Catch-22 On The Streets Of Dallas Sunday, March 30, 2008

*** EDIT: I had originally erroneously been referring to the "Brad" at WendyMcElroy.com as "Brad Spangler," who is also an anarchist writer/thinker, but who is not the same "Brad" at Wendy's site. Brad Spangler's site is here: BradSpangler.com/blog I apologize for the error ***

Over at WendyMcElroy.com, Brad seems to be criticizing the city of Dallas for removing traffic light cameras because their presence results in safer driving around intersections and thus leads to less traffic violation-related fine revenue for the city. Safer drivers also mean less accidents and safer roads.

Brad's post appears sarcastic, as if he is badgering the city of Dallas for putting tax revenue generation above safety of the roads. But this concern seems confusing coming from a libertarian -- and an anarchist, at that -- like Brad. Shouldn't Brad be glad that there is more privacy on the roads of Dallas as a result of the removal of these traffic light cameras? Surely Brad isn't for a government surveillance system just because it seems to have positive externalities related to traffic safety?

Also, what about the concern about safety itself? There's really no debate over the fact that the government's roads and highways often do not seem to be engineered with safety in mind, and that tens of thousands of Americans die on the highways each year. But is it really the proper role of government to enforce speed limits and place traffic light cams as a means of "protecting drivers from themselves," so to speak? Is Brad for the Nanny State, so long as it must exist?

I found Brad's post to be confusing for these reasons, and I am wondering if anyone else is rowing my boat.

Labels: , ,

[ posted by TAYLOR @ 4:06 PM | | Digg this! | del.icio.us | Permanent link | links to this post ]

The Wonders of Government Subsidy Saturday, March 29, 2008

The NYT is reporting that CERN scientists have become embroiled in a lawsuit surrounding their particle accelerator in Geneva:
None of this nor the rest of the grimness on the front page today will matter a bit, though, if two men pursuing a lawsuit in federal court in Hawaii turn out to be right. They think a giant particle accelerator that will begin smashing protons together outside Geneva this summer might produce a black hole or something else that will spell the end of the Earth — and maybe the universe.
...
The world’s physicists have spent 14 years and $8 billion building the Large Hadron Collider, in which the colliding protons will recreate energies and conditions last seen a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. Researchers will sift the debris from these primordial recreations for clues to the nature of mass and new forces and symmetries of nature.
Here is a classic example of government subsidy not only sponsoring something that creates no utility gain, but which might actually create such a negative utility gain that it might destroy the Earth, and the universe as well.

It's entirely possible that a private individual or group of privately-funded individuals might have created a CERN-like organization and spent $8 billion creating a particle accelerator like this, as well. Just as it was conceivable that an individual or group of privately-funded individuals might have still created a nuclear bomb if the government-sponsored Manhattan Project hadn't beat them to it.

But neither of these inventions really have any way to be profitably marketed outside the government sphere, because the market does not value their contributions enough to do so, so you'd really have to wonder WHY anyone who wasn't part of the government would've ever done such a thing.

Labels: , ,

[ posted by TAYLOR @ 10:24 AM | | Digg this! | del.icio.us | Permanent link | links to this post ]

Free Trade, Faux Trade: An Analysis of U.S. Economic Policy Tuesday, March 18, 2008

The following is a paper written by a former Columbia University student of economics, Allen Sukholitsky. It has been posted with his permission.

===

It is not a far cry to state that much, though not all, of what the classical economists had written by the start of the 18th century, has been accepted to date. Free trade, has not been. The problem is not one of theory or concept. Individuals trade freely with each other inside the historically and arbitrarily defined borders of countries. Again, they are arbitrary and a product of history. But what gives these borders such monumental significance, is the fact that there is a history and culture to that which has existed within those borders; it is a history and culture that often separates the territory within from the territory without. The ability to free trade lawfully-acquired private goods domestically spurs competition, allocates resources, and leaves society better off as a whole. There is no reason why expanding the theory to the international realm should yield different results. In the wholly idealistic but theoretically feasible anarcho-capitalist model, the economy of the earth would simply resemble an enlarged domestic economy; goods would be produced in the cheapest locations and individuals would be compensated for their labor based on their marginal productivity. So, what is it about free trade that has professional economists adamantly opposing one another?

The answer is a combination of factors. First and foremost, but also a topic that this paper will not address, is that of the cultural and historical differences from within vs. those from without. Economic theory might work as it does, but there seems to be an instinctual human hesitation to apply it globally given peoples’ attitudes to their own land. International trade is controversial because it is thought to benefit a distant other’s well-being at the expense of one’s own. One topic this paper will address is the highly restrictive definition of free trade that has emerged since David Ricardo. And concomitantly, what it is that has been considered free trade policy, and how have the results of this policy been interpreted. How closely have the specifics of NAFTA and other trade policies in the U.S. been analyzed when evaluating how free is American trade? Since free trade is a priori beneficial, why has the American middle class been abandoned by businesses moving overseas after the passage of NAFTA? Does adherence to NAFTA mean adherence to free trade? What if such rancorous results relayed by individuals across the political and economic spectrum for over a decade are not those of just eliminating tariffs? These questions are critical for the purpose of advocating the benefits accrued from free trade.

This paper attempts to expand upon, not to challenge, the standard definition of free trade. This definition does indeed include the elimination of tariffs, but also adds cross-border flows such as foreign aid, country-specific domestic policies like taxes, regulation, and other similar elements which affect trade, to the definition. In addition, this paper takes this more elaborate definition and applies it to the policy dimension. Is the U.S. a proponent of free trade because it passed NAFTA? To clarify, the current definition of free trade focuses mostly on tariffs, and it is to this extent that this paper questions if NAFTA is only about free trade. Is there more to NAFTA than just tariff elimination? The expanded definition is meant to provide a more wholesome view of international trade in light of NAFTA and other American trade policies; the expanded definition is meant to demonstrate that the agreement and other trade policies have both trade promoting and trade restricting measures; the latter often go unanalyzed but relate to the negative observed results since NAFTA’s passage. Finally, this paper analyzes the implications of the results and how they measure up to empirical evidence.

As the market economy is driven by human action, inherently composed of a multitude of factors, analyzing the extent to which the market is being permitted to function in terms of specific economic concepts (welfare, regulation, etc.), proves difficult. Worse yet, ceteris paribus assumptions that work in the theoretical realm by permitting singling out certain policy, can be ineffective for assessing the aforementioned when policies are real and multifaceted. Finally, deciphering what characteristics of actual policy do and do not relate to certain broad economic concepts like trade, complicates matters even more so.

To bring these presently theoretically heavy ideas into clarity, they should now be applied to trade. The thought of trade conjures the related notion of exchange. Exchanges can take place on many levels including that among individuals, that among groups, and that among nations. In addition, there are elements that can induce exchange or reduce exchange. This holds for every level of trade that takes place. For instance, trade between two individuals is not only reduced by prohibiting them from trading. It is also reduced by quantifiably limiting their trade, or by requiring side payments for the trade to occur, or even by forcing either or both of the participants to produce that which they trade under artificially strenuous conditions. All of these affect trade in an unnatural manner. Each of these factors affects trade and each of these factors can, once again, be applied to every level of trade that takes place. To measure the amount of freedom that the two individuals possess, it would entail looking at most if not all of that which affects trade.

