Curt Doolittle

Theme: Governance

  • Are There Any Arguments Against Immigration That Are Compatible With Libertarian Thought?

    1) Hoppe has put forth an argument (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han…)  But hoppe would also argue that if a bunch of neighbors made a contract that no one without red hair could move into a neighborhood/village/city that was all privately owned, even by the use of shares, that since that contract was vountarily entered into by members that they would all have to respect it.  (This is called the “right of exclusion”.)

    2) When libertarians talk about any given issue, they do so within the libertarian context: the inviolability of private property. The inviolability of private property requires that no involuntary transfers occur. This tenet of in turn requires the absence of redistributive programs that allow immigrants to transfer weath by moving into a geography and obtaining redistribution (theft).  Theft which therefore is used to fund the growth of the bureaucratic (parasitic) governmnet. This argument is that OPEN immigration is incompatible with the welfare state.
     
    The alternative solutions are that a) people pay their way in, or b) they borrow and pay back their way in c) or that they are ‘sponsored’ by someone who is financially responsible for their productivity or loss (as was common in history). Further that they conform to norms that are expressions of property rights. Any one of these solutions makes immigration possible without violating property rights. Open immigration under redistribution doesn’t. I think this argument is pretty hard to refute.

    https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-arguments-against-immigration-that-are-compatible-with-libertarian-thought

  • Is Islam A Political Ideology? (And Are Progressivism, Scientism, Democratic Secular Humanism Religions?)

    From The Global Secular Humanism Group: “Should ‘Islam’ be considered as a political ideology and a religion at the same time?” The question should be restated in this fashion in order to illustrate Islam’s political content: A) Should Islam be considered a Religion? (Yes/No) YES: Religions consist of Myths and rituals. It does appear that religions require some form of magian reasoning. However, scientism, secular humanism, progressivism, all require ‘faith’ (in methodology, reason, or technology) that is expressly counter to the historical evidence. So, it is quite possible to create a personal philosophy that is the premise for a religion (scientism, secular humanism, progressivism) on faith. Scientism has myths, rituals and institutions. Progressivism has them too. Secular humanism is getting close, but I tend to treat secular humanists as simply anti-christian atheists and progressives as Democratic Secular Humanists. That means Secular Humanism is a minor ideology, and Democratic Secular Humanism as a major ideology. Both of which rely upon faith. But Democratic (Socialist) Secular Humanism, like islam, has both laws (human rights), institutions (academia, the press, the party structure, and it’s developed expressly for use in majority rule under parliamentarianism). So it appears to be both an ideology, a religion and a political system. B) Should Islam be considered a political Ideology? (Yes/No) YES: The purpose of an ideology is to obtain political power through excitation of the masses. Islam was invented to obtain political power. Islam was used as a means of conquest, and succeeded in obtaining political power. Islam is used to obtain, justify and use political power. Political power is the power to enforce the primacy of a set of laws. Islam contains a code of laws with explicit commandment to their primacy. Therefore islam is a political ideology. C) Should Islam be considered a political system? (Yes/No) YES: While a primitive political system only requires the ability to resolve disputes, A political system capable of coordinating investments (taxes and expenditures on infrastructure) requires at a minimum, laws, and an organization that mandates the exclusivity of those laws above all other laws, rules and norms. Islam has both a set of laws (Sharia) and a system of producing judges for those laws (Mullahs) and a system of intergenerational teaching for the purpose of propagating those laws (Religious Schools). In effect islam is a legal system with magian origins (instead of natural rights). That islam does not include other formal institutions (a parliament) is simply a function of it’s antiquity and tribal authoritarianism. Islam conquered a roman state (Byzantium) and assimilated it’s administrative structure. But did not include it on it’s own. In fact, much of islamic administration relied upon slaves and eunuchs because the byzantine administration could not adapt to Arab tribalism. (See Fukuyama’s recent book.) Islam is a religion, a political ideology, and a political system. If one argues that it is not, then one must define the terms religion, political ideology, and political system. And that exercise would lead to either confirmation of that it is a religion, ideology and political system, or one would define those terms using selection bias by sampling normative rather than structural rules.

  • CAPLAN FAILS TO JUSTIFY OPEN IMMIGRATION (*HIGHLY UN-PC PAINFUL TRUTH WARNING*)

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/06/six_theses_on_e.htmlBRYAN CAPLAN FAILS TO JUSTIFY OPEN IMMIGRATION

    (*HIGHLY UN-PC PAINFUL TRUTH WARNING*)

    1) Do a group of people have the right to exclusion? To deny trade, habitation, and spatial access, to others based upon some property of the others’ group?

