BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Wednesday

12

September 2012

Attacks in Egypt, Libya Reveal An American Sickness

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

The United States is under attack.  The attacks have taken place in both Egypt and Libya. The Egyptian attack, where a mob stormed the US Embassy in Cairo, tore down the US flag and replaced it with a black flag with the phrase ‘There is no god but God and Muhammad is his prophet,’ was believed to be in response to a film that portrayed Muhammad in an unflattering light. Prior to the violence, the US Embassy in Cairo preemptively apologized for the speech of a private US citizen with the following outrageously obsequious statement:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others

That this statement was made by an official representative of the US government is an embarrassment. How dare they apologize for the speech of a US citizen, as if hurt feelings are somehow to be avoided at all costs. To do so in this manner on 9/11 just adds insult to injury.The Embassy then took to twitter to defend its obnoxious statement, while also issuing more, only to later memory hole the entire episode.

The Embassy is clearly confused about American values. Respect for religious beliefs is required by our government, which is not supposed to choose sides on the topic, but not at all of the people. Our people are free to express themselves about religion as they are any other topic, and that includes the ability to criticize –  as many frequently do in the US about every major religion – and the appropriate response if you are offended is more speech of your own. That’s what sensible, emotionally stable people do in the US every day, because the real cornerstones of our democracy are respect for the rights of others, such as that to life, liberty and property. The Egyptian mob reflected no such respect, and an American embassy that thought it more important to immediately condemn private US citizens for the hurt sensibilities of a violent and explosive mob culture is an utter embarrassment.

Freedom, the single most important cornerstone of American democracy, means tolerating the ideas of others even when you find them offensive. If we really believed in aiding freedom’s spread throughout the world, we’d be vigorously defending it in the face of those who neither understand nor respect it.

Yet it’s hard to defend something when your intellectual class does not respect it. Immediately following the thuggish reaction in Egypt, articles casting blame on the filmmaker emerged, and a college professor of “Religious Studies” called for the jailing of its producer. How are we so incapable of placing the moral responsibility for violence on those who commit violence?

The sickness and cultural backwardness witnessed in Egypt and Libya is easy to see and call out. There is something fundamentally wrong with a culture that erupts so easily into violent furor over every minor slight or insult. But we already knew this. What is striking is how the events reveal our own culture sickness – a debilitating self-doubt that makes it impossible for our representatives and intellectual class to condemn the easily condemnable.

Now there’s a second angle to the story, and it’s why I haven’t yet brought up the more violent nature of the attacks in Libya on a US consulate, which included the death of a American ambassador. Signs point in this case to a preplanned, terrorist attack, which seized upon the mob response to the film as a cover. If true, this attack demonstrates the ongoing danger posed by Islamists, and it draws into question the entire approach our government has taken to the “Arab spring,” once thought to be a democratic revolution but now looking like just a radical Islamist resurgence.

The US response to such an attack on our sovereign territory and the murder of our citizens must be sensible, but it also cannot afford to be weak. The preemptive apology to Egyptian thugs did not prevent their riot, and bending over backwards now to respond to these attacks will not prevent future attacks – it will likely encourage more of them. I don’t envy the President for having to navigate these waters, of needing to respond strongly but not excessively, but so far the actions of this government – and of the President who skips more than half of his daily intelligence briefings – have utterly failed to demonstrate the leadership necessary to quell this growing crisis.

Wednesday

5

September 2012

Big Government is Not A Unifying Force

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Culture & Society, Liberty & Limited Government

This video opened the DNC:

A lot of folks are talking about the declaration that “government’s the only thing that we all belong to,” with many responding with various forms of an argument denying our status as the property of government. And they should be talking about it; it’s a repugnant statement. Just not necessarily for that particular reason.

The verb belong, like many in the English language, can have multiple meanings. One implies ownership; another membership. The video quite clearly is intending to use the latter definition. Should the producers have seen the obvious meaning behind the statement using another common definition of belong – that we are owned by government? Probably, and it probably says something about their sensibilities that it either never occurred to them, or they didn’t care. But that’s a minor point.

