BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Foreign Affairs & Policy Archive

Saturday

15

August 2015

0

COMMENTS

Third Time Won’t Be the Charm in Greece

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Economics & the Economy, Foreign Affairs & Policy, Free Markets, Taxes

Greece is getting bailed out for the third time in just five years, proving yet again that lessons from political mistakes are rarely heeded. As I wrote last month in a column for EveryJoe:

The simple explanation is that Greece tried socialism and it predictably failed, as socialism is wont to do… More specifically, Greece has saddled its economy and its people with heavy taxes to fund a corrupt government weighed down by excessive pensions for their bloated workforce. A byzantine and oppressive regulatory system further stifles growth and prevents the economy from keeping up.

To put some numbers on the problem, Greek debt exceeds 177 percent of its GDP. That means Greeks would have to work almost two years to produce an equivalent amount of goods and services. It’s unfunded future liabilities, which includes generous pensions, tops 875 percent of GDP! Its yearly spending on pensions alone accounts for a whopping 16 percent of Greece’s GDP, and overall the government spends upwards of 50 percent.

If all this proves that Greece is suicidal, it was its entrance into the European Union that gave it the rope needed to hang itself. When it joined the EU, Greece suddenly had access to levels of credit it never had before thanks to the implicit backing of stronger EU economies like Germany. Creditors determined – correctly, apparently – that if Greece couldn’t pay its debt then they would be bailed out by the larger economies. And like a kid that got his hands on his parent’s credit card for the first time, Greece went nuts. In economic terms that’s called a moral hazard, and the latest bailout has only reinforced it.

This week’s announcement of yet another bailout will only exacerbate the moral hazard, and demonstrates the continued folly of the EU’s grand experiment with a common currency without a common fiscal policy.

Continuing to prop up Greece’s bloated government will not solve the problem. There are no good solutions, but the least bad option is for them to go bankrupt and solve the root of their problem, which is excessive government spending.

Instead, Germany and the rich EU nations are offering yet another loan to the demonstrably irresponsible, on condition that they raise taxes and cut spending. Unfortunately, only one of those conditions will help while the other will prove counterproductive. Leftist bleating about ‘austerity’ conflates tax hikes with spending cuts, but the former is bad for growth and saps the political will for belt tightening, while the latter is a proven path toward fiscal solvency.

What Greece needs is to tear down its bloated bureaucracy and insane regulatory regime, but that won’t happen so long as the EU continues acting as enabler.

Tuesday

14

October 2014

0

COMMENTS

Friday

19

September 2014

0

COMMENTS

Is Secession Acceptable Again?

Written by , Posted in Culture & Society, Foreign Affairs & Policy, Liberty & Limited Government

An interesting aspect of yesterday’s vote for Scottish independence is that it has Americans discussing political separation without all the unwanted historical baggage of the Civil War and race relations. That is, there have been substantive discussions even among Americans on the pros and cons of Scotland leaving the United Kingdom (they ultimately voted to stay) without anyone claiming the very idea of secession to be racist, as so often happens when it is considered within the United States.

Even though the Scottish vote resulted in affirmation of the union that forms the United Kingdom, the orderly acceptance of the vote stands in stark contrast to the threats of violence that come in response to even idle talk in the US. Just suggest that a state might leave the union, and you won’t have to wait long for indignant statists to wag their fingers and sarcastically warn about “how well that went last time.” In other words, try to leave the union and they’ll wage war upon you and burn your cities to the ground. In the name of unity, naturally.

If the British, who once fought a war to prevent the American colonies their independence, can agree that they want no unwilling subjects and indicate they would have accepted without bloodshed the will of the Scottish people to secede, then is it not time for Americans to stop threatening violence at long-shot prospects of political separation?

Saturday

30

August 2014

0

COMMENTS

Risks Come in Many Forms

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Culture & Society, Foreign Affairs & Policy, Gun Rights, Liberty & Limited Government, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

The New York Times editorial board has some sound advice for Great Britain as it worries about the threat of home grown terrorists. It’s a serious problem, and one which the UK has largely invited on itself through a failed experiment in cultural appeasement that has only served to embolden extremism. Be that as it may, NYT editors are right to warn against overreactions that undermine civil rights by concluding that, “scrapping civil liberties should not be the first line of defense in a democracy.”

