Friday, April 29, 2005

el blanco

So in addition to reading Calvin y Hobbes with the assistance of babelfish, I'm also starting to watch DVDs with Spanish subtitles -- just to see what I can pick up.

This sentence caught my eye:

�Podr�amos ser el blanco de una broma memorable!

The line in English was something like, "We could be the butt of a profound joke!"

What got my attention, of course, was that "butt of the joke" is translated as blanco de una broma.

Blanco -- my old nickname back in the otherwise all-Puerto Rican Troop 520 in Boy Scouts.

I thought they were calling me "white guy" ... but were they actually calling me "butt"? Was I the butt of a joke told only in Spanish? Twenty years later, and I'm only learning this now. Maybe the shoe fit.

(According to babelfish, el blanco means "the target" ... which isn't much better.)
(permalink)

Thursday, April 28, 2005

hatred is my muse

If you don't want to read Murray Rothbard's excellent essay,

"Do You Hate the State?"
...



... then at least read Wally Conger's excellent summary,

"Reclaiming our radicalism"
.
(permalink)

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

The Rube Goldberg State


Jeffrey Tucker, over at blog.Mises.org, informs us that Rube Goldberg understood his government:




Update:
[Thursday 28 April 2005]
Tucker has apparently expanded his blog post into a full article at LRC:

The Genius of Rube Goldberg


(permalink)

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

assertions & assumptions, arguments & fallacies

None of us should have to take fallacious arguments seriously -- and yet they don't go away. Even people I'd otherwise consider intelligent, when they're dealing with questions of legislative legitimacy or statutory authority (in other words, when their political reflexes are confronted from unprecedented angles) will resort to the most inane and asinine knee-jerk arguments. So it's worth anticipating even the worst of them.

A few bloggers have referred to what I called The Samsara Fallacy on this blog. (I called it that because I didn't know the real name for what is a common and illogical argument for bad policy. I guess I still don't know.)

Lysander SpoonerBut when I was recently talking with a certain Texas anarchist (no, not the uncertain Texas lawyer -- a different anarchist) about the Natural Law anarchism of Lysander Spooner and Murray Rothbard, he told me that he doesn't want to appeal to anything they've already named a fallacy after:

The Natural Law Fallacy

To which I replied that anyone can name a so-called fallacy after anything they want to.

(I'll address the confusion around the term "Natural Law" some other time. The short version: "natural" means necessary and "law" means universal; "natural law" therefore means only necessary universals. Evolved cultural connotations around the term "natural" and the whole description/prescription tangle around "law" I'll leave for another time.)

So speaking of fallacies, iceberg wrote me for some help identifying certain fallacious arguments. But rather than giving him a concise answer to the question he asked, I instead spent a long time answering a question he didn't ask:

(blue is mine and yellow is his)
Well, the first thing to point out is that they are assertions, not arguments. Best to make sure anyone you're "arguing" with knows the difference.

If you insist that good laws are laws in accordance with your favorite book, and I say No, good laws are laws in accordance with my intuition, then we have made opposing assertions, but neither of us has offered anything like an argument. Arguments have to proceed from statements that we already agree are true or statements it would be self-contradictory to deny (or a statement you're willing to concede temporarily, "for the sake of argument"). Fallacies apply only to arguments.

1. It's wrong because it's illegal; i.e. - "It's wrong to use fireworks because it's illegal", "it's wrong to drive without insurance, because it's illegal", etc.
The first statement is called legal positivism. The best way to challenge the assertion of legal positivism is to test the limits of the legal positivist's legal positivism: was it wrong to drink alcohol during prohibition? Was it wrong to let blacks and whites sit together during Jim Crow? Was it wrong to help refugees flee the Nazis? Was slavery wrong? Or was it the underground railroad that was wrong for breaking the slave laws?

This almost always turns into a discussion about majoritarian democracy, which is good, because at least you don't waste your time arguing legal positivism with someone who actually needs to have their majoritarianism confronted instead. Then the standard questions are again, the majority rule of Jim Crow, the democratic process in inter-war Germany, etc. If your "opponent" is patient enough to make it this far, they'll probably fall back on a claim about constitutionality, which is either an attempt to slip legal positivism in again through the back door, or it's a not-fully formed claim to fundamental rights, which is of course antithetical to legal positivism.

One of the main problems with legal positivism is that it offers no guide to making good law. Confronted with the question of whether "we" should ban flag-burning, the legal positivists can't say anything. All they can do as legal positivists is tell us that it will be wrong after the ban is passed.

Another huge problem with legal positivism in an American context is that it assumes the laws don't contradict each other. If New York State's constitution guarantees gun rights, and New York City bans guns, which law will the positivist support? If the constitution says that the Federal government has no powers other than those specified in the constitution, then what's the status of the vast majority of our current legislation, according to the legal positivist?

Finally, legal positivism assumes the legal legitimacy of the law-makers, that they themselves are obeying the law, which shows that the question has been postponed or pushed back, rather than answered. The question is which laws are legitimate. Legal positivists can't say "all laws" because laws contradict each other. Different people disagree on what the law is. Either the legal positivists have to come up with a non-positivist starting point, or they have to fall back on the claim of Thrasymachus: might makes right.

2. Implied sanction; i.e. - "because you live/work in this country, you agree to its laws", "because you know the laws and bought a gun, you knew and agreed to register it with the authorities", etc.
The implied-sanction "argument" is again, either an assertion posing as an argument, or is somehow supposed to follow from legal positivism. I think the best way to confront it is to trace it back in history. OK, I chose to live here (or chose not to leave) when the laws were already in place, but what if my father owned a gun before they passed the laws? What about the land owners (homesteaders) who were suddenly informed in 1787 that they were "under" a new government and that their old property was suddenly subject to a new authority?

