Constitutional Anomalies

Constitutional Anomalies Tibor R. Machan As a lay student of the law, it has always struck me odd that in the U. S. system the First Amendment to the constitution exempts the ministry and journalism from government regulation while it appears to accept the regulation by all levels of government of numerous professions and enterprises. In very general terms, this clearly amounts to a kind of unjust discrimination. Why should people doing work at churches, ministries, newspapers, publishing houses, think tanks, universities and the like have their full--unalienable--right to liberty protected, including from governments across the board--federal, state, municipal, etc.--while other citizens who work in hospitals, factories, shops, corporate offices, etc., and so forth are subjected to onerous government regulations by some fellow citizens who have not gained the consent of these to be treated by them this way? What justifies this unequal protection of the law for millions of citizens who have done nothing illegal, who aren’t being punished or penalized for any malpractice? Think of the widely accepted prohibition of prior restraint where journalists or authors are concerned. Why is this upheld while no such prohibition is in place when it comes to auto mechanics, engineers, farmers and hundreds of other professionals in our supposedly free country? This is clearly colossal injustice. When I mention this concern to some of my mainstream colleagues in the law, their eyes tend to glaze over or roll, as if I were suggesting something truly absurd, even vicious. Yet all I am suggesting is that some citizens in this allegedly free country are treated without regard to what seems to be an elementary tenet of justice which is that without having done violence to anyone, none must be imposed upon, subjected to various burdens and expenses, ones that if they were to resist would land them in prison. Consider, also, the practice of professional licensing, something a few others, too, have found to be anomalous in a free society. The late Milton Friedman was one of those who made no secret of his opposition to it. Such licensing is surely reminiscent of certain aspects of the doctrine of feudalism, where some members of a royal court impose their judgment on perfectly innocent citizens--well, in that system they would have been subjects--simply because they believe their judgment is superior to that of the citizens or God gave them the authority to do so. Indeed, the entire institution of government regulation of anything is party to this anomaly. I want to cry out, “Who are these people anyway that they have the audacity to coerce others to be obeyed?” Aren’t we past the age of such rule of some by others in at least most Western societies? From the moral point of view, only if one has consented to be ruled, governed, manhandled, etc.--as one consents to one’s dentist, doctor, personal trainer, coach, or dance instructor--is it permissible for these others to order one about. And, of course, children may be ordered by their parents in light of their dependent status, their legal immaturity. But once one has grown up, reached the age of maturity, such authority by others is supposed to have vanished and only if they have given their permission to be regulated, regimented by someone else, does such treatment of them become acceptable. (Some exceptions exist with incapacitated persons.) Why is there no widespread outrage about these matters? Citizens are not supposed to be subjects and handled like serfs or involuntary servants? One would think in the supposed leader of the free world, the United States of America, more citizens would show their dismay about such matters.

Machan's Archives: The Real Scoop on Public Service Unions, Part I and II

Machan's Archives: The Real Scoop on Public Service Unions Part I In the wake of Governor Scott Walker's survival of a recall vote, initiated by friends of Wisconsin's public service unions, let explore again just why such unions are perverse. Bona fide Labor unions work within a free market system where firms compete for customers who are normally able to switch from sellers of wares and services if they want to. Public works are noncompetitive, however. Workers who belong to public unions conduct their labor negotiations without their employers facing any competitors. The USPS, for example, has a monopoly over first class mail delivery; teachers at public schools are working for monopolistic employers--students must attend school and the funds are confiscated through taxation and not obtained through voluntary exchange. So, as the saying goes, public workers have the taxpayers over a barrel--there are no alternatives and in most cases one cannot refuse to deal with these workers. So public workers unions are not genuine free market agents. As such they are able to have their terms met by the taxpaying public basically at the point of a gun. The public must deal with these workers otherwise they face legal sanctions. There is nowhere else to go apart from moving out of the state to another where the same situation obtains, where once again public unions possess monopoly powers and customers have nowhere else they can turn to get a different deal or to avoid dealing altogether. In a genuine free market place unionization would involve organizing workers in a firm that competes with others for customers and with which customers are free not to enter into trade. So the unions would not be able to engage in extortionist practices, making demands that must by law be met. If one’s child attends a public--or, as some prefer calling them, government--school, and teachers decide they want a higher salary or other benefits, the option of leaving the school doesn’t exist because one will be taxed to pay for it anyway. The same basic setup exists when it comes to any public work and unions. So for these folks to unionize is quite unjust. Indeed, the rationale behind public works is not the same as behind private works. In the latter all the parties are involved so as to get the best deal they can find and bargaining occurs to bring this about. Public works, however, are supposed to amount to public service, something done not for profit but as a commitment to the public good or interest. Anyone who views public work as if it were the same as private work is suffering from a misconception or perpetrating a hoax. Accordingly, all the people who work for governments, which are all supported through confiscatory payments--that is, taxation--are strictly speaking ineligible for unionization. Public work in contrast to private business is something legally required and paid for involuntarily. So unlike going to the grocery store, of which there can be several in one’s neighborhood and which one can actually avoid if one decides to do with little food and household supplies, in the case of public services citizens are not free to deal with others or walk away from the providers. Clearly, then, the original idea of labor organization into unions does not fit the public service situation. Unfortunately, this is rarely kept in mind. Thus when in Wisconsin or anywhere else for that matter public service employees are insisting on retaining the benefits they have obtained through bargaining with the government they were getting a very special deal. Public policy imposed their services on the citizenry and now the citizenry is no longer able to come up with the loot previously extracted from them via what comes to extortionist means. Yet, because much of the population--egged on by people who would very likely just as soon impose public services on everyone in every line of work (just check out Paul Kurgman’s column in The New York Times last Monday [2/21/11])--has sympathy for the usual laborer or worker when these are often dealing with powerful firms in a free market, the unions are getting a free pass in their current conflict with their employers. This situation needs to be seriously reexamined. It may indeed imply that the entire idea of public service, let alone public service unionization, is misguided. Part II Just now in many states of the country, including California, there is a crisis brewing in the public service employment region. No longer are public service employees expected to be motivated by service, as distinct from their private sector colleagues who are pretty much looking for the best deal they can strike with potential employers. In public service work one is supposedly doing part of one's labor from a sense of devotion to the public good, not from the private motive! Or so you may have thought. Consider, however, why labor unions exist in a free society: to facilitate employees' efforts to improve their bargaining power in negotiating with employers. This, in turn, presupposes a free market system. Employees are free to organize into unions so as to bargain and get a good deal and employers are free to hire different workers whose offer they prefer to those of the organized group's. But most importantly, prospective customers are free to find some other firm from which to purchase goods or services, ones not seriously encumbered by crippling labor disputes. Now public workers are different because they work for public or government agencies that are usually monopolies. Only one first class mail delivery outfit, the US Postal System; only one source of "free" education for which property owners are forced to pay, etc. You get the point. So when public workers threaten to strike, there is usually nowhere for the customers to go to purchase the services they want other than the government agency that employs these public workers. When public workers organize into a union and threaten to go on strike, their employers are the only game in town. There is nowhere else the customers can go to obtain these services, no competition with public agencies and, therefore, with public services workers. Now this is patently wrong. If customers aren't free to shop elsewhere, if they are hostage to the government agencies providing the public service, those who work for those agencies ought not to be able to threaten and walk of their jobs. That's especially so with the likes of members of teacher unions whose income depends upon confiscated resources, obtained via taxation. In free markets if the employees want to use their sizable numbers to improve their bargaining power, they aren't the only one's with such clout. Customers can also leave the employee and shop elsewhere for their wares without breaking the law. But if taxpayers want to change the employers with whom they want to deal, those in public schools or private ones, they aren't free and will be breaking the law if they stop paying taxes. All the wrangling about public service unions and how they are able to secure for their members enormous retirement benefits tend not to take these points into consideration. These unions are very different from labor unions in free market systems where such workers must compete with others and offer terms to employers that are not impossible to meet and which competing workers are free to contest. They aren't exorbitant as are the pay demands of a great many public service unions, especially in the state of California. And while economists use the term "demand" to characterize what customers want from providers, actually no demands are in play at all--they are just proposals from which the parties can walk away until the deals have been struck. But in the case of public service employees there really are demands being made--"You will pay us this, or we walk off the job and no other options for obtain our kind of work are available to you!" America is supposed to be a free country, as are in fact all others supposed to be, and here some semblance of such a country had been attempted. But public service unions, as many other "pseudo-market" agents--companies receiving subsidies and protection from foreign competition--are subverting this attempt. It is high time to put an end to it all.