Modern economics textbooks more than adequately detail the reasons why trade among nations is overall beneficial to everyone when intervention in the trade is minimal or nonexistent. Krugman and Obstfeld write, “Probably the most important single insight in all of international economics is that there are gains from trade…” (Krugman 4) What modern economics textbooks do not detail adequately, are the plethora of possible impediments or artificial inducements to trade. Krugman and Obstfeld title their section on this subject, “Impediments to Trade: Distance, Barriers, and Borders” (Krugman 15). The fatal flaw in this highly restrictive analysis is to assume that the extent of trade among nations is a product of the barriers that exist literally in between the nations; this definition of impediments ignores the barriers/stimuli within nations that have just as much an effect on trade among nations, though possibly less visible to the eye than distance, barriers, or borders. For instance, if two countries did not have any tariffs or quotas but one of the countries offered foreign firms extraordinary discounts/premiums on the inputs for the firm’s outputs, thus enticing/discouraging foreign firms to enter the country, would this situation be deemed an example of free trade? It is this type of recognition that is indispensable to the question of how free is American trade in general and how free is it, given NAFTA. The focus is obviously not meant to be on the label “free trade,” but rather is meant to be on what affects trade, how NAFTA relates to those aspects and if the consequences of NAFTA are the consequences of free trade.

The scarcity of economic theory on real life domestic impediments to free trade is likely a result of any number of reasons. Regardless, this hole in the theory has not remained unnoticed. James R. Markusen has addressed the economics profession on the topic of foreign direct investment, accordingly.

Markusen’s sentiment was aimed at foreign direct investment in particular but at the end of the quote it is evident that he is getting at the idea that, in the most general terms, there are many factors that affect economic phenomena. This is just as applicable to trade, as it is to foreign direct investment. The economic literature needs to move away from the long established impediments of tariffs and quotas, and into areas like special relationships between governments and foreign producers within their countries, tax rules including exceptions for foreign producers, regulations including safety and environmental, loans at favorable exchange rates for certain producers, the dynamics of foreign aid, and essentially all the other myriad reflections of extra-market activity that indubitably affects trade.

Admittedly, economists have delved into the interplay of market and non-market activity, but it has not been for the purpose of determining the extent of free trade. It has primarily been used to evaluate, for instance, the cooperation/conflict between international firms and governments, with the goal of deducing the conditions under which these take place; in essence, it is to understand the dynamic of the relationship rather than to use it as a measurement of free trade (Frieden 1994; Henisz 2000; Jensen 2003; Moran 1978). But using this just-discussed elaborated upon though highly primitive expanded definition of trade, which encompasses the obvious barriers literally in between countries, the domestic regulatory environment, the relationships between governments and foreign producers, and all flows of funds across borders, is essential to the question of how free is free trade. Restricted trade is characterized both by what it restricts and by what it artificially induces. The picture of free trade is simply unclear when looking only at tariffs or quotas.

These new additions to the definition must now be clarified as to how they can affect trade and why it is important to consider them for an adequate survey of free trade. The domestic regulatory environment might at first thought be irrelevant to international trade. However, with the recent movement of capital and entire businesses overseas, the environment under which they will function indeed comes into play. Low regulation environments can induce businesses to move abroad while high regulation environments do the opposite. Included in a regulatory environment are such policies as tax laws, labor standards (working conditions, minimum wage laws, etc.), environmental protection laws, and likely many others. In addition to domestic regulation, governments can also maintain special relations with foreign producers in mutually beneficial relationships. The producer is given preferential treatment in the foreign country, and the government of the foreign country is able to attract firms it might not have been able to under normal market conditions. Finally, the flow of funds across borders is not trade in goods or capital but trade in actual money. This can include foreign aid, business subsidies, loans, etc. When these funds are provided from one country to another by the government, the position of the latter is benefited at the expense of the former. These examples that fall outside the category of tariffs/quotas/distances enlighten the characteristics of trade relationships among countries.

With the expanded definition of trade set in place, it might be helpful to construct some theoretical metaphors to view the specifics of NAFTA in a new light. The metaphors concern real world entities and situations though their probability of occurrence is quite low. The level of exaggeration is meant to prove a point, not to claim that these situations are likely to occur. Combining the new definition of free trade with the insights of the metaphors will reveal that NAFTA qualitatively promotes and restricts trade and it is this combination that is responsible for the observed results.

i. Minimum Wage Reduction Act

Imagine a piece of legislation called the Minimum Wage Reduction Act is proposed in the United States. While the minimum wage is supported by many, it is an economically inefficient price floor when viewed from a purely economic perspective. As a result, the statements made in favor of this Minimum Wage Reduction Act all revolve around the concept of economic efficiency and the betterment of society as a whole. Again, from a purely economic standpoint, the reasoning is legitimate. The specifics of this legislation are as follows: the minimum wage is immediately eliminated, workers are required to send 70% of their wages to the government in the form of taxes, and businesses are required to pay a per capita tax for each worker they choose to employ. The first reaction must inevitably be a question asking how the title of the legislation corresponds with its function (how does an act to eliminate the minimum wage also have requirements about large tax increases?). For now, put this aside. Whereas the situation prior to the enactment of the legislation was characterized by some unemployment as a result of the minimum wage, the situation following the enactment of the legislation is likely to be characterized by some unemployment as well, if not more unemployment. Businesses could move out of the country to hire workers for which a per capita tax is not required, and workers might leave the country to avoid paying more than half of their income to the government. As a result, sentiment across the country is such that eliminating the minimum wage, or pro-market reforms in general, do not actually benefit people overall. Returning to the specifics of the legislation, it is clear why the situation post-enactment was precisely as it was. The Minimum Wage Reduction Act was not just about reducing the minimum wage. Moreover, it was not pro-market reforms that caused the exodus of business and labor. But the problem is not so much the misunderstanding of what constitutes a pro-market reform as it is the fact that an anti-market reform was enacted that reduced overall well-being.

ii. Free Trade Area of the American States (FTAAS)

The second metaphor also takes place in the United States. By constitutional mandate, the area among the individual states can be considered a free trade zone. Individual states are not permitted to enact their own tariffs, quotas, or other traditional barriers to trade. Assume this is not the case. Each state may legislate most of its own policies including tariff/quota policy. Suppose New York has developed as an economically progressive state. This means that New York has progressive taxation, high minimum wage laws, laws that benefit the environment, and laws that mandate certain safe working conditions for labor. New York is also very “family-oriented” in the sense that once citizens start families, they move to New York for one reason or another. This is simply a cultural phenomenon. As a result of this, a famous toy company has operated in New York for decades where there is a market for children’s toys. It is a fact that labor in New York is more expensive, but because the location of production and the location of sale is essentially the same, the company actually saves by hiring the more expensive labor. They avoid transportation costs. The company is further protected by New York tariffs which make other toy companies’ toys more expensive for New York consumers to buy. Assume now that the federal government has decided to take the prerogative of dictating trade policy for the states. For simplicity, there is no opposition to this. In particular, the federal government has proposed the Free Trade Area of the American States (FTAAS) because it is universally accepted by economists that traditional barriers to trade are inefficient and that free trade benefits everyone. The stipulations of this legislation are as follows: tariffs and quotas are to be eliminated, and state-specific economic policies with respect to taxes, minimum wage laws, environmental laws, and general business regulations are either to be maintained at their current levels or increased in an effort to promote the harmonization of regulatory laws across the country. As in the first metaphor, the expected reaction is to ask how the purported goal of the legislation squares with the specifics of the legislation (how does a law to reduce tariffs also have requirements about maintaining high regulations?). Again, put this aside. The effects of this legislation are somewhat predictable though other effects are indeed possible. In the short run (before regulations are fully harmonized), the New York toy company will move out of New York and into a state or various states where regulations are less stringent since the company is otherwise forced to compete against other toy companies without a protective tariff. Locations with lower minimum wage laws, lower environmental standards, and the like, are now more important than the distance factor. Now the reality of the situation can be addressed. It is true that the FTAAS reduced barriers to trade, but with the added stipulations, can we say with confidence that the legislation was about freeing trade? The legislation could have concerned itself with only tariffs and quotas thus allowing individual states to alter their own laws for the purpose of competition, but this was not the case.