Terrorists pose a safety risk, and mitigating that risk should be done with respect to civil liberties rather than trampling them. But there are a great many risks in society, and unfortunately the NYT editorial board fails to consistently apply this principle on other issues. They have no problem curtailing rights for the illusion of security when doing so confirms their ideological biases, such as limiting speech in the name of removing money from politics, or scrapping the Second Amendment in the name of reducing violence.

In fact, just a day before sternly warning the Brits against overreacting to their homegrown extremism problem, the very same New York Times editorial board overreacted to a single gun accident caused by the irresponsibility of parents and an instructor that allowed a young girl who couldn’t handle the weapons and its kickback to shoot an Uzi, ultimately resulting in the instructor’s death. Not only did they use the unusual incident to finger wag at defenders of the Second Amendment and note in horror all the various ways in which gun enthusiasts enjoy their hobby, but they also demanded the restriction of rights in response. Citing a similar incident over half a decade ago (giving indication to  how rare these events are) where a young child accidentally killed himself at a gun range, the NYT editors praised his state of Connecticut for reacting by banning access to certain guns even at gun ranges for those under 16, regardless of the level of supervision, precautions taken, or capabilities of the shooter. They then lamented that there will be no “swift action in Arizona, where the gun culture is deeply entrenched.”

Rights are precarious things. They are at their most vulnerable when the populace is scared. The New York Times recognizes this when it comes to foreign threats, but fails to understand that domestic panics over extremely low risks of harm are just as dangerous.

Tuesday

18

March 2014

0

COMMENTS

The Case Against War

Written by , Posted in Foreign Affairs & Policy

At Breitbart’s Big Peace, Joel Pollak makes “The Case for War.” Where exactly I’m not entirely sure, but perhaps everywhere. From Russia to Iran to China to North Korea, all are apparently in need of a good ol’ American whooping. It takes Pollack about 300 words to make his case. I think I can beat that.

The case against is a lot simpler. It can be summed up by this image:

War dead

Final thoughts: There are wars America must fight, and when they come we will fight and win them. We don’t need to go looking for them.

Thursday

5

September 2013

0

COMMENTS

Syrian Intervention Reveals Central Foreign Policy Divide

Written by , Posted in Foreign Affairs & Policy

When Obama was elected, I noted that his soon-to-be Ambassador to the U.N and now National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, had previously argued for unilateral military action in Darfur and represented a kind of left-wing humanitarian interventionism that those preoccupied only with the most current of events might not have been familiar with:

Left-wing interventionists are actually more common than right-wing ones. Before the neoconservatives had won the day in establishing Republican policy, there was Secretary Madeliene Albright, who asked Colin Powell, “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” The ironic difference between the left and right interventionists is this: on the left they only want to use force when U.S. interests are non-existent. Boondoggle that Iraq was in many ways, at least there was a debatable, though certainly plausible, claim of serving U.S. national interests in deposing Saddam. One can’t even make a pretense of serving U.S. interests in Darfur.

I assumed this information would come as a surprise to many given the dominant opposition rhetoric of the Bush years. Many had also forgotten that Bush ran a campaign opposed to interventionism and nation building, which contrasted with Clinton’s international adventures as world police. But like so many politicians, Bush reversed position upon entering office.

We’ve since witnessed Obama’s unilateral interventionism in Libya, an adventure conjured for the specific purpose of revitalizing the image of humanitarian interventionism post-Iraq. And now we see the same thing happening with Syria, where once again there is no credible argument of a U.S. interest at stake. Matt Welch at Reason does an excellent job of exposing the administration’s dissembling via Secretary of State John Kerry, who was against military mistakes before he was for them.

While the public overwhelming opposes a pointless strike on Syria, Republicans are nevertheless providing the President political cover. Speaker Boehner and House Majority Leader Cantor have endorsed a strike, while John McCain is once again one of the loudest voices calling for insertion of the United States into a Middle Eastern civil war, suggesting it would be “catastrophic” should Congress decline authorizing force.

The position of Republican leadership and the GOP old guard contrasts with more stridently small government newcomers Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Justin Amash, and they’re joined by true anti-war liberals (as opposed to those, like Nancy Pelosi, who apparently just took positions for convenience because they were against Bush). All of this makes for a lot of political intrigue surrounding the vote over a resolution of force.

Thursday

22

August 2013

0

COMMENTS

Bono Stumbles On Truth About Poverty

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Foreign Affairs & Policy, Free Markets

I’ve always liked Bono. Not only does he make good music, but unlike so many in Hollywood he actually seems to care about his chosen causes. Rather than strut and preen for the cameras or play partisan political games, he just goes about his business trying to help in the way he judges best. That’s respectable regardless of whether I share his policy approach, and I rarely do.