    Moral norms, traditions, and even differences in language and ability impose a cost on groups. Morals are largely expressions of property rights, and differences in morals are expressions of conflicting property rights. Norms are a form of shareholder property in themselves. So differences in norms impose costs on both sides and in many cases constitute attempts at fraud and theft.

    For example, I regularly write about the difference between Bazaar Ethics and Warrior Ethics, and how externalities and implied warranty are a product of high trust warrior ethics and not a property of low trust Bazaar Ethics. And a high trust society is very rare, and very complicated to build. It’s also very productive and innovative. But it requires that sellers exhibit symmetrical transparency, be constrained from imposing external costs and required to provide limited warranty.

    While I’m a pretty big fan of Brian’s I just see this post on immigration as yet another attempt to express jewish cultural bias as a truth or moral principle when it’s just a byproduct of the fact that jews are a diasporic people with a small population and the memes, morals and narratives of a diasporic people that are unable to hold land, when land holding is necessary for the establishment of norms and formal institutions, and land holding is necessary in order to enforce the right of exclusion, in order to reduce the costs of cooperation.

    So no, immigration poses high costs on host countries and peoples where there is a high trust moral code including a requirement for symmetric honesty, warranty, and a prohibition on external involuntary transfers, a nuclear family, with a homogenous language.

    I realize that this is a painful truth. But it is a truth none the less.

    2) Secondly, norms are not governed as brian suggests by extreme examples. This is just faulty logic in the extreme. In fact, using extreme conditions as examples of norms is the source of most false criticism of moral statements using moral dilemmas – which turns morality into a victorian parlor game.

    I agree with Brian on a lot of things. But on this topic both his argument and it’s justification are nonsense. People have the right of excluding in both personal and political spheres. They must have it. They demonstrate it. And it’s the only way to force people to adopt high-trust norms.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-06-18 08:09:00 UTC

  • COWEN GETS ON BOARD: THE PUBLIC HAS LOST FAITH IN GOVERNMENT i’ve been harping o

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/business/broken-trust-takes-time-to-mend-economic-view.htmlTYLER COWEN GETS ON BOARD: THE PUBLIC HAS LOST FAITH IN GOVERNMENT

    i’ve been harping on this for the past few years, particularly on Krugman’s, Mark Thoma’s and Karl Smith’s blogs (the left). I don’t think it’s going to change any time soon. It’s good to see a prominent economist getting on board.

    MY argument has been that the Keynesians are right in that increasing demand will work to stimulate the economy, but that people will not tolerate government spending because of the perceived cost of the expansion of invasive, and often privileged, government.

    As such, rather than offer spending solutions (as does Krugman) the answer is to suggest programs in monetary policy, fiscal policy, industrial policy and education policy, so that all sides get what they want without the expansion of the state. Only this method will work. The conservatives (in my view, rightly) will block anything else, and they have the voter support to block spending programs.

    As far back as 2006, I suggested that the power grid was the most important structural investment that we could make that would both generate a large number of jobs and provide a reasonable return on the investment. I suggested paying down mortgages directly as the most important vehicle for creating stimulus. I agreed with Karl Smith that we should give an extended tax holiday and borrow at such low rates to pay for it. And among other things, I suggested various forms of industrial policy, particularly technology bonuses for achieving strategic investment objectives. I recommended either privatizing education using a voucher system or eliminating the DofEd and giving principles hire and fire authority and the ability to experiment. These factors would create enough stimulus to move the economy. But more importantly, these kinds of spending do not expand the state, or favor urban voters at the expense of suburban and rural voters.

    At the very least the conversation would be productive, commercially and socially engaging.

    But the keynesians actually block it by harping on the spending tactic exclusively.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-06-17 21:39:00 UTC

  • Political Movements: How Globally Influential Are Nazi And Fascist Factions?

    ( Pretty bad answers so far. I’ll try to help. )

    I can speak to the US, UK, Germany and Greece, all of whom have  active movements at present — with England’s two groups currently the most activist and noticeable.  Although in Greece, the degree of stress and the Greek problem of Turkish immigration into Europe (akin to Mexican in the states) is the fuel for an rapidly expanding movement.

    The fascist (Nazi) movements consist largely of working class males.  In these countries, the movements generally expand during times of economic duress.  This is because of a variety of factors but largely that these males are displaced by competition from immigrants.  (There is some suspicion but not good data, that it is driven by difficulties in finding mates as well, since mates are a status symbol.) Their concern in this regard is not without merit, really.  In their view, they tow the social line, adhere to rules and norms, and are not rewarded for it, and instead are displaced both economically and socially. So they see society as ‘unfair’ to them.