NAFTA’s preamble summarizes the desires of Canada, Mexico, and the United States for the greater hemisphere. These include strengthening friendships and increasing trade by reducing barriers to trade. Closer to the end of the preamble are such goals as sustainable development, environmental laws, regulations, and worker’s rights. Since the classic definition of free trade is a situation of few, if any, governmental barriers, free trade can also be thought of as minimal government involvement in the market. What is ironic about the goals listed at the end of the preamble is the fact that they entail precisely the opposite of free trade; they require greater government involvement in the market and therefore greater economic inefficiency. Whatever one’s opinion of the necessity of this involvement, it can be objectively stated that this involvement does not fit the definition of making trade free; more importantly this involvement also has real effects on the economy that are not the results of a laissez-faire approach to trade.

This section of the paper will focus on the purely economic tenets of NAFTA pointing out that it is not simply about freeing trade. Article 102 puts forth the objectives of NAFTA. The first of the objectives adheres to the classic definition of free trade. It states, “The objectives of this Agreement… are to: a) eliminate barriers to trade in, and facilitate the cross-border movement of, goods and services between the territories of the Parties…” (NAFTA). Therefore, from a purely economic standpoint the lowering of barriers does indeed bring about freer trade. Article 302 further states, “…no Party may increase any existing customs duty, or adopt any customs duty, on an originating good… each Party shall progressively eliminate its customs duties on originating goods…” (NAFTA). These rules relating to barriers, the movement of goods and services, and customs duties are all naturally trade enhancing; they remove the unnatural existence of government involvement in the marketplace with respect to trade. This instance of the agreement increases the freedom associated with international trade and therefore causes countries to benefit from the division of labor and a more efficient allocation of resources.

The predominant portion of NAFTA is reserved for special circumstances and for elaboration on the rules associated with specific goods/services. For the purpose of brevity, a sample of the remainder is provided here. Article 405 states that, “…a good shall be considered to be an originating good if the value of all non-originating materials used in the production of the good that do not undergo an applicable change in tariff classification set out in Annex 401 is not more than seven percent of the transaction value of the good…” However, this paragraph does not apply to, “…a non-originating material provided for in Chapter 4 of the Harmonized System or tariff item 1901.90.aa (dairy preparations containing over 10 percent by weight of milk solids) that is used in the production of a good provided for in Chapter 4 of the Harmonized System…” or to certain other non-originating material situations. Later, chapter 7 concerns itself with trade-related issues involving agriculture in particular. “The Parties shall work together to improve access to their respective markets through the reduction or elimination of import barriers to trade between them in agricultural goods” (NAFTA). The sections coming closest to establishing free trade discuss the removal of barriers, but nothing more.

Making up a small minority of NAFTA’s inordinate length are the rules that run counter to free trade and negate the idea that NAFTA is truly a free trade agreement. One glimpse of the agreement’s nature is in the manner that government is permitted to interfere in the market. Article 904 states that, “…each Party may, in pursuing its legitimate objectives of safety or the protection of human, animal or plant life or health, the environment or consumers, establish the levels of protection that it considers appropriate…” (NAFTA). As stated earlier, the purpose of this paper is to objectively ascertain whether NAFTA artificially restricts/induces trade or truly promotes free trade. Article 904 appears benign but when considering the dynamics of the countries involved, this section in addition to others has far reaching consequences. By allowing governments to set labor regulations, business costs rise for the countries whose labor regulations are high (United States) relative to countries whose labor regulations are low (Mexico). This affects trade. Empirical data, however, will be discussed in greater detail, later. Moreover, article 1114 applies in a similar manner but instead to the environment. The parties to the agreement “recognize that it is inappropriate to encourage investment by relaxing domestic health, safety or environmental measures” (NAFTA). Requiring a minimum set of business regulations might be deemed necessary by the citizens of a country, but their encouragement in an agreement involving a number of countries will change trade dynamics between them and take away from the free trade aspects of that agreement. Article 904, article 1114, and similar sections in NAFTA take a somewhat permissive approach to positive roles that government may pursue, but NAFTA’s side agreements take a more forced approach. The permissive aspect was discussed here for the purpose of identifying the regulation-increasing and thus cost-increasing elements of the agreement that governments may wholeheartedly practice, a fact which by necessity negates free trade by altering the terms of trade from government involvement.

NAFTA’s side agreements include the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) and the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC). In part 2 of NAAEC, entitled “Obligations,” participating countries are told to, “…further scientific research and technology development in respect of environmental matters… promote the use of economic instruments for the efficient achievement of environmental goals… ensure that… laws and regulations provide for high levels of environmental protection and… strive to continue to improve those laws and regulations” (NAAEC: Part 2). Perfectly parallel to the obligations of the environmental agreement are those of the labor agreement. Each party to the agreement must “ensure that its labor laws and regulations provide for high labor standards, consistent with high quality and productivity workplaces, and shall continue to strive to improve those standards in that light” (NAALC: Part 2). Will stipulations of increased environmental and labor regulation lead to greater economic efficiency along the lines of minimal government involvement in the market? The process of increasing environmental and labor regulations to meet those of the more regulated countries is called “upward harmonization.” The dynamics of this process will be discussed in the next section. The reader is now encouraged to think back to the metaphors outlined in section III to formulate an understanding of how NAFTA measures against the rubric of free trade.

The main tenets of the NAFTA agreement and its side agreements can be summarized as follows: trade barriers and traditional restrictions to trade should be reduced, which is in line with the concept of free trade because government interventions are being removed. Also, a process of “upward harmonization” should be implemented to level the regulatory burden of all the countries that signed NAFTA. This part is counter to free trade because greater government intervention is being mandated. Section V of this paper will first hypothesize on what the effects of a combination of lowered trade barriers and upward harmonization might be. It will then look at studies and analysis of upward harmonization to demonstrate how upward harmonization relates to free trade. In addition, section V will examine anecdotal evidence that includes American business sentiment on the trade debate and the circumstances of a number of businesses since the passage of NAFTA; this is to measure the empirical evidence against the earlier hypothesis. This section will then point to real-life examples of the earlier-added concepts to the traditional definition of free trade, for the purpose of garnering a more broad understanding of the nature of America’s trade aside from NAFTA. Do the passage of NAFTA alone and the results of NAFTA reflect that the United States has been pursuing free trade? Do other American trade policies reflect a desire to pursue free trade? Unfortunately, they all do not. In fact, the elements added to free trade in section II, when applied to the United States, require a more emphatic response in the negative. Finally, section V will admit the limitations to this research and make recommendations for further study.

i. Hypothesis

Since tariffs, quotas, and other traditional barriers to trade unnaturally divide regions where they otherwise would not be divided, the removal of said barriers would just enlarge the size of the area over which goods may pass freely. Trade barrier removal can therefore be considered synonymous with increasing the scope of the territory to which the word “domestic” normally refers (when it is also understood that domestically, economies are relatively free). By extension, goods and capital are permitted to move freely across the greater region. The part of NAFTA concerned with barrier removal is a welfare enhancing policy that moves goods and capital to regions where they are treated best by the market. Before hypothesizing what effects might be observed with barrier removal, it is necessary to address the mandated upward harmonization, also included in NAFTA.