Or again, you can test the limits of the claim: did Soviet citizens violate their implied sanction by participating on a black market, smuggling in blue jeans or smuggling out dissident writing? Did the American founders imply sanction to the Stamp Act, the taxes on tea and molasses, the quartering of British troops? And this will also often turn into a majoritarianism argument instead.

The type of people who offer these assertions are almost never thinking of counterfactuals -- but without counterfactuals, you have no right or wrong; you have only what is. In general, the best way to test someone's principles is to confront them with alternative scenarios rather than the scenarios they already have in mind. For a principle to be a principle, it must transcend the circumstances.

I appreciate it greatly if you can be of any assistance in pointing out which category they best fall into.
I may not have answered what you were asking for, though.

You want to be careful about so-called fallacies. Technically a fallacy is a wrong move in logic. Making as assertion can't really be a fallacy. The fallacy, if it's there, will be in the "because" ...


laissez faire,
bk
http://bkMarcus.com/blog/
(permalink)

Sunday, April 24, 2005

what you mean "free" paleface?

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.Sigh. File under too-good-to-be-true.

Kevin Carson makes much use of his concept of the "vulgar libertarian" -- of which I may or may not be one ... I'm just not sure yet.

What I know I am is a lazy libertarian. I don't have the patience or energy to dig deeper into anything I'm not specifically reading or writing about for a project.

Case in point: while I expressed my reservations about RFK2's free-market environmentalism (while cautiously praising him for it), I never looked for the worm in the apple.

Carson dug deeper. What he found is what I suppose we all should have expected.
(permalink)

Saturday, April 23, 2005

the random and the lazy


For those times when I'm too lazy to blog, I recommend clicking on the random blog entry link to the right side of this page.

(By the way, this image of cuddly sorority sisters appeared in Google's image search on the term "random" before the fractal image I used above.)

((And when you combine the search terms "random" and "lazy" this is one of the images you get.))

(((So next time you happen to catch me checking out semi-pornographic images, know that it's somehow a combination of randomness, laziness, and Google.)))
(permalink)

�izquierdo o derecho?

If right-wing only means anti-Left (anti-Communist, anti-socialist, anti-egalitarian, anti-majoritarianism ((a.k.a. "democracy")), anti- anti-property), then I guess I'm now as right-wing as they come. I am unreservedly against the Left.

If right-wing means nationalist or militarist or conservative -- well, then I guess I'm as left-wing as they come. Almost.

I'm also ardently anti-centrist. To quote myself, "A political moderate is someone without principles."
(permalink)

Thursday, April 21, 2005

new career for old SF writer?



(Click for More)
(permalink)

autological grandiloquence

Define the adjectives "autological" and "heterological" as follows:

  1. A word is autological if and only if it describes itself. For example "short" is autological, since the word "short" is short. "Sophisticated" and "polysyllabic" are also autological.
  2. A word is heterological if and only if it does not describe itself. Hence "long" is a heterological word, as is "monosyllabic".

Since autological and heterological are opposites, all words are members of either the set of "autological" words, or the set of "heterological" words.

The paradox is this: is the word "heterological" heterological? There is no consistent answer: if it is, then it isn't; if it isn't, then it is.


I'm quoting Wikipedia, but I first learned the heterological paradox in my "Advanced Topics in the Logic of Language" seminar 15 years ago. On the other hand, 'grandiloquence' is a word I only just learned from reading's Ralph Raico's German liberalism article on Mises.org.

(permalink)

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

German Liberalism

Interesting timing:

Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century

by Ralph Raico

[Posted April 20, 2005: See Professor Raico's full audio course on the history of liberalism: CD and cassette]

In this essay, liberalism will be understood to mean the doctrine which holds that society -- that is, the social order minus the state -- more or less runs itself, within the bounds of assured individual rights. In the classical statement, these are the rights to life, liberty, and property.[1]

This is closer to the French meaning of lib�ralisme, rather than the meaning that liberalism has acquired in the United States, Britain, Canada, even in Germany and other countries. In this respect, the French have remained true to the original and historical conception of liberalism. It is not by accident that the French term laissez-faire is used throughout the world as a synonym for the freely-functioning economy.

[...]

Finally, there is an enhanced consciousness that liberal ideas have never been limited to English-speaking nations. That used to be the prevailing view in Britain and the United States. To take one example: for a long while, virtually the only French liberal thinker of the nineteenth century who was discussed was Alexis de Tocqueville. Even major surveys of modern political thought -- for instance, the two-volume work by John Plamenatz of Oxford[4] -- did not even mention Benjamin Constant, and it is only recently that a few of Constant's more important political writings have been made available in English.[5]

And if that is the case with Benjamin Constant, it is easy to imagine how little justice has been done to the Censeur Europ�en group, to Fr�d�ric Bastiat, Gustave de Molinari, or to the myriad of other contributors to the Journal des �conomistes, which was produced in Paris for a century by successive generations of writers -- right up to June, 1940 -- and which was the greatest liberal journal ever published anywhere.

Read the rest: http://mises.org/story/1787

(permalink)

la droite et la gauche

And here's the PowerPoint that a certain married French professor made from my summary report:



(Click for Slideshow)

(permalink)

libert�, egalit� ...

Professor Marcus is teaching a French civ course this semester. She asked me to throw something together on politics, the Left, the Right, the forgotten French liberal tradition, etc.

Here's what I came up with. Most of it is from Wikipedia. The middle section is by me.

Two important political terms we get from the French:

  • laissez faire
  • left-wing (/right-wing)

LAISSEZ FAIRE (from Wikipedia)

Laissez-faire is short for "laissez faire, laissez passer," a French phrase meaning to "let things alone, let them pass". First used by the eighteenth century Physiocrats as an injunction against government interference with trade, it is now used as a synonym for strict free market economics. Laissez-faire economic policy is in direct contrast to statist economic policy. Adam Smith played a large role in popularizing laissez-faire economic theories in English-speaking countries, though he was critical of a number of aspects of what is currently thought of as laissez-faire.

