneously being a candidate for the nomination. David Weigel’s weekend interview with Barr seems to confirm his intent not to run:

reason: Are you going to make a Libertarian run for president?

Barr: No. I’m contemplating no runs for any office. I’m delighted to be asked to work in this capacity for the Libertarian Party, and I’m going to work on range of issues. But I’m not a candidate.

A secondary — but important — controversy has emerged on the matter of how Barr’s appointment to the LNC was handled: In a word, badly. For more on that, see Melinda Pillsbury-Foster in Liberty For All, or Susan Hogarth at colliething.

I doubt that that sub-controversy will torpedo the accomplishment. And I very much doubt that Barr himself was involved in, or even aware of, the way things were being handled. But it’s still a problem. Those who played the secrecy/ukase game on this may have felt like they were being Machiavellian and realpolitickal. In actuality, they were merely eroding their own credibility as party leaders in an attempt to avoid controversies that were bound to come up no matter how they handled things.

The LP is in an interesting and dangerous position. We stand to benefit from a GOP crackup and exodus that’s beginning to happen anyway, and Bob Barr is certainly qualified to lead the charge there. The real question is just how much we should be willing to risk on that opportunity. It’s certainly not unworthy of our attention and effort.

On the other hand, we have great potential to pick up support on the putative “left” as well, and we need to be careful not to let our constituencies on that side of the spectrum down. It should be a matter of the “right” swinging toward the LP, not the LP swinging toward the “right.” If the price of having Bob Barr in the LP means sacrificing our support for religious, medical and marital freedom, or our opposition to foreign military adventurism, it’s just not worth it. Fortunately, I don’t think that any such sacrifice is even on the table.

–
Technorati Tags: Politics, Current Events, libertarian, Libertarian Party, Bob Barr
IceRocket Tags: Politics, Current Events, libertarian, Libertarian Party, Bob Barr

I happened today, through a rather unlikely chain of browsing, upon an article from this year by Joseph Kellard in Capitalism Magazine (“My Mom’s Invaluable Lesson”), in which the author recalls, among other things, a point of disagreement with his mother:

The more experienced and well-read I grew, however, the more the independent, reasoning mind she'd cultivated in me challenged her beliefs. We often had some heated debates.

For instance, my mother, a switchboard operator, believed the relatively low wages workers like her made was due to business owners collaborating to pay below what their employees should earn. If true, I asked, then why didn't employers conspire to pay all operators even lower wages? Because, I argued, when employers pay workers below what the free market demands for any labor, other employers will attract those workers with higher salaries, thus raising average wages.

I certainly appreciate that he was able to develop a viewpoint independent of his mother (he expresses due appreciation for her advice to “be your own person”). What I don’t appreciate, however, is the spurious apology for low wages that he makes, which is an obvious manipulation of people’s understanding (or lack thereof) of the bases of economics and our economic system in particular.

What such an argument draws people away from is the essential realization that the ability of employers to pay low wages is because of the oligopoly (under the control of few) of the means of production, which makes workers actually have to sell their labor to the owners of those means instead of working themselves to produce (and keeping the value thereof). It isn’t, of course, that the business owners are actively conspiring with each other to pay their employees low wages; it’s an effect of the way the system itself is set up, largely by a specific and historically-derived interpretation of property rights, with the means of production owned by few and allowing them to extract value from the labor of many.

The nebulous concept of “what the free market demands” doesn’t have anything to do with the value of the work done by wage-earning employees. By the way of thinking entailed in that concept, the worth of someone’s work is simply what employers are willing to pay. But what employers are willing to pay is by no means a natural value for the work. The employers have near-complete control over a scarce resource, whether it be a factory or a mine or a plant or store or a restaurant or telephone equipment.

This is little different from someone claiming control of a spring that supplies water to a town, and charging them for that resource, saying, “well, if you can find anyone else who sells water at a cheaper price, buy it from them.” Suppose there are a few springs that supply the town, each claimed by someone. This may take the prices down slightly from what it would be for one unchallenged spring and an entirely monopolized resource, but it would still be an oligopoly on the resource. This leads, without making much sense, to a subjective price of marginal utility for water based on the fact that a few parties own the town’s water supply. People would be paying more for the water than the equivalent of what they would naturally expend to get the water themselves (which would probably be comparatively little, and, if they were sufficiently resourceful, next to nothing).