The debate on upward harmonization has focused on whether or not instituting free trade requires the harmonization. This paper agrees with analyses positing the view that free trade is welfare-enhancing in and of itself; free trade does not require policy qualifications to function properly (Bhagwati 168-169). While this question of trade harmonization being necessary to free trade runs parallel to the current paper, it does not deal with the more relevant question to this paper of the short run effects of upward harmonization masquerading as the effects of free trade. Short run here is meant to be understood as the period after upward harmonization is mandated, but before the less harmonized regions are made to be more harmonized (or before the more harmonized regions find themselves in line with the previously less harmonized regions). Again, not only is upward harmonization not necessary for free trade, it is also directly opposed to free trade by its very nature. Claude Barfield of the American Enterprise Institute writes that the creation of “new international bureaucratic regimes to force ‘upward harmonization’ of environmental and social systems is anathema to this philosophy” of free trade (Barfield). The results of NAFTA have not been of free trade; they have been the results of government-regulated trade, but more importantly are not welfare-enhancing as a result.

The decision to institute upward harmonization is an implicit admission that regulatory differentials exist among countries. The specifics of NAFTA prohibit the reduction of labor and environmental regulations, but are silent on the timetable for the upward harmonization to be completed. The side agreements ensure that, “the enforcement of domestic environmental laws and workplace standards and requirements will be strengthened,” and that “no nation will lower labor or environmental standards, only raise them. Of course, all states or provinces can enact more stringent measures” (Kantor). This effectively means that in the short run, higher regulatory regions are forced to compete against lower regulatory regions, the former without the ability to lower regulations in order to remain competitive. To wit, if NAFTA were to only lower trade barriers while remaining silent on all other issues, this paper would offer no objections on the grounds of economic efficiency.

However, NAFTA is instead forcing countries like the United States to compete against countries whose regulatory environments are almost non-existent. With the United States prohibited from redressing the situation by lowering its own business costs, the state of affairs for the United States is one of economic inefficiency, and definitively not one of free trade. At this point, economic theory dictates that with goods permitted to freely move across regions, they will travel to the regions in which they are treated best. Therefore, we would expect that with the passage of NAFTA, capital would flow out of the United States where it is forcibly made expensive, and into countries where regulations are lower.

ii. Anecdotes

It has been established that upward harmonization in the short run combined with the reduction of tariffs, will cause goods and capital to flow away from regions where they are made artificially costly. This paper now turns to the regulatory burden found in the United States. One characteristic of industrialized nations is that they are most progressive in their environmental and labor protections. Merits aside, regulations translate into costs. In the United States, the “costs for small business have dramatically increased over the past decade… High regulatory costs translate into less investment and lower efficiency for all firms” (Kerrigan). This statement applies to small business in particular but can easily be applied to American businesses as a whole, as revealed by a number of studies.

The Ten Thousand Commandments: An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State report conducted by Clyde Wayne Crews Jr. is critical to understanding the unnatural burden faced by American businesses that NAFTA solidifies through its stipulations. The author finds that,

The regulatory burden of the United States is clearly no small matter. This is a burden that the entire economy faces, including American businesses. Given the necessity for these businesses to forcibly, under NAFTA, compete against foreign businesses, it is no wonder so many have chosen to relocate overseas where the regulatory environment is less stringent.

One industry cited frequently by protectionists as critical for the economy but one that is also fast-disappearing is that of manufacturing. This paper by no means examines the plight of this industry as an argument for trade protectionism; instead, this paper examines the plight of the manufacturing industry as proof that its move overseas is not the result of free trade. The National Association of Manufacturers issued a report in 2003 called How Structural Costs Imposed on U.S. Manufacturers Harm Workers and Threaten Competitiveness. This report was undertaken because despite productivity gains in the sector over the last two decades, manufacturing has still been unable to compete. Is it because foreign competitors are ceteris paribus more productive and efficient? The report responds in the negative. It states that,

The report goes on to recommend reducing the corporate tax burden, the burden of rising health coverage costs, and numerous other costs specific to the United States in their severity.

One company-specific example of cost differentials is General Motors. In 1996, Canada’s socialized healthcare system permitted GM to avoid paying healthcare costs for its employees. In the United States, healthcare is not socialized but instead the government requires that businesses provide their employees with this entitlement. As a result, GM was saving more than $10 per hour in labor costs and began closing its American plants (Heinzl). Studies of the automobile industry conducted by JM Rubenstein found that an auto firm’s location decision is influenced by situation costs and site costs. The latter include wages, taxes, and amenities (Rubenstein 1986; 1988). Economists might point to these site costs as examples of why it is more efficient to move production overseas. But these costs are not so much cheaper overseas as they are more expensive in America. The reason, once again, is regulation. It is true that given the regulation, it is still more efficient to move overseas, however that begs the question: if the United States wishes to promote efficiency through trade, why not lower its own domestic regulatory burden to have businesses truly produce where they are ceteris paribus most efficient?

Car manufacturers are not the only example. Similar situations have occurred for textiles, plastics, furniture, defense, hi-tech jobs, and countless others. While the “Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports” is more concerned with Canada’s unfair trade practices, its motto is that, “We can compete against any lumber industry in the world, but we can’t compete against their government, too” (Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports). The same holds for other producers in the United States; the only difference is that the government they are competing against is that in their own country. The United States regulatory burden cemented by NAFTA is inefficiently pushing American business abroad.

iii. Even aside from NAFTA, is this free trade?

Theoretical and anecdotal evidence make clear that the United States cannot be considered a promoter of free trade. For the most part, this is because its embodiment of free trade, the North American Free Trade Agreement, is not actually just about reducing tariffs. “Also, just because just because a country is open to international competition doesn’t mean that it won’t meddle in international markets. Complexities (and hypocrisies) abound when countries establish international trade agreements. In this regard, the U.S. and its free-trade friends are deserving of no small amount of shame” (Prescott). At this point, it is helpful to utilize the expanded definition of free trade from section II to investigate some of the meddling in international markets. These include a sampling of funds that flow from the government of the United States into foreign countries, thus bettering the latter at the expense of the former.

In a speech to the World Affairs Council, President Bush discussed a number of issues including the promotion of free trade agreements in 2002. He boasted to have “recently approved $625 million to support these efforts” of “strengthening law enforcement, reducing illegal crops, and expanding legitimate business opportunities” in Colombia and the Andean nations. In addition, President Bush remarked that his next budget would allocate a “nearly $50 million increase in aid to the World Bank programs that assist the poorest countries” and that he would “consider requesting increases over $100 million” if the bank achieved results (Bush). Despite the justification in section II for including such money flows in the concept of free trade, one might still ask, why discuss foreign aid with free trade? The reason is that trade is an entirely theoretical concept. It matters not whether flows to the World Bank are discussed or what types of trade barriers are discussed. For the purpose of trade, it is necessary to discuss the extent to which government is not interfering with it. Any governmental flows from the United States to other countries will have effects on taxes and interest rates, which will in turn have effects on trade.

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) is further proof of significant money flows from the U.S. to countries abroad. A bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Mexico promised to offer all the services for the latter as paid for primarily by the former. With the help of the United States, “OPIC has supported $145 billion worth of investments that have helped developing countries to generate over $11 billion in host-government revenues and create over 680,000 host-country jobs,” in a period of just over 30 years (United States). These countries presumably consist of some of the labor and capital competition that American businesses face. Approximately two years later in 2004, OPIC provided $2.5 million to Indonesian vanilla farmers (Anderson). By eliminating tariffs and quotas, the U.S. does not automatically become an adherent to free trade. In fact, the situation amounts to almost forced business exit from the American economy.