    These movements are not large. In the single digits of suport. (Although in the UK they have managed to capture of few seats recently.  But because these movements are vocal and somewhat frightening, they get a lot of press. Consequently, the governments tend to be highly concerned about them. In no small part because they are subgroups of a supposedly social majority that is not satisfied with the state of affairs, thus invalidating the existing government, and posing a threat to the dominant political ideology.  It’s probably useful to keep in mind that a) chaos and loss of faith in a government can occur more easily in a country than we assume  b) a revolution only requires that five to ten percent of a population be united and willing to deploy violence in some organized fashion. So it is not irrational to take these groups seriously if they have any chance of getting above five percent support of the population.

    But in real terms they are not so much politically influential as they are a measure of dissatisfaction that is so great that it is driving some percentage of the population to advocate violent change to the status quo.  Their very presence is a meaningful yardstick.

    https://www.quora.com/Political-Movements-How-globally-influential-are-Nazi-and-fascist-factions

  • What Is The Difference Between Neoliberalism And Libertarianism?

    An interesting question.

    Neo-liberalism (Neo-classical liberalism) relies upon our classical liberal institutions to create and maintain a minimal state.  “Libertarianism” because of the efforts of the Rothbardians to appropriate the term, has become synonymous with anarcho capitalism.  So, if we are using the word libertarian, we must separate the Libertarian party, from the libertarian sentiment, from the anarcho capitalist philosophy.  They are three different things.  The term “neo-liberalism” is in part an attempt by those people with libertarian sentiments and support for classical liberal institutions to differentiate themselves from ideological anarchists. The term ‘liberal’ has also been appropriated by socialists and democratic socialists.  Classical liberal has an antique meaning. So neo-liberalism is an attempt to create a definition of contemporary economic and political knowledge (all five or six economic strategies) while maintaining a minimal state.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-neoliberalism-and-libertarianism

  • Where Did The Idea That Libertarianism Includes Social Liberties Come From?

    There are two libertarian traditions; The christian aristocratic classical liberal (epitomized by Hayek) and the jewish merchant anarchic (epitomized by Rothbard)  Christians were a land holding majority and so needed formal institutions.  Jews were a diasporic religiously governed minority  and favor anarchism.  With the heavy jewish immigration into the USA, jewish authors advocated their means of avoiding the oppression of the state just like christian classical liberals advocated their means of avoiding oppression by the state.  These two traditions became allies.  Then Rothbard and Friedman became the primary intellectual advocates for libertarian policies.  There has not been an evolution in christian classical liberalism.  This is partly because institutional programs are nearly impossible to put into place, and ideological programs that require only ‘belief’ or ‘support’ are much easier to put into place. It is also a failure in part, because classical liberalism is an institutional model that can resolve conflicts in priority among people with similar interests, but it cannot provide (majority rule cannot) a means of resolving conflicts among people with dissimilar interests. (As they warned us in Federalist Papers 10.)  The recent dominance of Rothbardianism on the internet, can be largely attributed to Lew Rockwell’s insight that it was possible to adopt the ideological tactics of the communist movement, and the organizing tactics of Alinsky to promote libertarianism as an ideology through education and community building. His impact through the mises institute cannot be overstated.  So, in essence, we have not created the next evolutionary step in classical liberalism in order to solve  the problem of running an empire in a modern economy where the institution of marriage has become unbound and where women and men have different reproductive strategies and therefore different political sentiments.   THe libertarians (Hans Hoppe in particular) have devised some solutions for small states. But no one has yet determined a solution for large scale states that desire to federate.  As such, because of this failure, the debate for freedom takes place largely in the context of anarchism.  Because the jewish anarchists have supplied the only ideological program that can compete with social parliamentary democracy (ie: it’s communism by other means.)

    You could look at the problem this way: jews have always been a minority and christian classical liberals are becoming a minority — and beginning to act like one.  Only majorities look to provide institutional solutions.  Small groups stick with informal institutions: religions and norms.  Because they lack the power to create formal institutions.

    That’s a lot to cover in one note.  But it’s the answer you’re looking for.

    https://www.quora.com/Where-did-the-idea-that-libertarianism-includes-social-liberties-come-from

  • Why Do People Who Never Read James Madison Or Edmund Burke, But Listen To Hannity Or Limbaugh Think Of Themselves As Conservative?