I believe that the most powerful arguments are ones that, when an opponent’s statement is ambiguous,  avails the other side the benefit of the most favorable, reasonable interpretation possible. Defeating a stronger argument is a more significant feat, after all. In this case, I think it is clear the video is attempting to say that we all have membership in government, and therefore concludes that it is a binding and unifying force. That is the interpretation I am sure they intended, so it is the one  I prefer to address. And it’s more than sufficiently disagreeable to warrant heavy criticism.

So what of the idea that we all have membership in government, and therefore that it helps bind us together? On the first point, I think John Hayward does a good job of explaining why we don’t really all belong to government even in that sense:

The Left was in the middle of shrieking that the video wasn’t saying the government “owns” us; it was saluting the government as the collective expression of our combined will, justified in anything it wants to do – or make the rest of us do – because we sanctify it every few years through the ritual of voting.

Even this benign-sounding apologia for “government is the only thing we all belong to” is incredibly wrong-headed.  We most certainly do notbelong to the government. We are all members of the electorate, which is a very different thing.  Each of us lives beneath several distinct governments – federal, state, city – empowered to protect our rights, not act as the almighty executor of some “collective will” that exists only in the totalitarian fantasies of liberals.  There are very few areas of government action that command anything like overwhelming majority support from Americans, let alone nearly unanimous approval.

But it’s the idea that government brings us together that I find must detestable. Although the video did not say “big government,” that is what we have today so in context that is what it is defending. And big government is anything but unifying. Here’s what I wrote on the subject way back in 2008, at a time when both Presidential candidates were promising to heal all that which socially divides us:

Despite the modest downsizing after the end of the Cold War, by 2000 the federal government employed almost 3 million people, and government employment at the federal, state and local level now combine for 16% of the total national work force. There are ten additional cabinet positions compared to the beginning of the 20th century. So in addition to spending more, they are also doing more.

We have all these bureaucrats to manage the regulations covering every aspect of our lives. Government tells us what we can eat, where we can smoke, what medicines we can use and what insurance we can purchase. It even tells us who we can marry and where we must send our children to school, along with what they must be taught.

This intrusion of government has sparked the “culture war.” It exists because government, by design, requires one-size-fits-all solutions on issues on which there is no one size that fits all. As an example, when parents cannot choose where to send their kids to school, they must fight within the political system to see that the schools teach what they want. Different parents have different ideas, often mutually exclusive, on what they want their children to learn. Because they must fight over control of the same system, some must inevitably lose.

When issues of importance to the people must be fought over, it’s understandable that the fighting can be intense. A lot is at stake in every election. Repeat this process again and again, on issue after issue, and it is little wonder why Americans are polarized today. Government has pit us against our fellow citizens in a battle for control of our own lives. It’s a battle we can only lose, and which the new administration’s big government programs can only make worse.

Government is inherently divisive, which is something I think our Founders understood and is one reason why they tried, though sadly failed, to severely limit its scope. But there are actually things which unify us. One is our understanding of our inherent rights as human beings. Our united belief in those rights – of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – is what led first to our rejection of unjust rule, and then eventually to the formation of our specific government. But that’s a far cry from saying that government itself is that unifying force.

The video contrasts our common government with the fact that we belong to different churches and clubs, implying that those individual choices are the things which divide us. This is exactly backwards, and betrays a dangerous affinity for collectivism.  Yes, people go to different churches and belong to different clubs, but the option to associate freely with the groups that we choose, without one person or group of people’s preferences for association being imposed on all others, is exactly what makes it possible for us to live together without constantly being at each other’s throats. Voluntary cooperation is the most unifying force of all.

But what if we did all belong to one church? Would that unify us? Obviously not, as that would require first forcing us all into the same church despite our individual preferences. And if we look at history, that’s exactly what Europe was like when our ancestors left for the new world. We have the freedom to do our own things, to lead our own lives, to associate with the people we choose, and to trade with the people we choose; those freedoms are what have historically unified our communities and allowed us to get along. On the other hand, thrusting upon us ever more one-size-fits-all government “solutions” to every problem, big or small, will continue to rip at the strained social fabric of our nation, dividing us ever more into mutually exclusive, non-cooperative camps.

Monday

3

September 2012

In Need of Capital Day

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Free Markets, Taxes

The Department of Labor cites Labor Day as “dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers,” adding that “it constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country.” Celebrating the hard work of Americans with a yearly day off is fine with me, but there are additional forces contributing to the “strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country” also worthy of recognition. Perhaps the time as come, for instance, for a Capital Day.