Though there are many examples of American funds flowing overseas at the expense of American businesses (among other interests), the final example here is of the Export Import Bank. In 2004, the Export Import Bank of the United States provided a $652M loan guarantee to support the export by Applied Materials Inc. based in California, for the purpose of building a plant in Singapore. It is ironic that Ex-Im Bank Chairman Philip Merrill justified the action with the statement that, “It is important for Ex-Im Bank to help U.S. manufacturers of high-technology equipment to remain competitive in key markets” (Ohe). Government intervention in trade does not help companies remain competitive; it artificially keeps them afloat in an uncompetitive manner. Oddly, there are many examples such as those provided here that illustrate how the U.S. supports businesses and entire countries abroad, and supports agreements like NAFTA that do not actually promote free trade. Since the former is itself not free trade, and NAFTA as an agreement is not just about reducing tariffs, it cannot be stated with certainty that the United States is an adherent to free trade. The situation of the United States is therefore one of economic inefficiency.

iv. Limitations and Recommendations

There are limitations to this paper that fall on the side of empirical evidence rather than on the side of theory. That businesses might relocate overseas in response to overbearing regulation is theoretically sound, but that this hypothesis is proved with certainty from a number of anecdotes, is not definitive. Levinson makes this point clear: “Although there seems to be plenty of anecdotal evidence that policy makers and industry representatives take industrial flight seriously, there is only a limited amount of empirical evidence that industrial flight exists” (Levinson 433). Over a decade since the passage of NAFTA, the anecdotal evidence of industrial flight has ballooned, but the formalized proof in econometric studies is still wanting. Research needs to proceed to answer the questions: Has industrial flight from the United States systematically occurred? And if so, is this a result of tariff reductions, domestic regulations, or a combination of both? Incidentally, the results might alter the reasons for capital flight, but they do not alter the fact that the U.S. does not promote free trade by being a partner to NAFTA and by exporting funds to foreign countries for various purposes.

Another limitation of this paper is in its qualitative rather than quantitative approach to measuring how free American trade is. Qualitatively, one may point to reductions in tariffs/quotas as trade-enhancing and domestic regulation and money flows abroad as trade-restricting, but it is not numerically clear which policies gain the upper hand. Despite the domestic regulatory burden that NAFTA imposes, have the tariff reductions been significant enough to offset the losses from the regulations? Also, while it is theoretically possible to calculate this in the short-term, research would benefit from models that calculate the potential long-term effects of NAFTA. For instance, the tariff reductions might quantitatively reduce the welfare-destroying regulatory burden, but how high might the regulatory burden become, decades from now? Might NAFTA be amended to freeze at a minimum the money flows in the expanded trade definition that the U.S. exports to foreign countries? How will this alter the gains/losses from NAFTA’s tariff reductions? Though the expanded definition of trade includes many economic policy factors that influence the dynamics of trade, at least quantitative research into the more major trade-influencing policies should be explored. Furthermore, the current expanded definition of trade is in a primitive state. For the purpose of complete economic theory, other trade-influencing policies should be elaborated upon as well.

The United States should pursue free trade because it is welfare-enhancing. This means lowering tariffs in addition to the regulatory burden imposed on American businesses. It also means that foreign flows for the benefit of other countries at the expense of the United States should be reduced. Until many of these criteria are met, not just tariff and quota reduction, it is difficult to conclude that the U.S. is pursuing free trade. This paper has expanded the definition of free trade which has permitted the reader to view all the aspects of American trade that are not free. The metaphors helped reveal the nuanced concept of upward harmonization whose results are not as obvious as that of tariff reduction. The debate over NAFTA is misleading with proponents arguing in favor of free trade and opponents arguing against free trade. A more accurate debate over NAFTA would be whether or not the agreement concerns free trade in the first place; then, the observed results of NAFTA would make more sense empirically. As already stated, the United States would do well to follow free trade, but the current policies are not those of free trade when examined closely. At least for now, it appears that the U.S. is subsidizing the world, taxing itself, and claiming to be an adherent of free trade all at the same time.

















United States. U.S. Embassy in Mexico City. US and Mexico Sign Bilateral Agreement Paving Way for Full OPIC Activity. <http://www.usembassy-mexico.gov/texts/et030609opic.htm>.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

[ posted by TAYLOR @ 5:29 PM | | Digg this! | del.icio.us | Permanent link | links to this post ]

Surprising Criminal Political Scandal Unfolds Tuesday, March 11, 2008

The NYT asks, "Why do politicians at all levels keep starring in this familiar and non-partisan soap opera rerun?" in Politics, and Scandal, as Usual. The question was prompted, of course, by New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's recent announcement that he had broken a few laws by spending some time with a prostitute.

I believe the article has been archived already so you need an NYT login to view it, but essentially the story searches for the answer in psychology, explores entitlement mentality and alpha-male status as possible reasons for why politicians, of all people, continually find themselves embroiled in law-breaking scandals.

I wonder though, did anyone ever consider the fact that they're... CRIMINALS?!

Politicians are criminals. They exist off of stolen wealth (tax money), their entire job revolves around writing positive law which is responsible for the further confiscation and redistribution of wealth as well as the directing of State violence in those efforts. These people are violent criminals, to the man (or woman, as the case may be, though female politicians involved in sexual scandals seem to be rare, maybe just because female politicians are relatively rare themselves). So, then, does it really come as a surprise that people who consider it to be acceptable to practice one form of crime, have no problem engaging in other criminal activities?

Does it matter if they're family men or "Christians?" Who reading this is surprised to find out a Mafia man is unfaithful to his wife and operates or participates in a prostitution ring, despite being a dedicated family man and an affirmed Catholic (consider the depiction of Tony Soprano in The Sopranos)? If you aren't surprised to hear a Mafia man who commits one crime has no trouble demonstrating he's capable of committing others, why is it that it's suddenly SO shocking to find out a politician does the same kind of things?

Is it because the Mafia doesn't hold elections?

Labels: , , , ,

[ posted by TAYLOR @ 3:11 PM | | Digg this! | del.icio.us | Permanent link | links to this post ]

The Hypocritical Expediency of Statist Foreign Policy Monday, February 25, 2008

Part of the modern statist dogma is the sanctity of political boundaries. Within a political boundary lies the "sovereign" power of the State in question, and outside that boundary is the Other. The State is imagined as unitary and thereby acquires rights and powers that only actual individuals could ever exercise in reality. To violate the boundaries of the sovereign State is to violate the property rights of an individual-- thereby, the use of force in self-defense is justified.

This is the doctrine underlying immigration regulation, for instance, and this is the excuse given for violently, if need be, repelling a potential foreign immigrant crossing the sovereign State's boundaries without its permission. This belief is also the justification given for statist warfare. To threaten the sovereign State, either implicitly through saber-rattling, or explicitly through penetration of the State's boundaries, is akin to attacking the sovereign, unitary State itself.

Therefore, I find the following news summary of the latest violence in Iraq from AntiWar.com to be perplexing:
Turkish forces continued to battle PKK forces in northern Iraq, as the White House urged Turkey to limit the incursion. The actual number of casualties is unknown as both sides are giving conflicting figures. At least 26 Iraqis were killed and 31 more were wounded in the latest attacks, but no Coalition deaths were reported.
Three supposed sovereignties are involved here: the State of Turkey, the State of Iraq and the State of the United States of America. Normally, according to statist doctrine, violating a sovereign's boundaries is an act of war. The State of Iraq is, viewed as a unitary entity, being coerced by the State of Turkey.

Yet, all that happens is that the State of the USA "urges" the State of Turkey to stop. As for the State of Iraq itself, it seems to be unaware that it is even being attacked, or else unwilling or unable to do anything about it.

Where is the outrage? Where are the declarations of war by the State of Iraq or the State of the USA, its protectorate-master?