Now let’s say I live in a moderately-sized manufacturing-based town. There are maybe between two to four major employers in the area, factories or foundries or plants of some kind (and, of course, other smaller service sector jobs--this could be applied almost anywhere, but I’m using the simplicity of this example to make better use of the point that most jobs are controlled by a comparatively few people). Let’s consider that I work for one of these employers, but feel that the pay is too low--even if I can manage well enough, I feel that I am not being paid for what I am worth, for the value of what I am producing. The employer may say, “well, if you don’t feel like you’re paid enough here, go find another job.” He may not be conspiring with anyone, but he knows that the other available jobs in town are controlled by people who probably have similar goals and bottom lines--that is, maximize their profit, and consider laborers to be tools to bring that about. This isn’t, either, to say that all employers take that view. A few may actually sincerely consider their employees to be, each one personally, an important and valued part of the company, and desire to treat them well and have them share more proportionately in the value they create in their work (I’ve never really worked for one, but hey, they’re out there, right?). But such employers will be an even scarcer resource (benevolent ownership of the means of production) within a scarce resource (ownership of the means of production). That is to say, they can’t employ everyone in the town. So some people are going to have to work for the other employers who will underpay/overwork them as expendable capital, in pursuit of the bottom line. “The free market demand for labor” doesn’t do much for these people, and it doesn’t mean much to them, either. It simply means “the capital holders’ decided conditions for labor”; the fact that it is taking place in a market system has little to do with it.

The “natural” right that is argued by Kellard (and most of the same ideology) is actually the right of the owners of the means of production to charge people for the opportunity to take part in the overall production and consumption activities of society (which is, essentially, a mutual, social endeavor in which everyone who participates is a necessary part), simply because they happen to own the means to produce and live in that society. This is the assumption or bias that the idea of “free market demand for labor” starts out with, and it begs the question of whether that is really a right at all.

Of course, it’s understandable that such a view would be expressed by an Objectivist such as Joseph Kellard in a publication like Capitalism Magazine. Objectivists (who are so dogmatic in their ideological system that they can make even Marxist-Leninists look wishy-washy) tend to view everything through the lens of Atlas Shrugged, a fantastic caricature of the world as it was in the mind of Ayn Rand. It’s a system as brainwashing as any cultish religion.

What’s more disquieting is the thought that a sensible person might let such a view pass without giving it a critical examination.

There was an interesting post at Mises about a week back about imperialism. The interesting part comes in the comments, where RogerM disputes the existence of a ruling class in a democracy, as a matter of definition. RogerM argues that since politicians get voted in and out of democratic republics, they can't really be a ruling class.

I think the problem with this thinking lies in misidentifying the ruling class. Politicians are nothing more than the puppets in a developed democratic republic. That's a loaded statement, so I'll try to take it apart bit by bit.

First, a brand spanking new democratic republic, especially a small one, may not (and probably won't, because of the very fact of its formation in the first place) have a ruling class. But as time goes on, human beings will learn how to take advantage of the system, and a ruling class is inevitable, given a generation or two of relatively stable existence.

Second, the fact that politicians are not, by themselves, the ruling class is both empirically obvious and praxelogically conclusive. Fundraising is now the full-time job of any politician beyond the school board level, and even there, fundraising is important. Those who donate large amounts clearly have the most say in what politicians will favor. But it's even more fundamental than that in the current U.S. - we have handcuffed ourselves to a two party system. To really stand a chance at a Federal position, you need the support of one of these two parties. Who controls the parties? As an example of how easy it is to manipulate such a system, look at what issues are never "at issue" in elections, such as the drug war.

Some personal experience backs this up. A local politician I know is preparing to run for a federal position in several years. Went to a big fundraiser this past weekend: "didn't make as much money as I'd hoped, but I got to meet alot of important people." This pol wasn't talking about other pols; rather, the "important people" are donors. These are the people that will get the local pol through the primaries into the general race. These donors are the ruling class.

Now, it's true that the state is a fickle beast, and sometimes bites the hand of one of its masters because an opposing interest wrests control for a while. But there are a select few who continuously benefit from their relation to the state. These are the ruling class. Want to know who they are? Follow the money.