Markets & Generosity

Markets and Generosity Tibor R. Machan A frequent though quite unjustified charge against free markets is that they encourage what Karl Marx called the cash nexus or, as it is also put, commodification, treating people as items for sale. The claim is that when people engage in commerce, they are hardhearted, stingy, or as the Oliver Stone and OWS crowd would have it, greedy. But this is a complete distortion. It’s been with us for centuries, starting with how Plato depicted merchants in the Republic, namely, as the lowest rung of humanity, only concerned about the bottom line. Marx made it one of his key criticism of capitalism, namely, that the right to private property is a defense of selfishness. But the claim is very imprecise. The right to private property does secure for one the freedom to make use of one’s life, liberty and property as one judges fit. Yet this can involve distributing one’s labor and resources for charitable purposes, as is well demonstrated by the vast sums wealthy people give away to others. What the critics resent is that they do not get to dictate to those with property rights, that property rights secure people’s liberty to determine how they will act, what they will do with what belongs to them. The critics want to be in charge of everyone’s wealth, which is why they support the public ownership of resources, the means of production, with the concomitant policy that the state, who would of course be the critics, gets to say to what end those means will be dedicated. Anyway, just a few examples of how those in markets are often the farthest thing from greedy can help one appreciate how wrong the critics are about people whose property rights are secure. Not only do some very wealthy people freely part with their wealth for purposes such as helping the poor or the sick or supporting the arts and sciences. In the market place, right where commerce is supposed to have replaced generosity with greed, there are many instances of helpful conduct. I often find that the tiny screws in my eye glasses get loose when I travel and I then seek out a shop where glasses are sold and repaired and ask for help with my problem. Invariably, really, when I ask what the charge is for getting this service, I am waved away with the remark that there will be no charge at all. And this kind of thing happens all over the free market place! It refutes the charge that market processes drive out other forms of human interaction. Indeed, in markets friendships are created, even romance is sparked. The idea that human beings in markets cannot take their eyes off the buck is bunk. Anyone making such a claim must be either ignorant or desperately bent on demeaning human freedom, just as Marx did when he said that the right to property corrupts us to do nothing but act greedily. The fact is that people multitask in markets. They have many different motivations they can fulfill. Yes, mostly in markets they attempt to strike a good economic deal but that’s only a small part of the story. Just as people at a party do not simply seek to have fun but now and then will search out professional advice and even an economic opportunity or two, so in the forums were the main focus is advancing one’s economic well being, to strive to prosper, they often take a break and do something very different. Not to acknowledge this reveals rank prejudice, not any kind of grasp of how things work in the market place.

The Distortions Never Went Away

The Distortions Never Went Away Tibor R. Machan I have been reading into Herbert Croly’s The Promise of American Life (1909). Croly was the founder of The New Republic, which has remained a foremost middle way publication on the American political scene, a champion of the welfare state, of a half way between capitalism and socialism. The central theme of the book is that America should be made into a country that promotes “the welfare of the whole people,” the policy “intelligently informed by the desire to maintain a join process of individual and social amelioration.” Socialism is the idea that what counts for most is the social whole, even humanity in its entirety. Individualist capitalism focuses, instead, on protecting the rights to life, liberty and property of each individual, leaving it to their own discretion whether to embark on various groups efforts, including the improvement of some “whole,” whatever that would be. (As Margaret Thatcher famously said, there is no society as such, suggesting that there are in fact only human individuals who come together in various ways--family, club, corporation, orchestra, choir, team, and so forth. As with my college classes, they are merely useful fictions, the only reality being the students who comprise them.) What American leftists have tried to do is create some kind of hybrid, one that merges the individualist and the collectivist systems of various Platonic dreamers. America itself has been an experiment in which the hybrid has been rejected as futile and even vile, usually an excuse for some in society ruling the rest. Just as Croly and all who have followed him have argued, of importance to the detractors has been some kind of group--the tribe, or race or ethnic bunch or whatever. Even now the major domestic opposition to the American alternative is the communitarian, welfare statist regime, such as the one recently promoted very vigorously by Harvard professor of government, Michael Sandel, in his recently published attack on individualism, What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2012). Never mind all the distortions and mistakes in the book, no more valid than those in Croly’s published in 1909. Same old, same old. Individuals are isolated, heartless, etc., markets lead to alienation and such, la di da di da. Paul Krugman pedals this twice weekly on the Op Ed pages of The New York Times, claiming that the country is in the grip of market fundamentalism, something that has never been so in America, let alone elsewhere. (The idea of a fully free market economic system has never swept the country except in some academic corners where a few economists hold forth mostly! Even for them it has only been a theoretic model, little more than that. This has all been laid out quite well by Karl Marx who claimed that in such a system a cash nexus dominates and everyone is commodified, made into an object for sale.) What is interesting is that despite the fact that the mixed economy has been the rule in America for as long as there has been an identifiable economic order, those who want to reject all parts of capitalism, all elements of economic freedom and install a planned system (presumably with them and his ilk running it all) have lied and lied about just how pervasive freedom is. Sure, relatively speaking America has had greater freedom in the economic realm than have had other countries, although this must always be qualified with the historical fact that slavery, which was the darling of the socialist George Fitzhugh, violates all tenets of capitalism. (Fitzhugh defended, as Wikipedia points out, “racial and slavery-based sociological theories in the antebellum era.” He held that "the negro is but a grown up child" who needs the economic and social protections of slavery and maintained the socialism is the system under which this can best be realized!) Do folks like Sandel ever point this out? Does Krugman mention that market fundamentalist hasn’t ever swept America? No. The truth doesn’t advance the cause of a failed system like socialism (or its miniature version, communitarianism). So big lies must be deployed to block out the truth, namely, that America has had mostly a mixed economy and full free enterprise hasn’t ever been tried here. And the biggest one of these lies is in what the era had been self-designated, namely, the progressive era! “Progressive” my foot--it is the most reactionary movement the country has ever seen.

Machan's Archives: Is Commerce Decent?