Statists don't seem to take their own dogma seriously. Why should I?


And of course, if the State of the United States of America really believed in the sanctity of sovereign boundaries, it never would've invaded the State of Iraq in the first place.

Labels:

[ posted by TAYLOR @ 5:42 PM | | Digg this! | del.icio.us | Permanent link | links to this post ]

You can't get to there from here! Saturday, February 09, 2008

A recent comment on an older post is one in one sense similar to nearly every critique of libertarianism. Our commenter writes,
"Actually, the drug issue is only one reason I, personally, am instinctively averse to full-throated libertarianism.

I'm naturally leery of any utopian screed, no matter whether they get there by leftist or rightist methods.

The libertarian open-borders policy, it's pro-drug stance, and most telling, the fact that every libertarian whose work I have read dreams openly of a world where all religion, but especially Christianity, is neutered and socially toothless, are more than enough to raise a stink."
I won't address the straw man here. The more egregious error is one often made even by libertarianism's more astute critics. For example, Ezra Klein has recently written that
"[Libertarians think] individuals are a whole lot more rational and economically capable than I do. I think folks, in many circumstances, need a bit more help, and that, as beings fairly aware of our own irrationality, lapses in long-term attention, and assorted other deficits and shortcomings, we often smartly conclude that the whole is stronger and wiser than the one, and build communal institutions that sacrifice some autonomy but create structures better fitted to the messy and occasionally disappointing ways in which we actually engage the world."
Again, I'll leave off whether or not this is an apt characterization of libertarians.

This point I want to make is a different one: Libertarianism is generally a position on the use of coercion and specifically a position on the use of coercion by people in governments. In order to for a critical argument to reach a conclusion contrary to the libertarian position on coercion, that argument needs to involve some premise concerning the use of coercion. If that argument is to reach a conclusion about coercion by people in governments, it needs also to involve a premise concerning people in governments.

Now I doubt that Ezra Klein or RHJunior would support all forms of coercion regardless of who is doing the coercing to whom. Surely, they don't believe their views about moral theology or behavioral deviations from utility maximization imply that I should be free to coerce them! Presumably, they only favor coercion of people outside of the governemnt when it is committed by people in the government. In order to show why their view is superior to libertarianism, they need to show why this special case is so special as they claim.

Question for discussion: How would one show that coercion by governments and only coercion by governments is acceptable without simply assuming it from the get go?

Labels: ,

[ posted by James @ 5:43 PM | | Digg this! | del.icio.us | Permanent link | links to this post ]

Just Pull That Lever! Tuesday, February 05, 2008

It's difficult to escape politics these days, no matter how hard you may try to just be left alone about the topic. Expecting to find sanctity in the weight room, even there I had to suffer audio paeans to the Great God Democracy via a local disc-jockey on a classic rock radio station urging listeners to go to the polls this "Super Tuesday."

"Guys, get out there and vote. Be a part of it and make yourself heard. I don't care who you vote for, just pull that lever!"

What is with this irrational devotion to the religion of mobocracy more commonly known as democracy? What compels people to advise others to "just pull that lever," damn the consequences?

I wonder if people like the DJ, who believe democracy is so good that everyone should participate whether they participate thoughtfully or not, have really considered what they're advising people to do.

What if there was a racist or two on the ballot? What about a homophobe? What about a man who openly desires to push the government toward theocracy should he assume power? What about a would-be fascist dictator trying to get to power without the whole bloody-revolution thing? Do the democrats still want people out there pulling that lever if they plan to pull it for those people?

I can't believe the DJ would still be saying "I don't care who you vote for" if Idi Amin was on the ballot, or Mr. Zedong. But even though there are no people as brash as Amin or Mao Zedong on the ballots this election, there are plenty of people who are only slightly less hardcore socialists who are on the ballot, like Clinton, Obama, Romney, McCain and Giuliani. Even Ron Paul, as freedom-minded as he is, still believes in a little bit of the old socialism, however minimally.

What if I went for a write-in, say "Mr. Spaceman" or even "Nobody in particular" and then pulled the lever? Would the eternal democrat congratulate me in my moment of electoral political success?

Does the knowledge a potential voter has of the issues and a particular candidate's position on the issues matter to a democrat? Do they expect voters to understand what is at stake when they pull the lever? Or is it okay for someone who just woke up from a 30-year hibernation period to walk right into a voting booth, pick a candidate and pull the lever? Is that what "making your voice heard" means?

Democracy offers its adherents a false promise of paradise through participation. Pull that lever, make your voice heard! But if you happen to be part of the minority of lever-pullers on a given issue, your voice isn't heard. Your voice is rejected, and violently so. You will have your property stolen from you (taxation) and then that stolen property of yours will be used to implement a policy you disagree with. At that point, what does it matter if you "voiced" your concern or not?

Labels: , , , ,

[ posted by TAYLOR @ 4:43 PM | | Digg this! | del.icio.us | Permanent link | links to this post ]

Problem-Solving Via The State Monday, January 07, 2008

Two news stories, a little imaginary dialog and then my commentary, bear with me here. First, Bush Acknowledges Mixed Signals On Economy at NYT.com:

Dampening the administration’s customary upbeat tone on the economy, President Bush acknowledged Monday that the economic signs were “increasingly mixed,” but he also suggested he would oppose Democratic initiatives to increase spending to head off a recession.

...

In New Hampshire and elsewhere, the Democratic presidential candidates have also increasingly begun warning of a possible economic downturn and the need for actions in Washington, though they too have not been specific.

Here's another, Energy Costs a Top Concern for New Hampshire Voters, again from NYT.com:

Gasoline and home heating oil are no longer comfortably affordable, especially for the roughly 60 percent of residents who commute more than 25 miles to work. Of about two dozen people interviewed here in recent weeks, nearly all said energy policy was a top concern as they looked to the presidential primary on Tuesday. Some said they had bought wood-pellet stoves to supplement oil heat; others said they had looked into installing solar panels or even living off the grid, with no reliance on public utilities.

“Oil affects everything,” said Paris Wells, who owns the Central Square Ice Cream Shoppe on Main Street. “We need someone in office who’s going to look seriously at alternative power of some form.”

Mr. Wells said he was spending more than $1,000 a month on heating oil in winter, which, judging from the estimates others gave, is within the norm. New Hampshire is more dependent on oil heat than any state except Maine and Vermont, according to the Energy Information Administration, with 58 percent of homes using it. The average national cost of home heating oil was $3.34 a gallon last month, up from $2.44 a year earlier.

...

“I remember when the center of a presidential campaign was a promise to take care of people in our country,” said Norma Hubbard, who runs the local food pantry and feeds about 100 families a week. “That is not there for most of the candidates now.”

Many here, including Mr. Wells, spoke admiringly of Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, a Democrat and former energy secretary who they said seemed more passionate than most candidates about reducing oil prices and consumption.

(Huh? I don't get that last part, I see how you can reduce oil prices or reduce consumption, but I don't see how you could accomplish both at the same time. Not without shooting a lot of people rioting because of a severely rationed energy supply, anyway.)