But now I have even more reason to like him.

Speaking at Georgetown University about the state of economic reality in Africa, Bono had this to say about poverty:

“Aid is just a stopgap. Commerce [and] entrepreneurial capitalism take more people out of poverty than aid. Of course we know that.”

Sadly, many of the college students present likely do not know that. And while we can ask ourselves why it matters what some musician says about economics and policy, the fact that it is coming out of Bono’s mouth will do more to get them to challenge their own assumptions than it would from someone like me. Culture, even of the popular sort, matters.

Though what was most likely a shocking realization for Bono after decades of experience with impoverished peoples is rather pedestrian for those of us in the free market movement. The failure of aid  has been well covered by folks like Dambisa Moyo. She points out the perversion international aid system, whereby holding on to power in developing countries is a function of pleasing foreign aid givers, rather than their citizens. It is disincentive, in other words, for political accountability. Keeping the aid spigot open is more beneficial for those who desire power than improving that lot of the people.

Nor is how to improve the lot of the people a great mystery. Though it is hard. Essentially, it requires neoliberal institutions to provide the legal and political frameworks necessary to enforce basic rights – with property rights being among the most critical in terms of encouraging economic growth. Hernando de Soto did a great job examining the importance of property rights and access to honest and efficient legal system to encouraging wealth creation.

And let’s be clear about this point. Wealth is created. It is not the natural state of mankind. It is not something that absence of which is explained by some civilizational theft, exploitation, or the spread of capitalism, as it is fashionable to believe in certain circles. To paraphrase Tom Palmer, who delivered the most cogent argument on poverty I have yet heard, poverty does not need explanation. It is the natural state of mankind. The vast majority of humans that have ever existed have lived in grinding poverty. Wealth requires explanation. Only in very recent times in a historical sense have regular people had any wealth to speak of. And it hasn’t grown slowly, it as exploded. Explaining that is much more interesting than explaining poverty.

Thursday

8

August 2013

0

COMMENTS

Bradley Manning is No Hero

Written by , Posted in Foreign Affairs & Policy

Bradley Manning was recently found guilty of 20 charges (and acquitted of “aiding the enemy”) stemming from his decision to release hundreds of thousands of classified documents to Wikileaks. Many, even some bright and sensible people, have defended Manning’s actions and portrayed him as a brave whistle-blower exposing government misconduct. But this view is misguided and not supported by the facts.

The basis for holding up Manning as a hero seems to stem from his exposure of the so-called “Collateral Murder” video, which showed two U.S. helicopters killing 12 Iraqi’s, but also 2 Reuters employees. Perhaps this video was worth exposing. I don’t know all the facts surrounding the event – the military found no cause for discipline due to the reporters’ “close proximity” to “armed insurgents.” But that could just be cover.

The thing is, it doesn’t really matter what the facts are in the video because Manning didn’t expose only it. Evaluating whether or not it was an egregious crime for which he was justified blowing the whistle thus misses the point. Even if it were, it doesn’t absolve him of his decision to release hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables that he could not possibly have read. And since he did not bother to determine what was on them, he can claim no valid reason to release them. Rather, he showed a clear disregard for the damage they could cause – to agents identified by the documents, for instance.

That is not the behavior of a hero.

There is always tension between the need for operational secrecy as part of the government provision of defense – a primary purpose for the state – and  the need to hold government accountable. So it’s understandable why many question whether leaking classified information should always been condemned, even if it is a crime. Exposing governmental abuses, for instance, is a valid reason to leak classified info. But that’s not what happened in this case, and the indiscriminate release of sensitive information is not done to hold government accountable, but rather to harm both it and its citizens. Except for those who take the absurd position that nothing should ever be classified, there is no sound defense of Manning’s actions.

P.S. It’s worth noting that the question above is entirely separate from that of Manning’s treatment while in custody leading up to his trial, which has been deplorable and for which there was no excuse.

Saturday

20

April 2013

1

COMMENTS

Thoughts on Security Post Boston Marathon

Written by , Posted in Foreign Affairs & Policy

As the dust settles on the bombing in Boston, and the flurry of misinformation and speculation finally begins to settle down now that the two primary suspects have been killed and apprehended, respectively, it’s possible to begin reflecting thoughtfully on the incident and what it means from a security policy perspective.