Machan's Archives: Is commerce decent? Tibor R. Machan It is not a waste of time to revisit the topic of business bashing, especially in light of President Obama’s current attacks on wealth creation. He says prefers job creation, as if the latter were possible without the former. (Well, in a tyrannical system it may be, for a while; the population could be coerced to work, in, say, labor camps, even if no one were to want the work being performed! Public works projects have something of this about them, actually!) Some might consider it odd to question whether business or commerce are decent endeavors but given that business is held in low esteem by many cultural commentators, as well as by Hollywood, by pulp fiction writers like John Grisham, by famous directors such as Oliver Stone, and playwrights like the late Arthur Miller (whose Death of a Salesman depicts commerce as a pathetic, lowly profession), the question is not at all negligible. And then there are the likes of Harvard University professor of government, Michael Sandel, whose recent book What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets, alleges that there is not much of moral worth to what happens in free markets! (Not that there is anything new about any of this. Earlier Charles Baudelaire, the famous and widely admired French poet, had said that "Commerce is satanic, because it is the basest and vilest form of egoism. The spirit of every business-man is completely depraved.") Should we accept this condemnation of a field of work—and its practitioners—that has managed to create prosperity and wealth for not only those who succeed in it but those who are indirect beneficiaries of its products such as universities, museums, and think tanks? Most people take it for granted that medicine, education and science have merit and those doing work in those fields are doing the right thing. They can claim credit for having chosen a fine calling or vocation. But the same is not so with business. A clear indication of this is that there is a great deal of talk about the social responsibility of corporations, and how companies should give back to the community in contributions, something few other professionals hear of. Are college professors being implored to do likewise? No, because their work is deemed to be worthwhile in and of itself. And why is it necessary for people in business to "give back"? Have they committed theft so they need to atone for it by returning the goods they stole? No, there is something else behind the hostility toward business. Throughout human history, East and West, commerce has been demeaned. Plato depicted the trader as a lowly sort in his most famous dialogue, the Republic. Of all types of sinners who gather in the temple, Jesus picked on the money lenders and the Prince of Peace violently attacked them, sending a signal that Christianity seems to have embraced throughout its history. The idea that money may be lent for interest is still attacked by some moral philosophers, as if foregoing the benefits of liquid assets does not deserve to be compensated. Is this all OK? Should we be ashamed when we embark upon a career in business? Is it a lowly profession? Say, akin to prostitution or being a prison guard at a concentration camp? If the answer is no, as I believe it should be, why have so many prominent figures shown utter contempt for commerce and its professional arm, business? What accounts for this? A good place to begin is with Aristotle, the famous ancient Greek philosopher who had little respect for activities aimed at prosperity. He believed that the highest form of human life is that which is devoted to contemplation. Theorist who contemplate the eternal verities are doing the most honorable thing, and this idea is still with us. Professors and educators in general are usually held in high esteem. The Nobel Prize is usually given to theoreticians, not those who put theories into practice. The bad guys in novels, movies and TV are usually ones trying to make a profit. One problem with Aristotle's ethics is that he believed what is exclusively important in our lives is that we have minds. And to be good for him meant for us to be exclusively focused on what the mind uses, namely, ideas. Intellectuals, then, seem to live the most if not the only worthy lives. This is not really true, however. We are not just mental beings - we are embodied. And we need to be good at applying our thinking to all facets of our being, not just to abstract ideas. We need to succeed as living, thinking biological entities not only as intellectuals. (Of course, there is much debate on just what Aristotle meant. But what we might call “intellectualism” has been the most influential aspect of his ethical reflections.) Oddly enough, it is one of the main virtues Aristotle himself identified, namely, prudence which gives commerce and business their clear link with morality. To be frugal, industrious, and heedful of the bottom line is something demanded by prudence, provided we view ourselves not simply as mental but as biological (albeit thinking) entities. Such an understanding of human life shows that professionals in business are doing important tasks, every bit as much as do professionals in medicine, science, education or engineering. Which does not mean, of course, that such professionals cannot fall prey to the temptation of corruption. But this is no less true in education, science or any other profession. There are quacks in medicine, frauds in science and so on, just as there are cheats in business. But as a profession, business isn't like white slavery, pimping or fatal drug pushing, endeavors that are inherently morally questionable. Why is all this of significance? Especially after September 11, 2001, where terrorism was directed at both the major substance and the greatest symbol of commerce, the World Trade Center, it should be evident that whether business is a good thing is disputed even today—again I point to President Obama’s hostility toward wealth creation—never mind the evident beneficial nature of the institution. Not everyone follows what is evident or reasonable. Moreover, many who embark upon business, professionally or otherwise, haven't the faintest notion of what makes this profession worthwhile or if they do they have a hell of a time articulating the case for it. They engage in it absent-mindedly and when challenged do not know what makes it honorable apart from its contribution to the wealth of a nation! There are many people in business who even look upon what they do with self-deprecation and cynicism. They see themselves as so called practical people who have abandoned naïve idealism and thus can pursue business because, well, they do not care whether it is immoral, amoral or moral. Certainly such people aren't going to make convincing defenders of this very large element of Western culture. And a defense the institution does require, given the bad press it has had throughout history and continues to get from many circles—philosophical, theological, ethical and cultural. Furthermore, when professionals turn cynical about what they do, they aren't going to be inclined to worry about doing it properly, ethically. So, in consequence of widespread business bashing the practices of business can suffer. The usual approach is to say that all that matters is whether the law is obeyed, never mind about ethics and decency. The law, however, is not a sufficient guide to proper business conduct because it changes from country to country, even state to state. Unless those in business are guided by certain sound principles of business ethics, they will eventually lose their way. It is sometimes held that philosophy and its various branches are for people who are lost in the clouds, absent minded people, but this is a good example where that view just doesn’t cut it. Without some understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of both the criticism and the defense of business, the profession will always suffer from moral ambiguity. And that means it is going to be unstable and morally suspect. None of this means that all people in business need to become well versed in the field of intellectual history. But they need to be aware that sometimes they might have to dip into that field, consult those who have contributed to the on-going dialogue about the merits of trade, commerce, finance, capitalism, market processes and so forth. They need to be aware that there is such a conversation going on and it has strong implications for the way business is understood and depicted throughout the world. And it may even have an impact on how people in business are treated, whether respected or held in contempt, something that as we know can have a powerful impact on the lives of those professionals. There is a lot of discussion afoot about the origins of the Holocaust but it is not mentioned often enough that one thing that contributed to it is the hatred of business. Jews, unlike Christians, did not have any religious objections to trade and finance, quite the contrary. When they settled in Christian countries, they were usually the ones who took up commercial trades. Often this gave them considerable clout, for which they were then despised, resented, even envied. This is not a negligible portion of the story of one of human histories worst events. (And it is important, also, to realize that despite being Jewish himself, Karl Marx found the Jews open to severe criticism on the grounds that they were the quintessential capitalists, traders! This is not all that far from why the Nazis found Jews objectionable.) People in business, like those in engineering and medicine, work in a field that unabashedly champions life here on earth. As such, their work is not always well received and is often demeaned, in fact. For capitalism, free markets and commerce in general to gain moral standing, this needs to be rejected and the reasons why the critics are misguided need to be understood—even by those in business, sometimes! A good beginning might be to explore the implications of another observation made by Charles Baudelaire, namely that "Commerce is natural, therefore shameful." What if someone said this about medicine or science in general? Think about it! ------------------------------------ Tibor Machan is co-author, with James E. Chesher, of The Business of Commerce; Examining an Honorable Profession (Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 2000).

Column on Wealth vs. Job Creation?

Wealth versus Job Creation? Tibor R. Machan “When you’re president, as opposed to the head of a private equity firm, your job is not simply to maximize profits,” said president Obama recently. He added, “Your job is to figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot. Your job is to think about those workers who get laid off, and how do we pay for their re-training?” Obama continued: “My job is to take into account everybody, not just some. My job is to make sure that the country is growing not just now, but 10 years from now, 20 years from now.” To begin with it is not the job of the president of the United States of manage the country’s economic affairs. His job is to administer a system of public policies aimed at protecting everyone’s rights as a citizen. That means everyone’s rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness or, in short, the liberty of all. Not the welfare or employment or happiness of all but everyone’s right to pursue these values. Just like the cop on the beat, the task isn’t to get everyone to where he or she is going but to secure everyone’s liberty to go wherever he or she wants to go, including, if that’s how the citizenry chooses, staying put. (Freedom has no particular goal; it has to do with making it possible for citizens to choose their goals, so long as these are peaceful ones.) But there is also Mr. Obama’s colossal ignorance of economics: jobs are created when wealth is spent! So, when some firm, be it a ma and pa grocery story or a massive equity corporation, makes profits, those who own the profits, the wealth Mr. Obama so callously demeans, then proceed to spend on various goods and services they wish to have. No one just wants wealth--a bunch of resources sitting in a bank or wherever. The wealth is supposed to serve as a means to obtain one’s children’s healthcare, education, the family’s vacation, recreational facilities, etc., etc. And all of this is produced by people with jobs. Without the wealth, the jobs dry up. So when capitalist institutions enable those who earn profits with their efforts, they are as close to creating jobs as anyone can possibly get. How else does Mr. Obama imagine jobs are created? By taxing the citizenry and taking the funds so taken and investing them in public works projects? But that’s shooting in the dark--how would those in government know which projects will generate bona fide instead of sham jobs? One major element of a free market economy is that it is the sphere where people spend the profits they have earned through the purchase to stocks, through investing in successful enterprises, spending from which jobs are created. It is indeed wealth that creates jobs, what else would? From the tiniest expenditure of a child who is spending a miniscule allowance to a humongous bonus earned by an executive who steered a firm toward immense profits, it is such wealth that leads to the creation of jobs. When the wealth is spent, entrepreneurs figure out what it is that those who spend it want to purchase and proceed to support enterprises that produce this. That is how employment comes about, not from fanciful government projects which may or may not fulfill the wants and needs to people who go shopping. Once again we witness Mr. Obama attempting to discredit the free market place and replace it with government managed “economic” policies. Shame on him and let’s hope his ruse is noticed by those considering sending him back to the White House.