Based off those two articles, I imagine a scenario like this has played out at least once in New Hampshire recently:
NH Voter 1- Gee, would you look at this? My heating bill went up $100 last month!
NH Voter 2- Wow, only $100? Mine went up $200! And on top of that, it costs me an extra $50 a week these days to fill up my tank.
NH Voter 1- Oh I know. I drive a pretty fuel-efficient car but I am still paying about $20 more a week to fill up than I did a few years ago even. We've got a serious problem on our hands.
NH Voter 2- Yeah no kidding. Someone should do something about this problem.
NH Voter 1- Wait a second, I just realized something. We've got a much bigger problem on our hands than even these energy costs! Are you a millionaire?
NH Voter 2- Uh, no, I don't think so, why, are you?
NH Voter 1- No, not at all. Don't you think that's a problem, too?
NH Voter 2- What, not being a millionaire?
NH Voter 1- Exactly.
NH Voter 2- Well I'll be... I never thought of it like that, but, yeah, you're right. That is a big problem!
NH Voter 1- Someone should do something about this problem, too. I hope that in our state primary the presidential candidates will not only address how they're going to solve our energy problems, but also if they have any plans for solving the "Not everyone is a millionaire" problem.
Outrageous? Sure, that millionaire bit, anyway, but the rest of that is basically what people were complaining about in the NYT article about energy costs. So where did I come up with the "millionaire problem?"

I think having the government solve the problem of everyone not being a millionaire is where the current political logic leads to. Consider where we are now-- if there's an economic problem, the voters demand a statist remedy. Medical bills too high? Let's implement price controls! (this was a serious recommendation from a woman I debated this subject with, a woman with an economics degree... and apparently no knowledge of the history of the Soviet Union). Energy costs spiraling out of control? Let's have the government fund alternative energy research!

But all these problems are all just subsets of one larger economic problem, that being "low" incomes or lack of wealth. Why target each individual problem as it turns up, when you could solve them all by getting to the root of the matter? Why not just make everyone a millionaire so they don't have to worry about rising costs anymore? Speaking of getting to the root of the problem...

That seems to be something many people don't understand anymore, judging by the demand for statist solutions to (in large part) State-created problems. It used to be that if someone realized they had a problem, they first went in search of the cause of the problem before attempting a solution. Now, it seems like no sooner do people discover problems before they start trying to solve them, causes be damned.

What an impractical way to problem-solve! Consider the results if you utilized such a method in your own abode, never mind the nation's. So, you've got a leaky faucet, now what do you do?

Reason dictates that you do some research on plumbing and water mechanics so you can understand why your faucet is leaking. Instead, however, you take a baseball bat and smash the faucet repeatedly. Nope, that doesn't work. In fact, now the faucet is just leaking even more. Hmmm. You take your baseball bat and smash out a window. Did that stop the leaky faucet? No, the faucet is still leaking, and now you have a draft coming through your broken window. You take your baseball bat and smash a couple of lamps and light fixtures to pieces. Did that stop the leaky faucet? Not at all, and now on top of your other problems you can't see your way around the house as soon as the sun sets. Ultimately, in frustration you decide to fire-bomb your neighbor's house, destroying it completely, in the hopes that this will at least distract you from the fact that you have a leaky faucet (and a broken window and no lights).

This is how voters attempt problem-solving via the State. They see something is broken, or so they think at least, (the leaky faucet, which maybe just wasn't turned off all the way and wasn't actually leaky), and they beg the State to start smashing up other things in an attempt at a fix. No one ever stops and asks "Is the faucet leaking?" and if so "Why is the faucet leaking?" People just start demanding a violent solution. And when those violent solutions bear no fruit, but rather destroy the fruit hanging from other trees, the State sometimes turns to destroying other people's things through aggressive war as a means of distracting voters from the root of the problem in question, which almost always has something to do with the State itself.

The government can't solve economic problems, it can only make them worse. The government can't magically lower energy costs, it can't magically invent (cost-effective) alternative energy sources, and it most definitely can't spend the poor voters' money and bring them out of a recession and into perpetual prosperity. The government is made up of people like me and you (okay, okay, people like me and you with a penchant for antagonistic violence and hypocritical behavior), not super people.

Causes must be sought before solutions, and solutions, when implemented, must be individual solutions, because the problems are individual in nature as well. If it costs me $20 more per week to fill up my tank, that's my problem, not John Taxpayer of Tennessee. He didn't cost me an additional $20 per week so I shouldn't be begging the State to point a gun at his head as it tries to find a way to save me or give me $20 per week to help me with my energy expenses.

Labels: , , , , , ,

[ posted by TAYLOR @ 9:14 PM | | Digg this! | del.icio.us | Permanent link | links to this post ]

Felon In The Military, Or Do I Repeat Myself? Sunday, January 06, 2008

Here's an incredibly odd story from the New York Times, Army Lets a Felon Join Up, but N.Y.P.D. Will Not:

On the day after he completed a one-year sentence at the Rikers Island jail, Osvaldo Hernandez walked into an Army recruiting office in Elmhurst, Queens. He was a felon with a plan to change his life.

It was late in 2003. Mr. Hernandez had been convicted of possessing an unregistered pistol the year before. The Army, struggling to meet its recruiting goals, granted him an enlistment waiver for the crime and soon swore him in.

Four years later, Mr. Hernandez, 25, is Specialist Hernandez, a paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne Division in Afghanistan.

His transformation from inmate to productive citizen would seem to be complete. His Army supervisors say he is reliable, honest and brave. Barring something unforeseen, he will be honorably discharged at the end of his 15-month combat tour this year and hopes to become a New York City police officer.

Of course, in New York City it's a punishable crime to own an "illegal handgun." Public advertisements all over the city's subway system remind riders that "GUNS = PRISON." I don't remember learning that equality in math class, then again, I went to a public school where the curriculum wasn't exactly rigorous. Maybe they teach that truism at private schools?

Either way, this story is shocking. Mr. Hernandez goes from a private citizen charged with a felony (a felony!) for carrying an unlicensed handgun, serves a year in prison and then transforms into a "productive citizen" afterward as an attempt at some kind of personal salvation for his sins against the State, becoming not a McDonald's hamburger flipper or the CEO of a major Wall Street investment banking firm but... wait for it... a US soldier deployed in Afghanistan!

Excuse me, have I missed something here? Since when did soldiers become "productive?" Are they not being paid with tax money anymore? Is blowing up foreigners' property and shooting them dead now considered a productive enterprise?

The coup d'grace of this story is that with his non-felony felony, Mr. Hernandez is now all but unemployable in the private sector (considered within the context of a competitive employment environment) so his only hope of finding work is with the State!

If Specialist Hernandez made a mistake on the streets or got in trouble, he said, it “would be pretty hard for a police department to defend.”
That's funny, because I have yet to see a PD that has any trouble defending an officer's use of excessive force that led to death.

Labels: , , ,

[ posted by TAYLOR @ 5:03 PM | | Digg this! | del.icio.us | Permanent link | links to this post ]

Our Saviors Walk The Planet Wednesday, January 02, 2008

I saw the following bumper sticker today:
Marines die
so you don't have to!
There are several things I wanted to say about this.

Economically speaking, such a slogan seems to roughly embody Bastiat's "What is seen and what is unseen." What we see in the present are dead Marines, and me still alive. It seems obvious that Marines die, and I don't have to die because they die for me. What is unseen is the alternate reality in which Marines don't die (perhaps Marines no longer exist thanks to the widespread adoption of an anarchist philosophy, or maybe they just aren't being engaged in far-flung foreign conflicts for a change) and neither do I. At this point, the veracity of the slogan would be challenged because a quick look at the reality of the situation would disagree with it completely. But, because we can't have a look at this alternate reality, there are always going to be people who are unimaginative, either willfully or ignorantly, and will be quick to point out that reality is what it is and the only reason I am able to sit around and ponder something so esoteric is because Marines are out there, "dying for me" right at this moment.

The slogan seems irrational, too, from the stand-point of the self-interested Marine. The way I read the slogan, someone has to die, either me or the Marine, for some unexplained reason that is assumed to be existent. Now if someone has to die, that is, either I have to die or the Marine has to die, why would the Marine accept his death willingly to spare me mine? Is my life more valuable than the Marine's, objectively? Is it subjectively more valuable to him than his own, and if so, why?