Laissez-faire (imperative) is distinct from laisser faire (infinitive), which refers to a careless attitude in the application of a policy, implying a lack of consideration, or thought.

LEFT WING (from Wikipedia)


Although it may seem ironic in terms of present-day usage, the original "leftists" during the French Revolution were the largely bourgeois supporters of laissez-faire capitalism and free markets. As the electorate expanded beyond property-holders, these relatively wealthy elites found themselves clearly victorious over the old aristocracy and the remnants of feudalism, but newly opposed by the growing and increasingly organized and politicized workers and wage-earners. The "left" of 1789 would, in some ways be part of the present-day "right", liberal with regard to the rights of property and intellect, but not embracing notions of distributive justice, rights for organized labor, etc.

RIGHT WING (from Wikipedia)

In politics, right-wing, the political right, or simply the right, are terms which refer, with no particular precision, to the segment of the political spectrum in opposition to left-wing politics.

HISTORY OF THE TERMINOLOGY

Originally (in the 18th century), laissez-faire liberalism, progressivism and left-wing policies were all the same thing. The original Left was a predominantly bourgeois movement.

Those on the original Right were the beneficiaries of political privilege under the Ancien Regime -- aristocrats and protectionists. They wanted to conserve privilege and hierarchy -- thus the label conservative. (Note that liberals on the Left and conservatives on the Right might sound familiar but did not mean two centuries ago what any of those four terms mean in contemporary American politics!)

In the 19th century, a new political philosophy was invented, called socialism. Socialists claimed to be the new, true progressives. Liberals, the socialists claimed, were old news and now occupied a position between the reactionary Right wing and the new progressive Left. As the old conservatives died off, what we now call "classical liberalism" came to occupy the right wing of parliamentary assemblies while the socialists dominated the literal left wing of those same assemblies. (Note however that archliberal Bastiat, in the mid-19th century, refused to cooperate with this reshuffling of seats. Refusing to be associated with conservatism or the Ancien Regime, he sat in the left wing -- the sole liberal surrounded by socialists -- while his political allies sat on the right.)

The French liberal school of laissez-faire economics began in the 18th century, was the dominant school for the first three quarters of the 19th century and lasted until WWI. Because the French educational system is run by socialists, the liberal tradition has been erased from the history books.

And since "right-wing" means only anti-Left, the terminology has been used to conflate authoritarian politics, such as fascism, with their opposite. At this point, the term "right wing" or "the Right" means only opposition to egalitarian socialism.

LIBERT�, EGALIT� ...

Originally, the laissez-faire progressive Left of French politics stood for both liberty and equality. The liberal tradition held liberty as its priority, believing that equality of rights and opportunities would follow (though not equality of results). The socialist tradition that took over the French Left put equality (of results) above individual liberty. Some on the French Right believe that liberty and equality are opposites (as do most on the French Left), but contemporary political ideologies are better understood if represented on a two-dimensional map than on a simplistic one-dimensional "spectrum":


The French invented both laissez-faire liberalism (as the name implies) and also modern socialism.

FRENCH SOCIALIST TRADITION:

Claude Henri de Rouvroy, Comte de Saint-Simon (October 17, 1760 - May 19, 1825) was the first theorist of economic central planning.

Pierre-Joseph ProudhonPierre-Joseph Proudhon (January 15, 1809 - January 19, 1865) agreed with the socialists in rejecting private property but unlike most socialists, Proudhon also rejected the State. He shared with liberalism the belief that individual liberty is paramount, but where liberals saw property as the basis of liberty, Proudhon saw property as anti-liberty.

Famous Proudhon quotation:

"Property is theft!"

Proudhon was the first writer to describe himself as an anarchist.

FRENCH LIBERAL TRADITION:

Benjamin Constant (October 25, 1767 - December 8, 1830) was born in Lausanne, Switzerland, to descendants of Huguenots.

He was active in French politics as a publicist and politician during the latter half of the French Revolution and between 1815 and 1830. [...] A classical liberal author, he pleaded for individual liberty, restrictions on government authority on the individual, and increasing voting rights. He is well-known for his theory of modern liberty. This theory says that modern social organization, above all the rise of commercial social relations, makes it historically necessary that moderns enjoy individual liberty and political participation. He set modern liberty in contrast to the ancient liberty of the ancient Greeks and Romans, which gave citizens great participation in public affairs, but at the expense of their individual freedom. Constant thus attacked Napoleon's martial appetite on the grounds that it was illiberal and no longer suited to modern commercial social organization. [from Wikipedia]

Fr�d�ric BastiatClaude Fr�d�ric Bastiat (June 30, 1801 - December 24, 1850) was a French classical liberal author and political economist. Bastiat embodied the "Harmonic" school of libertarians, who consider utilitarian and natural law arguments as two complementary aspects of a same world. Bastiat did not take part in the anarchist-minarchist debate (he arguably died too early for that); he seems to have considered the State as something inevitable as far as immediate practical things matter, something that ought to be taken into account as long as it existed. He also explicitly deplored violent revolution as a way to get rid of governments. Finally, his friend Gustave de Molinari did publish his foundational work on free market anarchism in 1849, and Bastiat, knowing that, did declare on his death bed that Molinari was his spiritual heir. Bastiat was the author of the satirical document best known as the "Candlemakers' petition" which presents itself as a petition from candle-makers to the French government to block out the Sun to prevent its unfair competition with their products. Bastiat was also the author of The Law, originally published as a pamphlet in 1850. [from Wikipedia]

For more, see Bastiat.org and Bastiat.net.

(permalink)

Sunday, April 17, 2005

Who are your heroes?



"Whether you like it or not, to most people -- including me -- it doesn't represent Communism, or Cuban concentration camps, or state socialist regimes. It represents a revolutionary spirit."