Machan’s Archives: Did '96 Bill Force People to Work?

Machan’s Archives: Did '96 Bill Force People to Work? Tibor R. Machan As The New York Times would put it, when in 1996 “President Bill Clinton delivered on his pledge to ‘end welfare as we know it’...he signed into law a bill forcing recipients to work and imposing a five-year limit on cash assistance.” Back then this supposedly cruel deed was one “Hillary Rodham Clinton supported.” The Times says that “some accused the Clintons of throwing vulnerable families to the winds in pursuit of centrist votes as Mr. Clinton headed into the final stages of his re-election campaign.” Now just consider the way The Times words all this. By ending parts of the welfare state, the bill amounted to “forcing recipients to work, etc.” That is like claiming that when one no longer provides support to certain people who become accustomed to getting it, one is “forcing them to fend for themselves.” In fact, of course, it was the government that was forcing all those it taxes to support the recipients in the first place and with the bill in 1996 it finally lessened the load on them. Taxation is what amounts to deploying force against people. Welfare is a form of coercive support. But support should never be coerced but provided only voluntarily by fellow citizens to those who are in need of it. But for The New York Times--and this is in a news report, not an editorial opinion--withdrawing some of this forced transfer counts as forcing people to work! But nothing forces anyone to work other than the fact that one needs to earn a living, needs to feed and clothe oneself. It is, to put it bluntly, reality that applies the force. It wasn’t Bill Clinton, Congress, or the supportive First Lady. Here is a good case of journalistic bias which is disguised within a so called straight news report. By wording the “report” as The New York Times did, the newspaper’s editors and writers tried to make it appear that those who aimed for the contraction of the massive welfare system were perpetrating some kind of oppressive action against welfare recipients. But just isn't so. In the welfare system it is politicians and bureaucrats who are forcibly confiscating funds from citizens, by means of taxation, in behalf of prospective welfare recipients. It may well be true that these welfare recipients are in need of help but what they ought to do is solicit the help, not take part in extorting it, from other people. It is not charity or generosity when government agents zoom down upon us every year on April 15th or so, and forcibly take from us what is no one else’s resource but our own. If we decide to send some of these resources to needy people, that’s charity, that’s generosity, that’s kindness. But if Congress and the President of the United States hand over the loot they have taken, to welfare recipients, that’s something entirely different--forcible confiscation and redistribution, that what. Some people tend to think of Robin Hood when they consider the nature of the welfare state but they are mistaken in doing so. What Robin Hood did was to retake resources confiscated in taxes from those who took them and return these to the victims. That part of the legend is rarely acknowledged. Thus, the government is anything but akin to Robin Hood, quite the opposite--it is the culprit or villain in the legend. This is something The New York Times might have reported instead of insisting on making it appear that in 1996 Bill Clinton & Co., including the supportive Hillary Rodham Clinton, set out to oppress welfare recipients. Granted, the entire policy may have been a scam to gain Bill Clinton support from American voters who believed that the welfare state needs to be cut back, perhaps even abolished. Given Mrs. Clinton’s belief in “a commander-in-chief of the economy,” I have little doubt that she has no principled objection to such a state and is probably bent on expanding it now that she believes most Americans no longer find much wrong with coercive wealth redistribution. What The Times ought to have done is gone on record, on the editorial page, arguing that such coercive redistribution is just fine so far as it is concerned, not try to hoodwink readers in a news story into thinking that the force is applied by those who want to cut back welfare rather than those who support it.

Short Note on the Facebook Mess

A very Short Note on the Facebook Mess Tibor R. Machan Why is this Facebook stuff everyone's concern? Looks like the marketplace is working here just as it should, quite unpredictably, with unknown winners and losers on the horizon. Is investing now supposed to be a sure thing? Incredible. Investing means taking risks since what one is banking on is other people's upcoming, yet unknown decisions and that's naturally uncertain. All this pining for a sure thing just gives the politicians an excuse to butt in (even though they have no guarantees to offer either).

Seattle, America's Europe

Seattle, America’s Europe? Tibor R. Machan On a recent trip to Seattle, which I visit on and off quite a lot, I found the place to have just the kind of feel I have experienced in Stockholm and Oslo and in cities, big and small, throughout Austria and Switzerland. The main places in the city are very clean, with a lot of public facilities spic-and-span that few in fact seem to use. It is the kind of place that appears to be ruled by people with taste and class, at the expense of everyone who lives there as well as outside the central regions. And of course green rules, except that the city seems to have a greater percentage of cigarette smokers than any other I have visited recently, including New York City, Chicago, Las Vegas and even New Orleans. (Maybe it has to do with how a good smoke goes hand and hand with a fine, dark cup of coffee, such as is sold in zillions of Seattle's coffee shops.) It is not unlike Switzerland and many other places throughout Europe, where the trains run exactly on time but are not actually occupied very much now (since people seem to prefer using private cars on roadways they know they can leave when it suits them so as to take minor or major detours, do a bit of shopping, visit grandma, etc., that cannot be done while using public transportation). It doesn’t appear that there is much fuss about being taxed to fund all the public facilities, apart from the broad concerns about governments going broke everywhere, borrowing billions from future generations the members of which aren’t casting votes about how the money they will be forced to give up is spent. I was especially struck by how similar the towns look, on the way to or from the airport on the train route, to ones in such places as Hamburg and Amsterdam. (I rode the train at about 7 AM on a weekday and there were no passengers to speak up along for the ride.) Of course, I was looking at the homes and commercial facilities from the outside and do not have detailed data on what the various places of residence and business look like inside. (Often some areas that look run down to casual observers turn out to be extremely well kept on the inside, something I discovered on a visit to various Chicago suburbs a while ago.) Anyone familiar with the phenomenon of the tragedy of the commons will very likely realize how it is evident throughout some of the most attractive places around the world--Santiago, Chile; Copenhagen, Denmark; Oslo, Norway and the rest. Because governments can always float bonds and finance the projects of their leaders with debt and money printed for them, there is rank and massive profligacy afoot in these places. Another reason this can go on is that in certain parts of the country, indeed the world, citizens are quite happy to assume debts they are not ever likely to be called upon to pay back. Shops, restaurants, hotels and such are nicely designed and built as a testimony to the good taste of the planners. Never mind that in time there will have to be some kind of adjustment so that those who come up with the services that make all this feasible can be compensated (so they can feed and clothe themselves). The resources for the time being come from tax revenues and borrowed funds, so few care much about the burdens created, the cost that must in the end be covered by the citizenry. Sure, there are always a few who speak out and protest the profligacy but too often they are regarded as party poopers, spoilers of the fun so many are looking forward to. The fact that most of the expenditures are carried out on the backs of millions who do not live in the places that are being spiffied up so nicely, people who work in rural areas--in plants and factories, on docks and farms and other areas where the hard work that earns some real funds is being done--doesn’t bother the ambitious planners in whose minds these beautiful downtowns around the world, including in Seattle and other parts the beautiful people like so very much live, are conceived. The dreamers basically think, “These are such nice ideas that it would be a shame not to make a try at implementing them, never mind the ultimate cost to millions who have to give up their own plans in consequence.” It is all in support of our communities, after all, right? And elites know best what is worth being built, right, never mind who must pay in the end, right? (Kind of like in contemporary Red China where so much of what is being displayed is aimed for the foreign visitor, mostly at the expense of the millions living rather poorly in the hinterlands.)