First and foremost it’s a reminder that pan-Islamic jihad continues to exist, much to the befuddlement of legacy media. However, in an exception that proves the rule sort of way, it’s also a reminder that we are relatively safe from such attacks in America, which have proven to be extremely rare even in this day of heightened global Islamist activity. For whatever reason – whether because attempts have been foiled by good intelligence, or because we have kept the fight overseas, among other possible reasons – we have not seen the kind of increase in attacks that I think many expected would follow 9/11.

Absent additional information, it appears the Tsarnaev brothers were self-radicalizing, which is difficult to defend against. We’ve been pretty effective at undermining the capabilities of the major organized terrorist groups wanting to operate in the US. But from an intelligence point of view, self-radicalized individuals are much more difficult to identify. Even with reports that the FBI was asked to look into the older brother, Tamerlan, evidence is hard to find when there isn’t any group for the individual to interact with.

Overall the evidence at this stage seems to point to an individual, Tamerlan, who was angry, unsuccessful in his endeavors and prone to violence. He found, perhaps due in part to his Chechen background where such extremism is common, an outlet through which to direct his violence in the form radical Islam. His influence then brought his brother into the fold.

All of this is to say, there’s very little here to suggest a need for systemic or drastic changes to our intelligence and counter-terrorism efforts. The tendency when things like this happen is to overreact, but it’s important to keep perspective on how rare such occurrences have been. Otherwise, you run the risk of adopting bad ideas that expand the power and size of the state at the expense of individual freedom.

Friday

14

September 2012

0

COMMENTS

Administration Pressures YouTube in Effort to Censor Anti-Islam Video

Written by , Posted in Culture & Society, Foreign Affairs & Policy, Government Meddling

Continuing to place blame in the wrong places for the latest violent outburst to sweep across the Middle East, the Obama administration has apparently asked YouTube to take down the trailer for “Innocence of Muslims,” a shoddy, amateur looking film taking aim at Islam (Hat-tip: Reason):

The trailer has been blamed for inciting violence in Libya, Egypt and Yemen. Obama administration officials said Thursday that they have asked YouTube to review the video and determine whether it violates the site’s terms of service, according to people close to the situation but not authorized to comment.

Some media observers predict that the incident will prompt calls for Google Inc.’s YouTube to play a more active role in curating the billions of hours of videos found on its site. One prominent 1st Amendment lawyer even suggested that YouTube should seek a judge’s ruling about whether to remove potentially incendiary content.

Other digital media experts, however, cited the technical limitations of scouring the torrent of videos that are uploaded to the site every minute and making value judgments about those likely to incite anger, hate or murder.

YouTube is a private company, so of course has the right to accept or reject videos as they see fit. Though in turn they can be criticized for it if people perceive the process to be arbitrary or biased, which could provide an opening for a potential competitor. But for the government to make such a request is downright sinister and clearly violates the principle of free speech.

The Obama administration request may not have had an explicit or even intended threat of force behind it, but that’s largely irrelevant. The government is too big and too powerful for any request ever to just be a request. When a mafia boss asks you to do something, he doesn’t need to make a threat. Everyone will perceive it to be there just the same, even in the unlikely event that he didn’t intend any punishment for refusal. With the government antitrust goons sharpening their knives and practically drooling over the prospect of subjecting YouTube-owner Google to the same witch hunt they launched at Microsoft in the 90’s, it would be hard for YouTube  not to see the potential repercussions for refusing this “request.” That they have so far not bowed to the pressure is a point in their favor.

The quoted article goes on to cite “technological limitations” to policing user submitted content in a vain attempt to protect delicate sensibilities from any potential umbrage. But what about the philosophical limitations? Why is it Google’s responsibility to keep unwanted content from people’s eyes? If not ever being offended is so important to people, then they can go live in a cabin in the woods and hide from the outside world – as that’s the only way to accomplish it.

That the LA Times couldn’t find any potential objection, other than practical considerations, either to the administration’s behavior or the imagined “calls for Google Inc.’s YouTube to play a more active role in curating the billions of hours of videos found on its site” says as much about their quality of journalism as the whole affair says about this administration’s respect for fundamental First Amendment rights.

← Older Entries

About Me

profileI serve as Vice President of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a non-profit think tank dedicated to preserving tax competition and free markets. This site features my personal views, which are not reflective of CF&P.

Search Site

Categories

Archives