"Washington and Jefferson and Lee (and John Carter of Mars) were REBELS. Try to keep this straight, m'kay?" [link added by me]


I can't wait to get this T-shirt! -- me
(permalink)

Saturday, April 16, 2005

Malaguena Salerosa

Here's what I can't get out of my head right now:
Que bonitos ojos tienes
Debajo de esas dos cejas
Debajo de esas dos cejas
Que bonitos ojos tienes.

Ellos me quieren mirar
Pero si tu no los dejas
Pero si tu no los dejas
Ni siquiera parpadear.

Malaguena salerosa
Besar tus labios quisiera
Besar tus labios quisiera.
Malaguena salerosa
Y decirte nina hermosa.
Here are the rest of the lyrics -- with translation.

And here's where I learned about this album.
(permalink)

counting sheep

I would like to thank CJ for this image ...


(Click to Enlarge)

... and the story that goes along with it.


It reminds me of this image ...

Click to Enlarge
(Click to Enlarge)

... which is of course on a similar topic.


It also reminds me of this image ...


(Click to Enlarge)

... which is from our honeymoon in the Scottish Highlands.

(My honeymoon with Mrs. Marcus -- not my honeymoon with CJ.)
(permalink)

Friday, April 15, 2005

Wally Conger's echo

OK, I'm resigned to it.

Today, at least, this blog will be a mere echo of Wally Conger's out of step:
"The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a 'protector,' and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to 'protect' those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful 'sovereign,' on account of the 'protection' he affords you. He does not keep 'protecting' you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave."
-- Lysander Spooner, No Treason (1870)
And along the lines of great minds thinking alike, Conger's image today is the same image I used for my wisdom of children post.
(permalink)

MIC IOU

I was having a hard time deciding what to blog for tax day.

In Charlottesville (and I suspect throughout the country) Libertarian Party activists gather outside the US Post Office every April 15th hoping to recruit disgruntled taxpayers.

This used to bother the heck out of me. As a then-member of the LP, it seemed to me this gave the message that libertarianism was about cash-in-hand, about selfishness, about dollars and cents. I recognized the ethical illegitimacy of taxation, but thought it was the wrong focus.



(Click to Enlarge)

Why weren't the LP folks making as much noise when the local brothel was shut down? Why didn't they gather outside the courthouses and distribute pamphlets for the Fully-Informed Jury Association? Why all this focus on money?



(Click to Enlarge)

Obviously, I hadn't yet studied any economics or history. My libertarianism was very abstract and my background was civil-libertarian leftist. My libertarian activism was limited to belonging to both the ACLU and the NRA, maybe occasionally handing out WSPQ cards and discussing them with people.



(Click to Enlarge)

Now I know better. Taxation feeds Leviathan. Taxation eats our productivity. Taxation makes us all worse off -- well, makes productive people worse off. The net tax eaters are temporarily benefited by being on the receiving end of taxation. (And no, I'm not picking on the most visible welfare recipients -- those who are already victims of statism in myriad other ways, such as minimum wage laws, the "war on drugs", licensure laws, etc. The biggest tax eaters are politicians, civil servants, political capitalists -- the entire military-industrial complex. This is why it's the red states that are the biggest tax consumers, not the blue states!)



(Click to Enlarge)

Obviously, I was planning to go with a comic-strip theme. Not very inspiring.

Then Wally Conger came to the rescue! How smart to quote You Can't Take It With You.

I read the play back in high school. I loved it.

One of the earliest posts I did on this blog was about You Can't Take It With You, prompted by Tom Ender's review of the Frank Capra film version.

I finished the post with this:
Just the other day I was describing the play to someone as a libertarian story in all but name. It's not merely individualist -- in that ideologically inconsistent way that much of the political Left can be -- it's anarchic: Grandpa refuses to pay taxes!
Which is exactly the scene Conger quotes:
IRS Agent: "Our records show that you have never paid an income tax."

Grandpa Vanderhoff (Lionel Barrymore): "That's right."

IRS Agent: "Why not?"

Grandpa Vanderhoff: "I don't believe in it. ... What do I get for my money? ... I wouldn't mind paying for something sensible."

IRS Agent: "Something sensible. What about Congress and the Supreme Court and the President? We gotta pay them, don't we?"

Grandpa Vanderhoff: "Not with my money."
Go Grandpa!
(permalink)

Thursday, April 14, 2005

pas assez de crevettes

For the veggies in this week's fish soup I used only green onions, red onion, roasted peppers -- and lots and lots of ginger, of course. I also threw in some garlic and parsley. That part was very successful. I think I'll stick with those for a while.

I doubled the amount of catfish and did not use any shrimp.

Double the catfish was very smart.

But the flavor definitely lacks des crevettes.

As usual, the wife liked it better than I did.
(permalink)

unfair to animals

In the spirit of Libertarian Critter's objection to comparing pigs with police, Vache Folle (himself a former policeman and former "tool of the state" to use his own words) offers us the following:

Another gratuitous attack on pit bulls

Whiskey Bar, at

http://billmon.org/archives/001830.html

gratuitously slurs pit bulls by comparing them to Dick Cheney. I love Billmon and am a regular reader of the blog, but this time he has gone too far. Pit bulls are lovable and amiable and would never exploit their lesbian daughters for political gain. No pit bull has ever used a position of trust to enrich its business associates at the expense of the public. No pit bull has ever badly served his company's shareholders by incompetently buying an asbestos tainted company with no apparent due diligence. No pit bull has ever participated in lying his country into an unjust war for the enrichment of his rich friends and then f***ing it up through arrogance and ineptitude.

Pit bulls are due an apology, Mr Billmon. Cheney does not even look like a pit bull. He lacks their noble bearing and guileless simplicity.


Seems to me he's right. These may not be representative sample images -- Cheney probably doesn't usually have "DICK IS A KILLER" printed around his head, and most pitbulls probably don't wear cool shades -- but still, I really don't see much resemblance.

Combine the visual dissimilarities with VF's behavioral distinctions and I think we can consider the case closed.