    Conservatism is a sentiment. It has biological, environmental, pedagogical and rational components that reinforce it. Classical liberalism is a political philosophy.  Conservatives in the USA are conservative TOWARD classical liberalism. Christian Aristocratic Manorialism is a social model.  Conservatives are conservative TOWARD Christian Aristocratic Manorialism.  One does not need to read anything.  In fact, having to ‘read’ something is a decidedly negative property of any social model. It must be capable of propagation by experience, and in particular, the experience of a child.

    All rational models seek to advocate in favor of the sentiment.  Not the other way around.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-who-never-read-James-Madison-or-Edmund-Burke-but-listen-to-Hannity-or-Limbaugh-think-of-themselves-as-conservative

  • What Are The Advantages And Disadvantages Of Different Philosophies Of Economics?

    You listed political philosophies but not economic philosophies.  They are two sets of questions.

    1) Political philosophies consider three different questions:
    a) How is the institution of property constructed (is property owned by individuals, the collective, an institution, or an authoritarian figure, and what are the limits on the use of that property)
    b) what institution is used to determine the use of property (the market, heads of families, bureaucracy, or a dictator)
    c) what claims do citizens (shareholders) have on the results of production or the profits from exchange. (Which are technically the same thing.)
    Everything else is trappings.  We know that incentives and the ability to calculate and plan determine the rate of innovation and effort put into work.  So the more individual property rights are, the more consumption is possible at the lowest cost.

    2) Economic philosophies fall into temporal categories from the short term to the long term, and advocates differer not so much on the utility of any given tactic, but on their approval or disapproval of the externalities (secondary consequences) of using the tactic. Economists then, tend to ally with political philosophies based upon those SECONDARY outcomes.

    These outcomes are driven by ‘fears’.  The liberal fears that the poor or less able will experience discomfort.  The conservative fears that society will be made fragile and uncompetitive.  If we work very hard and save then society will become hierarchical but safe.  If we redistribute and only a few work hard then society will have less discomfort but more fragility.  At least, that’s the theory. The left tolerates fragility and the right tolerates discomfort. It really boils down to that simple a difference.

    What economists do agree upon is that stimulating demand (consumption) stimulates the economy and does it quickly.  What they disagree upon is the good or bad consequences that come from stimulating the economy. The different economic strategies insert money into the economy in a range from very short to very long time frames.

    And the political ideologies are biased toward these two time frames: conservative the long term and liberal the short term.  In effect, the left wants the most redistribution possible right away in order to diminish the stress of the natural difference between teh classes, and think incentives are a means of coercion, and the right wants a meritocratic society where people have an incentive to be productive. (These are simply expressions of the feminine and masculine reproductive strategies. Nothing more.) 

    The different economic tactics below are organized from short term (liberal) to long term (conservative).  Economists tend to fall into camps that PREFER one or more of the tactics. 

    The Economic Tactics:
    a) Modern Monetarists (MMT): when necessary, just give money directly to people in order to stimulate consumption.  MMT is a counter intuitive theory that is widely disputed.  But the idea that we should be able to bypass the financial sector and directly credit consumer bank accounts is not a bad one. The data shows that tax incentives are not useful in the short term. (I was one of the people advocating that we just pay down consumer mortgages by 200K – it would be cheaper than letting the world economy collapse for a decade. Galbraith recommended the same thing before he died. And he and I are at opposite ends of the political spectrum.)   The counter arguments are that there isn’t any way to do this today, and it’s pretty hard to not create a moral hazard, and it’s pretty hard to be equitable, because you’re effectively rewarding people who used bad judgement.  FAVORED BY THE RADICAL LEFT

    b) Monetary Policy: when necessary, reduce the cost of credit (interest rates) so that people are more willing to borrow money. This puts cheap money into the banking system and money works its way through consumers and business into the economy.  This works well in ordinary times mostly as fine tuning, but when we are subject to shocks, like the recession, we can’t make money cheap enough that people actually will spend it. Right now, given the rate of inflation, money is effectively free to borrow. But people still aren’t lending or borrowing.  There is wide consensus that monetary policy is necessary under fiat (monopoly) money.  There is wide consensus that monetary policy can decrease the problems of money shortage compared to the gold standard. The criticism is that monetary policy exaggerates booms and busts.  WIDESPREAD CONSENSUS OTHER THAN LIBERTARIANS