Machan's Archives: Sandel's Distortions

Machan's Archives: Sandel's Distortions Tibor R. Machan Some people lie without any hesitation. To bring lies to print, however, you need more than liars--you need editors who want the lies to circulate, good and hard. Harvard University political theorist Michael J. Sandel is well know as a critic of the American political tradition of individualism, not so much by forthrightly disagreeing with its principles but, more often, by caricaturing what they actually are. He is a well published professor, with numerous scholarly books and papers to his credit. In recent years he has gone pop, though, with appearances on various television programs and articles in popular magazines. Sandel is renown for misconstruing individualism as nothing but some fanciful vision that champions isolation, social alienation, and some sort of artificial self-sufficiency that can do without friendship, family, and community. If you think I am exaggerating, let me quote from one of Sandel's recent articles in The Atlantic, which is itself an excerpt from his latest book, Democracy's Discontents. Here is one thing he tells the reader, this famous, well positioned scholar of political theory: "The traditional Republicans are uncritical advocates of the free market, free trade and the global economy and at the same time they pose as advocates of community and family values. But it is precisely unfettered markets which are now most responsible for the breakdown of community and traditional values. Walmart, not big government, is responsible for the demise of Main Street across America. But most Republicans won't face up to that contradiction." This passage contains so much distortion that it is difficult to pick which to expose in a brief commentary. But let's try. Traditional Republicans have never been uncritical champions of free markets. From Lincoln to Gingrich, all have agreed to massive government intrusions on the economy, advocated innumerable favors for big business, would not think of abolishing farm subsidies or repealing the interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution. Traditional Republicans have often been complicit in protectionism, even while giving some lip service to free trade. This was true with Reagan and Bush and is still true with many Republican members of Congress. There is no such system as an "unfettered market" anywhere in sight, in any goods or services trading in this country--government regulations from those enacted by city councils all the way to the federal government make sure of that fact and Professor Sandel knows this very well. Finally, the reason that Walmarts, Targets, etc. are overrunning the United States of American and every other nation is only partly a function of some efficiency they provide. Another reason is that small businesses are unable to cope with the thousands and thousands of government regulations. They haven't the capital to fund teams of attorneys to figure out what they may and may not do or mount law suits in case they are found to be in violation of some of the millions of rules governments have decided they must live by. Professor Sandel knows all this, of course, but he is not after offering some kind of objective understanding of American commercial or political life. He, like so many of his left-communitarian cohorts, wants, instead, to create an impression about the polity of liberty. Never mind that he needs to engage in massive distortions in order to achieve this, starting with maintaining the myth that America is true to its free market ideas laid out in the Declaration of Independence. But Sandel does not care about truth, only about his utopian communitarian vision. For the sake of realizing the dream of a well regimented collectivist society, in which the community they think all ought to be made a part of will be imposed on everyone, like it or not, they are willing to commit any kind of intellectual malfeasance. And it seems his cohorts have enough manuscript readers at the presses which publish them not to be called on the carpet for doing so. Maybe what Professor Sandel ought to do is team up with Oliver Stone and pen some fictional accounts of American economic and political history.

Revisiting the Responsibility of Business Managers Tibor R. Machan People buy stocks, shares in a firm, mainly so as to delegate to the officers the job of securing for them economic prosperity. What else did all the folks who purchased the IPOs of Facebook want? (There is, of course, much more to living a successful human life than this but this is certainly not a negligible part of it–why all the fuss about poverty then?) Shareholders look to management for expertise with finances, etc. and those who take such a job promise shareholders this service. This isn’t so different from how people turn to other professionals, in medicine, education and such. When hired, these professionals have a responsibility to do their best to deliver on their promise. Once the shareholders gain wealth from this arrangement, they then are the ones who decide to what use the wealth should be put. They may spend it on their family, on some more or less important cause, on trivial pursuits, a nice vacation, or on a combination of many objectives. That is what property rights is mostly about, namely, to get clear on who is authorized to decide to what use the wealth created by management will be put. Freedom of choice! Just look at all the very wealthy who gain from such an arrangement and then proceed to make huge contributions to the arts, science, charities, etc. But as far as management is concerned they are responsible to produce wealth for the shareholders, just as doctors must care for the health of their patients (who then can devote themselves to all sorts of task in their healthful state). So then what is the problem with the stakeholder/corporate social responsibility view of the moral responsibility of business managers, the currently promulgated idea that business managers should not serve the owners or shareholders with their skills? Well, it plainly flies in the face of reality, which is that shareholders, investors, owners are the ones whom business managers are responsible to serve, just as patients are whom doctors ought to serve. (“Serve” may be a dubious notion here but the point is that the skilled service being provided ought to benefit clients and in the case of private (though publicly traded) companies, these are shareholders, investors, et al.) Those who aim to sneak in a contrary idea are attempting to violate the contractual agreement between clients and professionals. When challenged, the response is that since business firms benefit from various elements of the society in which they operate such as its infrastructure, national defense, police, the legal system, etc., they are not justified to claim that they are the ones who are owed the services of professional managers of the firm. Instead stakeholders are, that is to say anyone with an interest in the business such as employees, neighbors, subcontractors, unions, etc. Although somewhat plausible, unless the benefits were asked and paid for voluntarily, the relationship between firms and stakeholders is artificial and imposed without the consent of those involved. (Of course once the relationship has been imposed by politicians and judges, never mind the choices of the firm’s owners and managers, it is not easy to opt out! But there is no obligation owed to those who imposed the relationship. If I send you a cashier’s check for a thousand bucks, I have no claim on you to do anything for me that you didn’t freely agree to provide. It’s now mine free and clear.) More generally, the assault on private property rights, the rights the exercise of which creates business firms, secure for individuals their liberty to choose how they will make use of their own resources (“property”). That is what private property rights are ultimately about, securing one’s liberty to choose what to do with one’s resources, including one’s labor and time. The claim that because of benefits gained from operating in a society the rights may be violated is a non-sequitur. Moreover, the alternative to owners deciding the disposition of their resources is entirely arbitrary. Who if not the owners and why they? Some answer, that’s to be decided via the democratic method. Yet this begs the question of why others, members of the democratic assembly, are authorized to do so? Who delegated to them this authority? It is a ruse, when all is said. It is an attempt, sadly often successful, to grab unearned resources and the power over those who in fact own them.

Krugman’s Apologetic for Government Regulation Tibor R. Machan Paul Krugman, not unpredictably, once again (in The New York Times, Monday, May 14, 2012) went to bat to hit a home run for government regulation of, well, everyone (except the members of his own profession, namely, eggheads). His piece is titled “Why We Regulate?” but fails to address the most fundamental issue. This is “Who is the ‘we’ in his essay?” And why would "we" be wiser and more virtuous than those whom "we" regulate? Are there, as is implicit in Krugman’s thinking, two classes of human beings, the regulators who are superior, and the regulated who are prone to vice and stupidity? Somehow this issue never gets addressed by him and his allies. Nor do they seem to cope with the critique from public choice theorists such as Nobel Laureate Jim Buchanan, et al., who have pointed out that regulators and other government personnel are motivated pretty much as we all are, and will use their station to advance their preferred goals, not some vague notion of the public interest (which no one has ever managed to identify precisely enough). Since, however, they have political and often unchecked power as well as sovereign immunity--they cannot be sued since they are "us"--they are far more inclined to malpractice than are the regulated (who mostly make mistakes but are rarely out and out mendacious). I have studied government regulation of business for decades--even co-edited, with a fine economist, the late M. Bruce Johnson, the book Rights and Regulation (1983) which explores the topic from a great variety of perspectives, pro and con. Ok, never mind, I am and maybe so was Professor Johnson too low ranked to be worthy of Krugman’s attention. However, Professor James Buchanan and other public choice scholars are formidable within the terms that Krugman should take seriously. (Krugman got his Nobel for some technical work he did, which is rightly admired across the discipline, while Buchanan advanced a general theory in political economy and got the Nobel for that feat, something Krugman ought to recognize by dealing with his argument!) The ordinary issue to be addressed by champions of government regulation of business is, of course, “Who are these people to qualify as regulators--i.e., dictators--of millions of citizens engaged in business?” When the interstate commerce clause was included in the U. S. Federal Constitution by the framers, “to regulate” was widely taken to mean “to regularize.” This makes sense since the helter skelter economic policies among the several colonies had to be regularized once the colonies got united. A free market, more or less, was created without duties and tariffs and such. It is only some among the framers who took “regulation” to mean “manipulation” or “dictation.” But that is how the term got interpreted in the New Deal. But in a free society no such regulation, nor such regulators, make any sense, not when the citizens are all equally endowed by basic rights that no one may violate. Government intrusion in business does, however, violate those rights. Sadly, there hadn’t been sufficient influential protest against the changed usage of “regulate” and the ideological direction of the FDR era was inclined toward top down economic management. Yet, folks like Professor Krugman ought to take up the task of examining government regulation of commerce more fundamentally, more deeply, than simply to accept a highly ideology laden version of the term. I have no idea what reasoning might lie behind the fact that Krugman & Co. do not embark upon a serious examination of government intrusion in business, never ask just who are these people they wish to entrust with the power to order their fellow citizens about. I have my suspicions but I do not wish to deploy the ad hominem approach Krugman himself is so fond of when he deals with his intellectual adversaries.