(Thanks once again to furious for bringing the song "Dick Is A Killer" to my attention: www.ThePartyParty.com.)
(permalink)

Economics and Emotions of Minimum Wage

Cross-posted to blog.Mises.org:

The Economics and Emotions of the Minimum Wage

B.K. Marcus
"Chronic unemployment is obviously a political disease that springs from the primitive notion that government can improve everyone's income and working conditions by legislation and regulation."

Hans Sennholz tells the truth: Politics Causes Unemployment -- and the minimum wage laws are only part of the picture.

"Whenever government forcibly raises employment costs it causes marginal labor, that is, labor that barely covers its costs, to become submarginal. It does not matter whether government orders wage rates to rise or benefits to be improved, the workday to be shortened, overtime pay to be raised, funds to be set aside for sickness and old age, or any other benefit to be granted."

The Concise Guide To Economics, by Jim CoxWhile this is true, I continue to find that addressing the minimum wage laws specifically is both the appropriate first step, and often the biggest hurdle for "well intentioned" interventionists. Once you can get someone to confront the logic of price controls, the rest becomes easier.

Jim Cox has a short chapter on minimum wage law in his Concise Guide To Economics. But he has also written a longer treatment of the subject. It is available from The Advocates for Self-Government as Minimum Wage, Maximum Damage.

A slightly earlier version of the same treatment is available online as ...

The Concise Guide to the Minimum Wage


Why is this issue so important?

Because someone who can't grasp the effects of labor price floors won't be able to deal with any other economic issue.

Below I offer my own thoughts on the reasons we're still fighting this important battle when price controls are one of the least complex aspects of economic theory.

Continue reading "The Economics and Emotions of the Minimum Wage"

(permalink)

Tuesday, April 12, 2005

naive, am I?

Just got the following in my inbox:
The comment page on blogger.com is broken right now, which is just as well because I'd like this posted anonymously, if you would:

* * *

Your review of The Anarchist Cookbook is, to put it nicely, naive.

Sam Konkin (of the MLL and Agorist Institute) reviewed it some time ago in "New Libertarian Notes", and revealed that:

The author is really Edward Luttwak, a CIA consultant better known as the author of Coup d'Etat.

All of the book's recipes for making explosives, drugs, and so forth deliberately omit crucial steps. Try to follow them and you can very easily kill yourself in a dozen stupid ways, including blowing up your house, generating poison gas, or producing impure drugs.

(Anyone with a serious interest in making these things would do much better to take a few chemistry classes (Quantitative Analysis especially) at any decent university -- and pay close attention to the precautions that should be used in handling dangerous chemicals.)

Most of them also use chemicals that are on government watch lists. A chemical supply house will happily sell them to you -- but the police will be waiting outside your garage by the time you've cooked up your first batch.

If you just want to have fun blowing things up, it is much simpler and better just to do it the approved way and get a pyrotechnics license. As for drugs -- if you must have them, be creative and find some way to get a prescription. Don't assume that an amateur chemist -- including yourself -- knows what he's doing.

Coup d'Etat, incidentally, is not to be trusted either. Both books were written as traps for fools.
(Links and images added by me.)
(permalink)

Monday, April 11, 2005

best Sowell quote so far

My reposting of Stephen Carson's LRC blog on downtown warzones didn't draw any comments, but has inspired some correspondence, including some very helpful exchanges with Carson himself, who is far better-read than I am on these subjects. He offers this as his favorite Thomas Sowell quotation:
"Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what has worked with what sounded good. In area after area -- crime, education, housing, race relations -- the situation has gotten worse after the bright new theories were put into operation. The amazing thing is that this history of failure and disaster has neither discouraged the social engineers nor discredited them."

Thomas Sowell's website is here: www.tsowell.com

Some more Sowell quotes are here.
(permalink)

Sunday, April 10, 2005

anarchist cookbook

My email has been messed up. I didn't get any of my usual subscriptions Friday -- that is, I didn't get them Friday, but Friday's subscriptions have started trickling in today. No idea what's going on.

So I didn't see Friday's Calvin & Hobbes until today. If I'd seen it Friday, I would have posted this then instead of now.


(Click For Full Strip)


Calvin reminds me, of course, of my BlackCrayon review of The Anarchist Cookbook:
Title:The Anarchist Cookbook (C-066)
ISBN:0962303208
Author(s):William Powell
Release Date:01 September, 1989
Publisher:Barricade Books, Inc.
List Price:$29.96
Amazon Price:
Used Price:$19.99

Summary:

How to break laws, be a nuisance, and maybe get yourself killed ...

Review:

I first bought this book when I was a young teenager in the Columbia University neighborhood. I didn't know anything about anarchism at the time, and believed the book's claims and implications, which were that anarchism stood for decentralized, vaguely leftist, violent (anti-)social revolution. So "Anarchism" didn't interest me, but reading about how to do all sorts of things I wasn't supposed to do interested me plenty -- not to actually do any of it, but for the sense of "forbidden knowledge".

I lost track of that copy of the book by the time I reached college, where I learned that the local bookstore required written permission from the sheriff (!) before it would sell you the book. Outraged, I ordered it through the campus bookstore (which didn't require the sheriff's permission).

I don't think this book has much to do with anarchism. The author was, at the time, an angry young revolutionary who conflated several conflicting revolutionary traditions under the anti-authoritarian label of 'anarchism'. He is now a born-again Christian who begs people not to buy the book. (He sold the rights to it and no longer receives royalties.)

It is, however, an educational read for the mature skeptic.

(permalink)

downtown warzones

This one speaks for itself:
April 08, 2005

The War Zone... Downtown

Posted by Stephen Carson at April 8, 2005 11:47 AM

I don't know if an op-ed has ever brought tears to my eyes. Black, Dead and Invisible by Bob Herbert in today's NYT did: "I once had a young black girl, whose brother had been murdered, tell me she was too old to dream. She was 12."