    c) Fiscal Policy (Keynesians) : when necessary, the government borrows (or prints) and spends money on all sorts of programs in order to put money into the economy using the goverment’s spending network.  The problem is that it does take some time to work its way into people’s hands. There are not “shovel ready’ projects available and they take time.  And the real reason people object is because it finances political corruption, and the party in power tends to spend it in partisan fashion. (WHich is why the republicans won’t allow it right now.)  The other reason is that people just don’t trust the government any longer.  So they don’t want to reward the government.  The third reason is that conservatives in particular do not want to expand the government, but contract it.  FAVORED BY THE LEFT

    d) Industrial Policy: the government should (as do most other countries) invest in particular industries that will create jobs and lead to a competitive advantage.  INdustrial policy is usually accompanied by TRADE POLICY (import export controls and taxation).  The asian countries have used these policies to their benefit. China in particular.  The right and libertarians abandoned industrial policy and moved to free trade when the unions allied with the left.  But industrial policy is naturally attractive to the right.  For all intents and purposes, industrial policy has been abandoned in the USA. FAVORED BY THE RIGHT, DESPISED BY LIBERTARIANS.

    e) Human capital policy (Education) : Education policy is the means of improving the competitive value of citizens in relation to other countries.  It takes a very long time for  education policy to take effect.  The germans have demonstrated the best understanding of education. Although most americans would find their model invasive.
    FAVORED BY THE RIGHT, FAVORED BY LIBERTARIANS, ACTIVELY UNDERMINED BY THE LEFT.

    f) Strategic Policy (Military Policy): control of global trade routes, oil, and petro dollars is one of the most important reasons for the USA’s standard of living, despite the relative lack of competitiveness of it’s working classes.  This is a very complex and long topic, but strategic policy IS ECONOMIC POLICY.  The average american gets a pretty big return on his military expenditures. But that’s an unpleasant reality for many.  Strategic policy takes a very long time to play out. But most countries engage in it.  Iran for example is trying to become the core state of islamic civilization and control world oil supplies and prices, and by doing so, eliminate the discount that western citizens pay for oil. 
    FAVORED BY THE RIGHT, DESPISED BY LIBERTARIANS AND THE LEFT

    This needs to be a book length topic but hopefully it illustrates that political philosophy and economic philosophy are two different things.  But that economic philosophy is divided into specialties that correlate with the different sides of the political spectrum.

    One thing is for certain: economists will talk as if they are far more certain than they are or can be. We are too inexperienced in the field of economics, and the problem is far too complex for us to be sure of what we are doing. In effect, we are running a very big experiment on humanity. It seems to be working reasonably well. But some patients are definitely harmed in the process.  The most important of which is that we are expanding the population to questionable levels.

    (I have a splitting headache so i will have to come back and check this for edits this later.  -Cheers)

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-different-philosophies-of-economics

  • Political Movements: How Globally Influential Are Nazi And Fascist Factions?

    ( Pretty bad answers so far. I’ll try to help. )

    I can speak to the US, UK, Germany and Greece, all of whom have  active movements at present — with England’s two groups currently the most activist and noticeable.  Although in Greece, the degree of stress and the Greek problem of Turkish immigration into Europe (akin to Mexican in the states) is the fuel for an rapidly expanding movement.

    The fascist (Nazi) movements consist largely of working class males.  In these countries, the movements generally expand during times of economic duress.  This is because of a variety of factors but largely that these males are displaced by competition from immigrants.  (There is some suspicion but not good data, that it is driven by difficulties in finding mates as well, since mates are a status symbol.) Their concern in this regard is not without merit, really.  In their view, they tow the social line, adhere to rules and norms, and are not rewarded for it, and instead are displaced both economically and socially. So they see society as ‘unfair’ to them.

    These movements are not large. In the single digits of suport. (Although in the UK they have managed to capture of few seats recently.  But because these movements are vocal and somewhat frightening, they get a lot of press. Consequently, the governments tend to be highly concerned about them. In no small part because they are subgroups of a supposedly social majority that is not satisfied with the state of affairs, thus invalidating the existing government, and posing a threat to the dominant political ideology.  It’s probably useful to keep in mind that a) chaos and loss of faith in a government can occur more easily in a country than we assume  b) a revolution only requires that five to ten percent of a population be united and willing to deploy violence in some organized fashion. So it is not irrational to take these groups seriously if they have any chance of getting above five percent support of the population.

    But in real terms they are not so much politically influential as they are a measure of dissatisfaction that is so great that it is driving some percentage of the population to advocate violent change to the status quo.  Their very presence is a meaningful yardstick.

    https://www.quora.com/Political-Movements-How-globally-influential-are-Nazi-and-fascist-factions