This is a description of the Communal Councils which are being formed throughout Venezuela. It seems to me to be an important development in decentralized direct democracy and something anarchists should be involved in. In my own city there are Neighborhood Associations and in a more militant situation these associations could be the nuclei of such councils. Needless to say, I am a member of my Neighborhood Association.

Could you describe how the Communal Councils work?

There are now 16,000 CCs, established in six months [since the start of the program this year]. It is a very serious initiative, in my opinion... Another very important thing is that the CC has the opportunity to elect a new leadership … The leadership must be elected by a general assembly where anyone can be proposed. The spokespeople are not the assembly — they are not the organisation. The assembly must ratify the proposals — whether from a committee for housing, or a committee for health. If someone who becomes the spokesperson does not have the confidence of the assembly, the CC will not work.

It is a democratic way to renovate the leadership, and permits the assembly to choose a new leadership. I think the law respects this will of the assembly. I was part of the group that oversaw the formation of the CCs. In the law it is very clear: Where is the power? The power is not with the spokespeople — it is with the general assembly. Why are they called “voceros”? Because they are the voice of the community. If they lose the position of spokesperson, they stop having any power …

I think this is an experimental way of organising popular power. But, for me, it is the future direction we should be taking. This is the basic idea: not from above.

It also depends on the type of problem. There are problems that require the involvement of various CCs, because they are problems of the whole barrio — for example, the water pipes that pass through the whole barrio. This must be resolved at the level of the Barrio Council. The stairs, the lighting, the rubbish — you can resolve these within the CC. These CCs are the base — very democratic; a scheme for participation …

They are looking for ways to prioritise the things the community can resolve: but not to create a kind of “begging” neighbourhood that sees a problem, and just calls on the state to resolve it …

This is how solidarity begins, because you start to see that your problem is wider than your small reality, and you must help others. Thus, the Communal Councils are more of a school for political formation. I think popular power, when it is really democratic, is the best school, because it produces this process.

By Marta Harnecker: …http://www.greenleft.org.au/2006/693/35989

Sheldon Richman has an excellent post on global warming.

I count myself amongst the agnostics on the issue. About 5 years ago, I actually did quite a bit of digging and studying on the issue. Now, I recognize that alot has changed in those five years on the subject, but I think these basic summary points are still valid:

1. The climate IS warming.

2. Ceteris Paribus, more CO2 in the atmosphere makes for a warmer climate.

3. Warmer climate will have multitudinous effects on the status quo, necessitating quite a bit of economic activity to adjust.

4. No model has accurately and precisely predicted current conditions from past conditions.

From this, Sheldon's discussion seems eminently sensible. Some of the predictable gnashing of teeth greeted him, but I think they all miss the point. First, just because statists advocate using state means to solve the problem, doesn't mean that state coercion is the only way to solve the problem.

Even less relevant is the claim "well, it could be happening anyway, so we should just deal with it." This sort of issue is addressed in "toxic tort" law (don't get sidetracked into the demerits of our current jury system). If polluter X dumps, say, arsenic, into the watertable, polluting all nearby water supplies, X can be held liable for the increased risk of certain ailments attributable to the increased arsenic. Science can't (nor will it probably ever be able to) suss out all the myriad factors that contribute to, say, a nearby residents cancer. However, it can, with a certain degree of scientific certainity, claim that that person's chances of coming down with cancer were increased by Y% because of the increased exposure to arsenic. It's pretty non-controversial, at least as to liability. Damages is another issue, but I don't think there's too much problem with the concept of discounting the award based upon the level of risk introduced.

This same paradigm doesn't appear to be useful for global warming, yet, as the science is far from assessing the risk with any sort of certainty. However, the logic underneath IS applicable - if a factory contributes to an environmental change that adversely impacts you or your property, that factory should be liable for its contribution to the change, even if we can't be 100% certain that it wouldn't have happened anyway. If the science behind global warming can progress sufficiently, such tort claims should be allowed a chance to prove their case.

And as a footnote, I'd like to address the tremendously pernicious argument someone made in response to Sheldon's post regarding the economic benefit of creating a market to adjust to the new climate due to global warming. I can think of no better example of the broken window fallacy. To the extent global warming is preventable by respecting existing property rights, such a market is no more than a diversion of existing capital away from other human wants. Might as well cheer on nuclear terrorism, if you think such a new market is necessarily a good thing.