My church has had a ministry for black inner city kids since the 1970s. In the early days, the weekly meeting was at my parent's house. After finishing my undergrad degree, I worked with a group of kids for 10 years. They were between the ages of 7 and 9 when I first became their teacher. One of my first exposures to what a different life these children had, who grew up less than 10 miles away, happened one night soon after one of the students lost a parent (to natural causes). This was the student's first time back with the class after the death and the student was still in mourning. The student started to cry over their loss as we pulled up to the building where we had our meetings.

This was to be expected. But then things got weird. First one, then another, then finally all dozen or so children started crying. Well, I thought, these kids must be awfully close for them to all cry in sympathy, (I had seen small children with tender hearts cry out of sympathy with each other before). But then it got weirder. They continued to cry, so hard that they couldn't stop long enough to explain to me what was going on for 30 minutes. At first they held each other, then they wandered to different corners of the building each continuing to weep alone like I had never seen. I had no idea what was going on or what to do. Finally calmed down enough that she could explain. Between sobs she told me that they were crying for all they had lost: cousins, brothers, friends. Some shot down in front of them.

It was then that I realized that these children, even though they also nominally grew up in St. Louis like myself, had had an entirely different experience. They had grown up in the emotional equivalent of a war zone and had the trauma to prove it.

It is one of the rarely spoken, crazy ambitions of mine that all this learning of economic, social and political theory will help me someday to figure out how I can help these dear friends of mine downtown more. These children that are dying, and dying inside.

(permalink)

Friday, April 08, 2005

influence

According to Wikipedia's entry on an uncertain Texas lawyer:
He has written on libertarian rights and related topics such as legal theory, as well as mainstream legal topics, since 1991. His libertarian/anarcho-capitalist views are influenced heavily by Austrian economics as well as thinkers such as Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Burger King, and, to some degree, Ayn Rand. His libertarian publications concern rights theory, anarcho-capitalism, and applications of libertarian principles to various legal topics, such as contract theory, inalienability, property law, intellectual property, and punishment theory.
[color added by me]

(If someone has fixed it by the time you look at the entry, just trust me that it said that for at least a few hours.)
(permalink)

career advice

No, I don't really have any career advice to offer. As someone whose career crashed and burned with the bursting of the dotcom bubble, I'd be the last to offer such.

And as someone who's post-career workaday existence was marked by a stark lack of political prudence (like arguing with a coworker about anarchism while we were on a business trip, with a larger group of increasingly nervous-looking coworkers, all the while surrounded by airport security guards), it would be questionable for me to pretend any wisdom on the subject at all. My anonymous correspondent, the reluctant anarchist, may well be wise to cover his tracks.

I will say that anti-careerism like mine is better suited to those who don't have other mouths to feed.

Enemy of the StateMeanwhile, here's Murray Rothbard, replying to some career advice, as told by Lew Rockwell in today's Mises.org Daily Article:
But Rothbard himself granted that his course was not wise, if what he sought was professional advancement. As he explained in a letter to Robert Kephart:

"Bob, old and wiser ... heads have been giving me similar advice all my life, and I'm sure all that advice was right. ... When I was a young libertarian starting out, I was advised by Leonard Read: 'Only be critical of bad measures, not of the people advocating them.' It's OK to criticize government regulation, but not the people advocating them. One big trouble with that is that then people remain ignorant of the ruling class, and the fact that Business often pushes regulatory measures to cartelize the system, so I went ahead and named names....

"Then, when I became an anarchist, I was advised, similarly: 'Forget this anarchist stuff. It will injure your career, and ruin your scholarly image as a laissez-faire Austrian.' I of course didn't follow that perfectly accurate advice. Then, come the late 1950s, I was advised by friends: 'For god's-sakes, forget this peace crap. Stick to economics, that's your scholarly area anyway. Everybody is against this peace stuff, and it will kill your scholarly image, and ruin you with the conservative movement.' Which of course is exactly what happened. And then: 'Don't attack Friedman directly. Just push Austrianism.' And 'don't push Austrianism too hard, so you can be part of one big free-market economics family.'

"So you see, Bob, my deviation from proper attention to my career image is lifelong, and it is too late to correct at this point. I'm sure that if, in Ralph [Raico]'s phrase, I had been 'careful,' and followed wise advice, I would now be basking in lots of money, prestige, and ambiance. ... Why did I take the wrong course?... If there had been lots of libertarians who were anarchists, lots who were antiwar, lots who named names of the ruling elite, lots attacking Hoover, Friedman, etc., I might not have made all these choices, figuring that these important tasks were being well taken care of anyway, so I may as well concentrate on my own 'positioning.' But at each step I looked around and saw indeed that nobody else was doing it. So then it was up to me."

(permalink)

Thursday, April 07, 2005

at Wendy McElroy's request


Wendy McElroy is another one of my heroes.

(What is this, man?! You only have heroes who are blacks or women or Jewish or anything other than straight white Christian-descended males? Are you some sort of bigot?!)

((Actually, I hope someday to be my own straight white male hero.))

Anyway, McElroy asks for a favor and I jump to do the favor, even before I grasp all the details ...
April 06, 2005

A Request from Wendy McElroy

Posted by Wendy McElroy at April 6, 2005 12:51 PM

John Tabin's most recent article in "The American Spectator" opens with the words, "If you're a Canadian, be advised: Your government doesn't want you to know what lies herein. If you're a blogger in Canada, you may actually get in legal trouble for linking to this column." The caution is not hyperbolic. Canadian bloggers are actually being charged with contempt of court for linking to American blog sites that discuss the Adscam scandal. Accordingly, I have a request to make of all non-Canadian bloggers. Essentially it is the same request beamed out by another Canadian blogger Colby Cosh who writes, "it would actively help free the hands of Canadian webloggers and reporters if our foreign cousins were to be aggressive about 'publishing' the substance of the Brault testimony outside the reach of Canadian law." For more commentary by Wendy McElroy and her Merry Band of Bloggers, see McBlog.