From Machan's Archives: Business versus Business

From Machan's Archives: Business Versus Business One of Karl Marx's less notable mistakes was his belief that people in the world of business would promote their self-interest. If by self-interest we include, as I believe we ought to, the most rational social-political principles in support of a sound human institution's flourishing, then clearly people in business, not to mention the wealthy, often act in a self-destructive manner. They promote policies that hurt them economically. Examples of such self-destructive business conduct are not hard to identify. Consider Ted Turner, the multi-billionaire mogul, who went to Congress some years ago and asked the politicians in Washington to "shove down the throats of" broadcasters a TV violence rating system, unless the broadcasters adopt one pronto. Or consider how New York City's wonder financier, Donald Trump, wanted legal action take against native Americans who were running gambling establishments, just because they are not forced to pay the taxes he has to pay. Furthermore, consider a decision of the U. S. Supreme Court some years back, followed by some state supreme court rulings, to refuse to place a cap on the amounts of punitive damage money that juries may award to plaintiffs who succeed in proving that some service or product has injured them. (I won't even bother with anti-capitalists like Warren Buffet and George Soros!) In each of these cases it is people in the business community who are advocating getting the government involved in the operations of the market place or to cut some slack for them from the processes of our system of justice. (What is a fine that fits the crime anyway?) Turner's advocacy of government censorship of broadcasting is perhaps the most disgusting of the three examples. Ted Turner, who is rumored to have admired the ideas of Ayn Rand earlier in his career, was actually promoting government's intrusion on freedom of expression. He wanted the First Amendment to be voided when it comes to broadcasting. He should, instead, advocate the extension of First Amendment protection to the entire broadcast industry. He should advocate repeal of the federal law that has established the Federal Communications Commission--earlier the Federal Radio Commission--so that broadcasters and cable television operators could be enjoying the same freedom of communication as do the printed media. Instead, perhaps to appease the left wing liberals with whom he has been so socially chummy, he is asking the state to tell broadcasters how to run their business, what to do about its content, etc. Trump, et al ought to be advocating the reduction of taxation on every front, including when it hurts their immediate, short term business objectives, but instead they cry "unfair" and ask government to hit up the few people who have managed to escape its thievery. Trump ought to use the example of native Americans to point out that taxation is blatantly unjust and it would be best to recognize this fact not only regarding native Americans but all of us who live in this country. But the wunderkind of New York, Atlantic City and Las Vegas seems to lack the integrity and is proceeding in a truly short sighted fashion. Those people in business who want the government to limit the punitive sums juries may award to injured parties evade that such a limitation would be rather arbitrary. No doubt some juries are willing to indulge their collective prejudices against corporations by awarding larger than reasonable punitive sums to victims of corporate malpractice. But the remedy for this is not to subvert the jury system but to embark on a program of giving business a better press, demonstrating to the public that the business bashing attitudes so typical of the liberals are wholly unjust and injurious to our society. The source of jury's prejudices need to be addressed, but not by trying to subvert the jury system. The short cut method taken by too many prominent people in business ultimately undermines the system under which businesses can flourish in a human community. Such an approach--which includes advocacy of protectionist legislation, begging for subsidies, government backed loans, and bailouts, as well as protection of businesses against competition from new entrepreneurs at home and abroad--is surely sabotaging the entire business community, even while it may give a few particular enterprises a temporary leg-up. That business people do not realize how dear a price they are paying for the relief government gives them indicates that they are no less savvy concerning the relationship between politics and business than are academic left wingers who advocate out and out socialism. Marx was wrong--people in business are in fact insufficiently self-interested!

A Potpourri of Issues

A potpourri of Issues, Minor and not so much. Tibor R. Machan Justice Kennedy's observation that the mandate changes the relationship between government and the individual is doubtful since there really are quite a lot of actions that citizens are forced to take, like it or not. Jury duty, for one; sending one's kids to school, for another; submitting to TSA searches if one wants to utilize air traffic, for yet another. And, of course, there is a yearly visit to the USPS to mail off the funds the IRS extorts from the citizenry! Still, yet another step in this direction needs to be seriously resisted. Slippery slopes need not be succumbed to; freedom is too precious to lose because of a history of sloppy judicial reasoning. It's time to take a stand even if precedence makes it look unreasonable. “First priority” is redundant since priority means first “the reason is because/that” “different than/from” “lie versus lay down” “people that/who” “A neighborhood of working people” refers to what kind of neighborhood exactly? Some more language mangling: the use of "a couple..." not completed with "of"; Thus, I read: "...a couple examples..." This one is on the rise.

Revisiting a confusion about basic rights

Revisiting a Confusion about basic rights Tibor R. Machan In his book Basic Rights (Princeton, 1970), Henry Shue argued that there is no valid distinction between negative and positive rights; his argument has recently resurfaced among so called left libertarians (otherwise also known as bleeding heart libertarians), a neologism if there ever was one. (I am tempted to start an association of no-nonsense libertarians to oppose them!) The significance of the point needs to be stressed since if it were valid, it would pretty much consign everyone to the status of a serf or involuntary servant. If we are all by birth obligated to serve other people first and foremost--which is what the doctrine of positive rights or natural entitlements alleges--our sovereignty would be a myth. We would once again be viewed as belonging to others; maybe not the king or pharaoh or czar but to the majority of the people who are ruled by a few “at the top.” The point Shue made is that since negative rights would require being defended in a society for them to have any concrete significance and since providing a defense of them would be the delivery of a service, having the negative right to, say, liberty or life, implies having the positive right to the services of the police and a sundry legal authorities. And so the floodgates are opened: everyone must be made to pitch in to obtain this service, leaving it to some elite to administer such a system. But, not so then and not so now! First, having a negative right to liberty implies that others may not invade one, that a person may not be used against his or her will and not that the right must be defended. Of course, some will refuse to heed this fact and in the face of that it will be very useful to establish institutional protection of people’s natural rights to life, liberty, etc. But first one has to have the right, contrary to some contemporary sophistries about the matter (such as Cass Sunstein’s view that rights are granted by the government!). Then if violations are likely, predictable, etc., a means for protecting rights will most likely need to be found. For example, as the Declaration of Independence makes clear, governments are instituted to secure our rights but that may not be the only means available. (So if someone is powerful enough, no special agency would be required. One could just deter and fend off rights violators on one’s own or with members of one’s family, all, of course, in line with due process.) But more likely in an advanced civilized society some would be hired to provide rights protection. The ensuing obligation to provide the specifics would be a matter of compact or contract. So citizens would then have a contractual or constitutional right to have their basic rights protected. And how this would be realized is an open question, part of jurisprudence. The issue here is only that people have the rights and those rights are negative. Then when they hire those offering the service of providing protection, then they will have the (derivative, secondary, non-fundamental) right to be provided with the protection. It is not easy to know motivations for the obfuscation perpetrated by Shue and his current followers, including some who have the gall to call themselves libertarians; my guess is that once it looks like some basic positive rights--e.g., to be provided with rights protection--have been established, it is easy to move on to other positive rights, such as to health care, unemployment compensation, a good job, a nice home, and so on and so forth, the entire array of entitlements that welfare statists advocate and that impose involuntary servitude on those who are in the position to provide them. Thus what appears to be a case for a libertarian legal order has cleverly been turned upside down so as to support its opposite. It doesn’t wash, however.