How many lives are saved for the death of each Marine, and does this value ever change? The slogan implies that every Marine death spares me mine. Do Marine deaths also spare other Marines their deaths, or are they not calculated in the equation? Say 300 Marines die next year, and the population of the United States is approximately 300,000,000 over the course of that year. The next year, "only" 250 Marines die, but the population of the United States has increased to 306,000,000 by that time. Do the lower number of Marine deaths spare the higher total US population of theirs still? Or do some people magically/suddenly die as a result of the deficit? If not, by what mechanism does the value of a Marine death in terms of death-sparing-capability increase?

Is the Marine responsible for protecting my life if I reject the legitimacy of the act by which he does so? If I disregard the authority of the United States federal government and consider the Marine's death in vain, does it still protect me? What if I am an expatriate living in, say, Hong Kong, where my life is spared from the threat of foreign invasion most likely not by a US Marine but by a member of the People's Liberation Army Marine Corps.?

The allusion to Jesus dying for humanity's salvation is intentional, I assume, but did Jesus ever kill as part of his duties as savior?

A couple more thoughts that came to me after I watched The Bourne Ultimatum tonight. At one point in the movie Bourne asks a fellow CIA black ops killer like himself if he even knows why the CIA is having the man kill Bourne. At another point Bourne admits that he had spent his life killing people he knew nothing about. The Marine claims to die for me, but he doesn't even know me, so how could he? How can you die for someone that you aren't even aware exists? Again, to hearken back to an early point, how could he and why would he? If he's willing to die for some "American" he doesn't know exists, why not a Somali or a Tibetan? What makes an American's life more worth saving than any other human being's, again including the Marine's own life?

Someone who reads a slogan like the one on the bumper sticker I saw today and who feels it affirms their point of view will probably read the points I have raised and think something like the following-- "Ha! This is all easy for this guy to sit around and think abstractly about, trying to theorize about something concrete. But the reality of the situation is..." and then he'll go on to justify to himself why it's not only proper and honorable, but right, for a Marine to go off to a country like Iraq to kill strangers and to die for strangers.

But, again thinking back to The Bourne Ultimatum (and I fully realize it's a Hollywood movie and therefore all depictions are stylized), it was quite clear in the movie that for the CIA directors running the black ops assassination program Bourne was a part of, sending other people off to kill and die, like they did with Bourne, was a total abstraction for them. They referred to their trained killers as "assets" and probably didn't know their names or anything about them (all of them, like Bourne, had had their true identities erased long ago anyway). Seemingly without seriously considering how reckless they were being, they'd send an "asset" to murder someone, and then tack on one or two more targets to the list anytime things got "complicated" and they didn't feel like bringing people in or having to cover their tails.

The truth of the situation is that slogans like "Marines die so you don't have to." are the abstractions in life, and the people who live (and die) by such nonsense are the ones detached from reality. The people at the top of the chain issuing the commands don't have any conception of the costs or effects of their decisions because they'll never have to face them personally. And more importantly, they don't want to, because if they did become intimate with the reality of what they were doing they probably wouldn't be able to stomach it, or at least maintain their sanity. And the tools who are shaped by the architects of destruction and are charged with carrying out their bidding, often at the expense of their own lives, are unconcerned with the costs because they don't even view their own lives as worth living.

Their only purpose in life -- as paradoxical as it is to say it like that -- is to die, but once they've died they aren't part of reality. At that point they've transcended into the world of abstraction, and everyone back here, alive on planet earth, are the people who have to deal with the consequences.

Labels: , , , , ,

[ posted by TAYLOR @ 3:24 AM | | Digg this! | del.icio.us | Permanent link | links to this post ]

Confusion Tuesday, January 01, 2008

I recently received an email soliciting some sort of affiliation with another political website. A few sentences:
The website is a political themed website aimed towards fostering intelligent and informed discussion and debate on issues of public policy, leading to bipartisan solutions enacted for the public good. In short, we want to bring together people from all over with different backgrounds, beliefs, and political views, and have them all actively participating in forum debates. The goal is for each individual to express his or her own views while learning more about politics. The activeness of each individual can earn college credit, prizes, and ultimately shape legislation in congress someday through "collective intelligence."
What I find notable is the presumption (or perhaps delusion) in the final sentence.

Look kids: There is a group of people with the power to take your property without paying for it, to take your pay from your employer before you even see it, to lock you in a cage for the rest of your life or even to kill you. They know very well that they can get away with this stuff all day every day. They regard the intelligence, collective or otherwise, of anyone outside their group as beneath contempt. Does it really seem likely that this same group of people will be influenced by the outcome of a discussion in an online forum?

Clearly, I've got nothing against websites where people offer their opinions on politics, and such sites can be useful in many ways, but actually influencing legislative outcomes is not one of them.

Labels: , ,

[ posted by James @ 3:59 PM | | Digg this! | del.icio.us | Permanent link | links to this post ]

Mourning At A Tyrant's Grave Friday, December 28, 2007

I've heard several political conservatives (at least, that's how they think of themselves politically) lamenting the loss of the "moderate" Benazir Bhutto following her assassination in Pakistan on Thursday.

Perhaps Bhutto was a "moderate" relative to Pervez Musharraf's military dictatorship. But was Bhutto a political moderate from an absolute standard?

Until her death, Bhutto chaired the Pakistan Peoples Party, whose slogan is "Islam is our faith; democracy is our politics; socialism is our economy; all power to the people."

Imagine a political party in the United States running on such a platform. Would anyone dare call it moderate? There doesn't seem to be anything principally moderate about socialism or democracy (nor Islam, for that matter, a truly totalitarian ideology much like every other major world religion)-- they both rely on violent interference in the lives of the minority polities, as well as the majority, and they both seem to always end in dictatorship.

Moderate socialism... tell that to the millions of dead Chinese, Russians, Cubans and so on who have experienced first hand this "moderate" political ideology.

Tyrants deserve no tears shed on their behalf.

Labels: , , , , ,

[ posted by TAYLOR @ 7:16 PM | | Digg this! | del.icio.us | Permanent link | links to this post ]

"The War" Thursday, December 27, 2007

I wanted to make another point about the video I linked to in the last post. The host of the Morning Joe show mentions to Ron Paul that he thinks that Ron Paul embodies an authentic voice shared by many in the Republican party who are against "the war" (or would that be "the War" or even "The War," since, by keeping it singular in usage, it seems to imply the name should be a proper noun like "The Great War" or "The War To End All Wars"?).

I see and hear this all the time. I know when people say "the war" they're referring to the Iraq War specifically and not the War in Afghanistan. It always makes me wonder: 1.) why is the Iraq War "the war," making the War in Afghanistan comparatively insignificant and 2.) why are so many people against "the war," but not the War in Afghanistan? In other words, why don't people speak of "the wars?"

Is it okay to drop bombs on some innocents and not others? Is there any principle behind opposition to one war, and a lack of opposition to another?

Can anyone who believes anything like that explain any of this to me? I am honestly confused.

Labels: , ,

[ posted by TAYLOR @ 8:07 PM | | Digg this! | del.icio.us | Permanent link | links to this post ]

President Paul, May I Secede? 

Blogger SaltyPig brought my attention to this video clip of Ron Paul defending himself against the Lincoln-cultists of the MSM in a recent post at his blog here.

Ron Paul gets so deep into his apologia that he invokes the name of Lysander Spooner and the famed (amongst many libertarians at least) No Treason, a name that had most likely, until that time, never been utte