(permalink)

Wednesday, April 06, 2005

I like traffic lights.


I was driving on abandoned streets after a hurricane. My future wife was with me. Trees were down. Power was out in many neighborhoods. When we got downtown and I saw that traffic lights were working, I said, "I like traffic lights."

My then-girlfriend-not-even-yet fianc�e said, "But you're an anarchist."

I said, "And I like packet routers on the Internet, too."


According to the manuscript I'm editing, "Generations of students were taught that socialism was, in theory at least, a viable economic system; some authors even went so far as to argue -- statistics at hand -- that the Soviet economies of Eastern Europe were superior or about to become superior to the capitalist economies of the West."

A footnote adds: "See in particular the various editions of the most important Western textbook of the postwar years, Paul Samuelson's Economics. In the very last edition that appeared before the collapse of the Soviet empire, Samuelson stated that it might soon surpass the Western economies."

I audited an intro econ course with Jim Cox. The text he used was McConnell & Brue. I was pleased to be exposed to what mainstream neoclassical mishmosh is the most popular intro text in college economics -- pleased the way I'm pleased to have visited places I never want to return to, or witnessed events I hope never recur.

In the 800 page text, the question of economic freedom gets exactly one page, with "conservative" Milton Friedman's perspective given first.

Friedman basically argues for localism, federalism, and the right of exit -- very straight-forward decentralism, presented pragmatically, not ethically. (I'm not sure how well that actually represents Friedman's policy proposals, but it's what he said in the one paragraph the textbook quotes.)

Then we get "liberal" Paul Samuelson's "rebuttal":
Traffic lights coerce me and limit my freedom. Yet in the midst of a traffic jam on the unopen road, was I really "free" before there were lights? And has the algebraic total of freedom, for me or the representative motorist or the group as a whole, been increased or decreased by the introduction of well-engineered stop lights? Stop lights, you know, are also go lights.... When we introduce the traffic light, we have, although the arch individualist may not like the new order, by cooperation and coercion created ... greater freedom.
-- Paul A. Samuelson, "Personal Freedoms and Economic Freedoms in the Mixed Economy," in Earl F. Cheit (ed.), The Business Establishment (New York: Wiley, 1964), p. 219.

As an "arch individualist" I spend way too much time arguing with people who don't even understand the position they think they oppose. Philosophical individualism isn't just one straw man, but an army of them. An army of straw zombies. (Yes, the mixing of the metaphors compounds.) As soon as you take one apart, you're expected to defend the next one. I realize that defining terms is essential. I realize that we will often have to remind people of those defined terms. But for some reason, everyone thinks they know what individualism is and most of them will return to that impression no matter how many times you point out that they've changed the subject. It grows really tiring.

So I leave Samuelson's strawman as an exercise for the reader.
(permalink)

Tuesday, April 05, 2005

The Concise Guide To Economics

Cross-posted to blog.Mises.org:
April 05, 2005

The Concise Guide To Economics

B.K. Marcus
The Concise Guide To Economics, by Jim Cox
Anyone can understand this compelling Austrian case for economic liberty. Here's a spirited guide to help anyone better understand economic liberty and rebut the most outrageous attacks on it.
-- Jim Powell, Laissez Faire Books
...uses great examples in explaining the fundamentals of Economics.
-- Sharon Harris, Executive Director of Advocates for Self-Government
...a noble effort to put so briefly so many fundamental ideas. I wish you every success.
-- Milton Friedman

www.ConciseGuideToEconomics.com

(Now hosted through the generosity of Mises.org.)
(permalink)

Monday, April 04, 2005

Blanco! Bicho!

A certain Texas lawyer says that I'm obsessed with Negroes.

So I'll switch temporarily to Puerto Ricans.

My friend of the sponge diary and the German Intellectual & the Baby also grew up in Manhattan, also in the 1970s. But we didn't grow up together. Different sides of the island. We met in college. He wrote me to confirm what I said in my all apologies post:
"See, in the NYC of my youth, white people imitating black people was considered quite pass�. What was hip was for white people to imitate Puerto Ricans."
Ah, but it's more complex than that.

Growing up, I always had black friends, but Puerto Ricans scared me. It was Puerto Rican kids who mugged me, Puerto Rican kids who threatened to beat me up, Puerto Rican kids who were always making trouble in the playground, stealing bikes and skateboards. Black kids and I got along fine. If I grew up with any strong racial reflexes, it was about Hispanics. (I won't bother listing the important exceptions. This is a generalization: true but not sweeping.)

My friend who would later be called Zebra got me to join his Boy Scout troop. Troop 520.

("We are 520! The mighty mighty '20! We come from Manhattan! The mighty Manhattan!")

I was the only white boy in 520.

The other scouts called me Blanco. (Or Blanca when they were really trying to be insulting.) The only Spanish I know is curses and insults.

A couple years after I dropped the Scouts, I was a day camp counselor and I was waiting with a bunch of younger kids for their parents to come pick them up. About a half-dozen Puerto Rican kids from the neighborhood came up to the group of campers, totally ignoring me, saying, "Lemme see your buss pass! Got any money? Yo, give it up!"

Most of the would-be muggers were about the same age as the campers in my charge, maybe a little older. They were being led by a kid who was my age -- teaching them the ropes I suppose. I recognized him from Troop 520.

I said, "Come on, Hector! Leave them alone."

Hector looked up as if noticing me for the first time, wondering no doubt how I knew his name. Then his eyes cleared and he got this big grin and said, "Blanco!"

He told his kids to leave my kids alone and they all wandered off.

All of this comes back to me today because I've been reading Spanish Calvin & Hobbes, using babelfish to translate, seeing if any of the vocabulary will stick.


(Click to Enlarge)
Hobbes: Qu� haces?
(What are you doing?)