Machan’s Archives: “Left Libertarianism: Oxymoron?” Left-Libertarianism—An Oxymoron? Tibor R. Machan, Chapman University 
 Let me state up front that I reject any division of libertarianism into left and right wings. To do so is nearly akin to dividing it into high and low, yellow and blue, or round and triangular versions. Yes, there are quite a few more or less enthusiastic supporters of the division; indeed, reading some of them suggests that they have a lot invested in this effort. However, I find what they are embarking upon, if not outright incoherent, then certainly confusing and a waste of good energy and time that could be devoted to more important elements of the task of advancing the cause of human liberty. Combining libertarianism with elements of the Right or the Left defeats the purpose of conceptual clarity about a certain broad political topic. Historically, neither the Right nor the Left has shown a sustained, uncompromising loyalty to individual human rights to life, liberty, and property, while classical liberalism and especially libertarianism is exactly about such unwavering loyalty, one that requires the proverbial eternal vigilance. By its nature libertarianism is about political liberty for all individuals to do whatever is peaceful or non-aggressive, including acquiring and holding property or valued items either found in nature or obtained through free trade and inheritance. Claiming that libertarianism can include more or less severe limits on the right to private property—imposed by public policy and law—as Left-libertarianism does, simply renders the view indistinguishable from what social democrats and welfare statists propose. It reminds one of market socialism, arguably another oxymoron. Of course, the rejection of this notion as an oxymoron hasn’t by any means been successful in countering various efforts to construct a coherent notion labeled “Left-libertarianism” from the current political philosophical dialogue. Books and articles can be found discussing the position, some of them published in prestigious publications. Several well-known philosophers whose politics is self-identified as libertarian would very likely dispute my claim that the label “Left-libertarianism” is oxymoronic, perhaps out of respect for those who employ it in much of their works. Nonetheless, strictly speaking, what is meant by “Left” in the discipline of political theory and by “libertarian” are conceptually incompatible if one accepts, as I would argue we must, that libertarianism is a theory that includes as one of its central features adherence to the more or less Lockean account of the right to private property. So upon close examination it emerges that Left-libertarianism belongs among efforts, like some others by some people on the Left and the Right, to appropriate a concept alien to its logical purpose. This includes such notions as positive rights, positive liberty, welfare rights, and social justice. Many invoke these notions, but quite arguably they are conceptual corruptions, however much one twists and turns to attempt to render them distinctly meaningful. (Of course, it is not possible to say this with finality, since, for example, tomorrow morning someone could well come up with a use of the idea that has merit.) These notions may not amount to an outright self-contradiction, such as “square circle,” but on analysis they come close. Thus while the Left aims to divorce people from their work, from their valued attributes, and from the products of their labor, libertarianism opposes this and sees one’s property as the extension of oneself into the world outside of oneself—indeed, as an indispensable social condition for a self-directed life. Suppose that someone is very good looking, though not by his or her own efforts. According to Left-libertarianism, the benefits the individual comes by in virtue of these looks are to be treated as not belonging to the agent and thus perhaps to be taxed or simply confiscated by other people. On the Left-libertarian view, one can do all of this without doing violence to individual rights. One of the ways that Left-libertarianism has been rendered palatable has been to associate it with John Locke’s oft-discussed and troublesome idea of “the Lockean Proviso,” according to which Locke says that although the right to private property is a fundamental, natural right of human individuals, if the protection of this basic right were to result in a monopoly of vital goods, it would not be justified to regard it as inviolable. As I have argued elsewhere, however, the Lockean Proviso is little more than a restatement of Locke’s concern that in certain dire circumstances or emergencies those rights are inapplicable. Only “where peace is possible” can there be respect and protection for basic individual rights. This makes sense once one realizes that such rights are what Douglas B. Rasmussen and Douglas J. Den Uyl call “metanormative” principles, that is, ones that provide a framework for peaceful conduct within societies rather than action-guiding principles such as those laid out in a system of ethics. Since such rights serve as the foundation of a just society or legal system, where no such society or system is possible, no such rights could be applicable. The Lockean Proviso, then, is mainly a warning that we not expect justice to be possible everywhere (say, in a back alley or in a region of the world where natural disasters are virtually constant). A central feature of Left-libertarianism is, of course, its challenge to an unqualified right to private property. That’s what makes it “Left,” since those on the Left generally want to control other people’s property; by denying that other people actually own their property, they achieve their goal. How do they propose to do this? They do this by rejecting, as already alluded to, the connection between oneself and one’s attributes and works. So if one has the attribute of being very good looking or healthy and incurs benefits from it, these benefits are now supposed to be available for confiscation even while outright conscription of the individual is rejected. Then why protect one’s right to one’s life, if the living of that life is subject to intervention? This is akin to the point sometimes made that while someone may be imprisoned, this only limits his or her body, not spirit, which remains free. More generally, the effort to distinguish between inalienable and alienable property—between oneself and one’s goods—is misguided. It is rights, not property itself, that is identified as inalienable in the libertarian (Lockean) position and this means not only that one’s right to one’s car or home or firm is not something anyone may violate, but also that it is no violation of one’s rights if one trades or gives away what one has a right to, for example, one’s house or hours of labor. A related matter might be worth considering. One may wonder whether those on the Left, including so called Left-libertarians, would apply their divorce of oneself from one’s works (or other valued attributes, say one’s good looks or health) to their own writings. Why, for example, should an author have full discretion as to what goes into one of his or her works—a book, a paper, an essay, etc.? These are not strictly speaking a feature of oneself, just as some argue that one’s home and car are not. So would these writers argue for limited censorship on the grounds that one has only a limited right to make use of one’s property, including the space in one’s written works? I would often like to have my writings featured in, say, The New Republic or The New York Review of Books or, especially, Philosophy and Public Affairs, but the publishers of these insist that they have an absolute right to determine who will appear in their publications’ pages. Would not Leftists and Left-libertarians consider this wrong and argue that publishers have no such absolute right at all, in the spirit of their objection to absolute private property rights? It appears clear that libertarianism is to be dealt with apart from dealing with the Left or the Right in political theory. The attempt to fuse the Left or the Right with libertarianism just produces confusion; to put it somewhat more formally, deploying the concepts Left and Right here fails to distinguish or differentiate anything of significance in the realm of political theory.* 1 My own involvement in this discussion is precipitated by some having classified those such as myself as “right-wing libertarians,” in virtue of, e.g., our defense of the business corporation as being compatible with libertarianism. I reject being so classified or construing the business corporation, as defended by Robert Hessen in his Defense of the Corporation (Stanford, CA: Hoover Press, 1979), as anti-libertarian. For more, see http://www.enotes.com/topic/Right-libertarianism. 2 One of my books, a collection of some of my columns, is pointedly titled Neither Left nor Right (Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 2004). 3 For a very good discussion of the position, see Barbara H. Fried, “Left Libertarianism: A Review Essay,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 32, no. 1 (Winter, 2004), pp. 66-92. 4 For example, see Peter Vallentyne and Hillel Steiner, eds. The Origins of Left-Libertarianism: An Anthology of Historical Writings (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001); and Peter Vallentyne and Hillel Steiner, eds., Left-Libertarianism and Its Critics: The Contemporary Debate (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001). See also Eric Mack, “Right-Wing Liberalism, Left-Wing Liberalism, and the Self-Ownership Proviso,” in Liberal Institutions, Economic Constitutional Rights, and the Role of Organizations, ed. Karl-Heinz Ladeur (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1997), pp. 9-29; and Eric Mack, “What Is Left of Left-Libertarianism?” (unpublished manuscript). Various websites on the Internet feature more or less serious discussions of the position, for example, by Auburn University philosopher Roderick Long: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/leftlibertarian/. 5 See Tibor R. Machan, “Self-Ownership and the Lockean Proviso,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 39, no. 1 (March 2009), pp. 93-98. I use “self-ownership” quite reluctantly, since I find it incoherent that one’s self could own one’s self. Who here is the owner and what is being owned? However, a generous look at the idea suggests perhaps no more than what Locke held, namely, that one has a natural right to one’s life (not to one’s self). 6 Quoted in H. L. A. Hart, “Are There Any Natural Rights?” in A. I. Melden, ed., Human Rights (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1970), p. 61, n. 2: “In conditions of extreme scarcity this distinction between competition and coercion will not be worth drawing: natural rights are only of importance ‘where peace is possible’ (Locke) . . . .” 7 See Douglas B. Rasmussen and Douglas J. Den Uyl, Norms of Liberty: A Perfectionist Basis for Non-Perfectionist Politics (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2004). *What might be worthwhile is the establishment of a Global Association of No-Nonsense Libertarians!