Calvin: Busco ranas.
(Looking for frogs.)

Hobbes: Por qu�?
(Why?)

Calvin: Debo obedecer las inescrutables exhortaciones de mi alma.
(I must obey the inscrutable exhortations of my soul.)

Hobbes: Ah, por supuesto.
(Ah, of course.)

Calvin: Mi mandato incluye bichos raros.
(My mandate includes rare tiny beasts.)
This is an answer I need to practice and apply:

"I must obey the inscrutable exhortations of my soul!"

Anyway, the word that caught me off-guard is bichos. That's one of the insults I remember from Boy Scouts. Kids were always calling other kids bicho!

I always thought it meant "bitch". No: apparently it means "tiny beast".

Tiny beast? Street kids calling each other beasts?! What is this, Victorian England?

I don't know. Maybe it's what their parents called them.
(permalink)

Saturday, April 02, 2005

Chomsky versus liberty

My father once wrote Noam Chomsky to alert him to my anarchist website. I told my dad, "Nope: wrong kind of anarchist."

Later someone wrote me about my BlackCrayon : people section to ask why I hadn't included Noam Chomsky among the diverse shortlist of important anarchists.

I never replied, but the answer is this: because Noam Chomsky is not an anarchist!

To quote Joe Peacott, of the Boston Anarchist Drinking Brigade,
"Government is force and should be done away with. People can act for themselves and take care of themselves. That is the anarchist attitude to the state, and Chomsky rejects it ... Chomsky seems not to be able to envision any means of offsetting the power of private tyrannies other than increasing the power of public tyrannies."
Chomsky has no grasp of economics and seems to be hostile to learning any. He talks about tax cuts as subsidies and simultaneously acknowledges that the force of political capitalism comes from the State while calling on the power of the State to curb the coercive power of political capitalism. Without going into all the reasons he's wrong, it's simply a matter of rudimentary logic to see that this makes him a statist, not an anarchist.

Now I learn from the libertarian critter that Chomsky has come out in favor of a more egalitarian military based on reinstating the draft!

THE DRAFT, people. Come on!

Chomsky is for freedom in precisely the same way that Alan Greenspan is for the gold standard. But if history is any guide, Chomsky will be remembered as a great champion of liberty. Him and George Dubya Bush.

I'll close with a quote from the critter's comment section:
born to run said...

This shows what I consider Chomsky's (and many other socialist thinkers) biggest fault: He fails to respect individual rights. Although Chomsky, and the left in general, offer many good views (being anti-war, opposing the "morality police") their ultimate flaw is failing to recognize that freedom can only occur when individuals are free.

8:54 PM

(permalink)

Friday, April 01, 2005

The Galindo Standard

I got email today from a long lost pal, Angela Galindo, who was my most reliable friend for the longest stretch of schooling I've had -- 7 years at the Cathedral School -- "an Episcopal school for children of all faiths". Angela and I walked home from school together every day, then spent hours on the phone. She knew me the longest, with the fewest gaps.

When I showed up in 2nd grade, the school had just gone co-ed. It had been a school for choir boys at the Cathedral of Saint John the Divine. Angela was one of a half-dozen girls in the second grade, where there were about 30 or 40 boys. Figuring a couple dozen is the right class size, Cathedral had two teachers for each grade. We were in Mrs Westenberg's class -- 2W. (I'll try to come back and tell a couple of Westenberg stories.) That first year, they divided the girls up between the two teachers, so there were 3 in each class. They soon scrapped that idea, and for the remaining 6 years, there was always one all-boys class and one co-ed class. Needless to say, the girls got a lot of attention.

Toward the end of our time at Cathedral, Angela expressed an opinion that Caitlin Murray would marry Lawrence Hitchens. I was confident that she would not. Angela suggested we bet. I accepted the bet but pointed out two problems:
  1. There had to be a time limit on the bet. If Angela was right and they did get married, then the bet was settled and I'd have to pay her. But at what point would we decide that they hadn't gotten married? What if they were engaged at 30? What if they broke up but married at 70?
  2. Since we were pre-teens making a bet for years in the future, we could afford to bet big, but how big was big? With rampant inflation, how could we now know what would count as big when it came time to settle the bet? I didn't want to say $1000 now and find out later that that amount wouldn't get me into a movie matinee.
The solution to the first problem was straight-forward. Angela was confident that they would marry when they were 18.

The solution I suggested for the second problem was that we bet an ounce of gold. I enjoy remembering this because it means I was a goldbug before I was even in high school. I wouldn't know what caused inflation for another 20 years, but I did understand that gold was valuable, marketable, and was a good hedge against inflation. I didn't yet know the words, but I understood the concepts. Money wasn't safe. Gold was safe. (Which is really to say that fiat dollars aren't safe and that gold would make better money.)

As it turned out, Caitlin and Lawrence did not get married, and I did happen to see Angela when we were 18. I brought up the bet not to collect, but to get to say I told you so! and forgive her the debt. But before I could do either of those things, she just laughed at me and said, "You don't expect me to pay a bet we made as kids!"




One irony I wouldn't know until later is that an ounce of gold was priced at about $600 when we made the bet, and at only about $300 when we'd reached the bet's time limit. I didn't know the history of American gold -- that FDR had made it illegal to own monetary gold for almost 4 decades -- or that inflation had accelerated so drastically when Nixon cut the last vestigial tie to the old gold standard or how the "oil crisis" of the 1970s (the result of Carter's price fixing) would affect the rest of the economy and therefore the demand for safe hedges.

A lot of people got burned in that market and it gave gold a bad reputation it's still not completely recovered from. You can't necessarily trust a goldbug's timing. But longterm, we know what we're talking about.

For more, listen to Audio (.mp3, .wav, etc.)
The Continuing Bull Market in Gold: How High Can It Go?
Recorded at the Austrian Economics and Financial Markets conference at The Venetian Hotel Resort Casino, Las Vegas, 02-19