A great letter by Donald Boudreaux

Programming Director, WTOP Radio Washington, DC Dear Sir or Madam: A listener called your Talk Back line during today's 7am hour to exclaim that "national elections are occasions" in which "candidates and the American people talk to each other about what's important." Please. Enough with these panegyrics about democratic elections. These "occasions" might help to keep political power less concentrated and less dangerous than it would be otherwise, but they hardly promote constructive conversation between candidates and the general public. Such conversation requires candor. But each candidate is interested in winning office rather than in exploring the verities. He would deny the truth of the Pythagorean theorem if he sniffed the slightest political advantage in doing so. And his bevy of lieutenants - ever-present on television and radio talk shows - are selected not for their objectivity but for their skills at chicanery and equivocation. What Adam Smith observed in 1759 remains true today: "A true party-man hates and despises candor; and in reality there is no vice which could so effectually disqualify him for the trade of a party-man as that single virtue."* Sincerely, Donald J. Boudreaux Professor of Economics George Mason University Fairfax, VA 22030 * Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1976 [1759]), p. 259.

The Face of Egalitarianism

The Face of Egalitarianism Tibor R. Machan A few weeks ago they ran the famous Oxford v. Cambridge rowing race on the Thames but a fanatical egalitarian, Mr. Trenton Oldfield from Australia, ruined it for everyone by jumping in the river and blocking the race in the name of resisting the elitism of rowing! He was dubbed in the UK the “anarchist swimmer” and has mounted some other guerrilla strikes to make his point. Among other things he is urging cabbies to take well to do passengers on long detours and cleaners not to place toilet paper where they are expected to serve rich folks. Now some might dismiss this as a mere childish prank by a nutcase but this guy is a London School of Economics graduate. He seems to be taking the goal of leveling very seriously, although his project is incoherent and mostly destructive. (Is someone with a degree from LSE not well to do?) Still, if you are exhorted by the likes of President Obama or by LSE professors--among them, I believe a little while ago, John N. Gray, a former classical liberal who has turned into a post-modernist/Leftist in his latest incarnation--to rip off the rich, who can tell what limits if any there are to this agenda? After all, there are innumerable activities that well-enough to do people undertake that may, along egalitarian lines, be sabotaged. Of course, polo games will have to be attacked; fencing, too, as well as bridge tournaments. And, of course, there are the regattas of all sorts that are the stuff of entertainment and sport for well off folks around the globe. Fine restaurants would have to be on the list, as well, not to mention stores and clubs and car dealerships. (I hesitate to list more since it may encourage one of these SOBs to take up the task!) Actually, any game is fair to such equalizers since whenever one is playing, one might be serving humanity or the poor or the sick, instead. Anything goes, just as that famous philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend used to advocate about how to do science (in his book Against Method, for example). I have a host of emotions welling up when these people take write this material or to the streets or implore us all from university podiums with their insanity. Sure, there is the problem, too, that a river in most places is a public good everyone may use to his or her heart’s content. A private lake would be easier to protect from such terrorists. But never mind that for now. Simple common sense and civility will lead most people to refrain from expressing their political dreams by way of ruining events like that Oxbridge rowing regatta. But what can one expect when the head of the most powerful government in the world advocates the egalitarian project, suggests tax policy based on its aspirations, bashes the rich at every turn? Not that there is anything revolutionary about this; after all, throughout human history there have been philosophers and others who have promoted evil and aggression as the proper objective for people to pursue (the most famous of these being the Marquis de Sade, of course). Still, it is rare that one runs across the likes of Mr. Oldfield in clear public view in a society such as the UK, one who comes right out and identifies the philosophical source of the destructiveness being perpetrated. Come to think of it, though, maybe that is just what is needed--for these maniacs to come out of hiding and show exactly what their warped thinking actually leads to.

Zimmerman's Apology?

Zimmerman’s Apology? Tibor R. Machan The shooter of Trayvon Martin is now said by many to have apologized. All over the media this is being reported, even on Fox TV news. Even though he did nothing of the sort. To apologize implies that one is taking responsibility for something bad. One cannot apologize for a rained out picnic but can for failing to provide umbrellas. What Mr. Zimmerman said in court on Friday April 20 is this: “I am sorry for the loss of your son.” And who wouldn’t be? Saying this doesn’t at all imply that Zimmerman, accused of murdering Mr. Martin, admitted guilt. He, like anyone who grasps the loss of Mr. Martin’s parents, expressed his sorrow. But by characterizing it as an apology, news reporters implicate Mr. Zimmerman in confessing to murder which he certainly didn’t do. I have no stake in this at all. I don’t know if Mr. Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, murder, negligent homicide, or killing someone in self defense. What I do know is that what he said in court on Friday does not amount to a confession. Let’s get this straight.* * I develop the thesis here more fully in “Should You Apologize?” a chapter of my book Libertarianism Defended (Ashgate, 2006)

Rich Bashing Is Unjust and Vicious

Tibor R. Machan

The casual manner in which President Obama proposes that various progressive tax measures be implemented against the so called rich--ones who earn more than two million a year--is indicative of just how deep seated and widespread is the prejudice against wealthy people in the United States of America.

This is the country that had been hailed as the leader of the free world, as substantially capitalist, as mostly enjoying a free market place, etc. It seems however that the team now in charge of administering the laws and public policies of the country hasn’t a clue as to what human freedom or liberty really means. Alternatively, this bunch of politicians and bureaucrats have a corrupt idea of such freedom, well illustrated by an outburst during the U. S. Supreme Court’s hearings of oral arguments concerning the constitutionality of President Obama’s signature policy achievement, generally referred to as Obamacare. The outburst came when someone made the point that it is a violation of a citizen’s right to freedom to mandate that health insurance be purchased by everyone. (I didn’t learn of the source despite looking for it for two weeks.) The substance of it was that those who are being coerced into purchasing health insurance by the individual mandate provision of Obamacare do not have their right to liberty violated; instead it is those who lack such insurance at others’ expense who are so victimized. This is the implication of the now relatively prominent doctrine of positive rights (or liberty).

At the beginning of the country the idea of the right to liberty meant what is now dubbed a negative right. That means that to acknowledge someone’s right to liberty requires that no one is authorized to make the person do anything against his or her own will. It means freedom of choice. One’s right to one’s own life is similarly a negative right, requiring of others only that they refrain from interfering with that life. Not killing, not assaulting, not robbing people is how these negative rights are respected and governments are supposed to be instituted so as to secure such rights in the face of threats or aggression by criminals. Of course, slavery was a rank violation of such rights.

Positive rights, so called, are actually provisions extracted from other people when one needs them. The welfare state is substantially built upon the doctrine of positive rights (or liberty). Because when a citizen does not have the means for achieving various objectives that are important, other citizens are legally required to supply them with such means (mostly fungible funds such as welfare payments or services). Instead of securing everyone the protection of one’s rights to fend for oneself and obtain what is needed for living and flourishing, it is others who are coerced into supplying such provisions. These are the famous “entitlements” that are bankrupting welfare state across the globe. The reason they can be dubbed “entitlements” is that they are legally enacted grants from the treasuries of governments, which are supplied by way of taxation and other sources of the public weal.

No one really pretends that one has a natural right to such provisions, that other people owe their lives and works to the recipients of entitlements as a matter of a legally enforceable right. No, they are created by the government. It used to be monarchs that would make these grants to citizens favored by them but in a more or less democratic system, which lacks firm limits on the power of government, they can be voted into existence. This is the aspect of democracy that such thinkers as Alexis de Tocqueville saw as being destructive. And they were, of course, proven right because all the current fiasco about debts are largely the result of such democratic establishment of entitlements and other expenditures.

The idea that those who are rich may be ripped off a lot more than others is merely a tortuous implication of welfare and warfare statist profligacy. It has nothing at all to do with any just powers of government. Quite the opposite. It is a bias against some citizens who do not deserve being picked on, no different from how placing blacks into involuntary servitude had been the result of such unjust bias.