Hard work is important. Americans have long considered a strong work ethic a virtuous quality, and this has been to our advantage. But hard workers are all over the world, and the US hardly leads the world in average hours worked. Yet America is consistently at or near the top in worker productivity. What accounts for this discrepancy? Simply put, capital.

Another way to look at American prosperity is this: hard work is a necessary, but insufficient, condition for achieving prosperity. Give even the hardest worker a spoon, and it will take a long time to build a ditch. Give that same worker a shovel, and it will take less time. Now give that worker an expensive digging machine and that ditch will be completed exponentially faster. That is where growth in worker productivity comes from.

The mixing of capital and labor is where the true magic happens, and American prosperity is due to our once unique devotion to an economic system – the free market – that most efficiently matches these two ingredients.  Unfortunately, America today is no longer the most devoted to economic freedom, and the trend is heading in the wrong direction. A less free economy, generally speaking, will mean more inefficient distributions of capital and labor, resulting in a less productive workforce and thus a less prosperous economy.

In order to invest capital in our workers, we first need capital to invest, and that means savings. Unfortunately, neo-Keynesian economic thought can be reasonably accurately summed up as “savings = bad; spending = good.” Just consider the examples of politicians asserting that unemployment checks or food stamps boost economic growth because the recipients are more likely to spend it.  And then there’s the many government policies which reduce or inhibit capital formations, like direct taxes on capital such as the capital gains tax or death taxes, financial regulations and laws which discourage US investment, and other costly burdens on business – such as Obamacare.

So while we celebrate the contributions of hard working Americans of all stripes, we should keep in mind the importance of capital in achieving prosperity, a fact all too often forgotten by policymakers. Perhaps a yearly reminder in the form of a Capital Day is needed to do the trick.

Friday

31

August 2012

Criminal Justice Reform in GOP Platform

Written by , Posted in Big Government, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

In my post listing 5 issues I thought Republicans needed to discuss at the convention, I pointed to the need for criminal justice reform. Apparently enough folks were on the same page, as it turns out that the 2012 GOP platform included language calling for much needed reforms. From Right on Crime:

This week, during its quadrennial national convention, the Republican Party released its 2012 platform. The platform is yet another indicator of how conservative leaders are reapplying basic conservative principles to criminal justice. For example, the new platform contains language explicitly emphasizing the importance of prisoner reentry, a notable change from the 2008 platform which contained none. The new platform urges that “[p]risons should do more than punish; they should attempt to rehabilitate and institute proven prisoner reentry systems to reduce recidivism and future victimization.”

Similarly, the new platform contains language emphasizing the importance of restorative justice, yet another element that did not appear in the 2008 platform:

“Government at all levels should work with faith-based institutions that have proven track records in diverting young and first time, non-violent offenders from criminal careers, for which we salute them. Their emphasis on restorative justice, to make the victim whole and put the offender on the right path, can give law enforcement the flexibility it needs in dealing with different levels of criminal behavior. We endorse State and local initiatives that are trying new approaches to curbing drug abuse and diverting first-time offenders to rehabilitation.”

Also very welcome is the language highlighting the serious threat of over-criminalization, particular regarding the federal criminal code.

The starkest change in the party platform from 2008 to 2012 is the inclusion of new – and relatively detailed – language criticizing overcriminalization:

“The resources of the federal government’s law enforcement and judicial systems have been strained by two unfortunate expansions: the over-criminalization of behavior and the over-federalization of offenses. The number of criminal offenses in the U.S. Code increased from 3,000 in the early 1980s to over 4,450 by 2008. Federal criminal law should focus on acts by federal employees or acts committed on federal property – and leave the rest to the States. Then Congress should withdraw from federal departments and agencies the power to criminalize behavior, a practice which, according to the Congressional Research Service, has created “tens of thousands” of criminal offenses. No one other than an elected representative should have the authority to define a criminal act and set criminal penalties. In the same way, Congress should reconsider the extent to which it has federalized offenses traditionally handled on the State or local level.”

Now party platforms don’t generally have much if any impact, but this is a welcome reflection of shifting GOP attitudes toward 1) Beginning to undo the labyrinth of federal criminal laws which are threatening basic freedoms and, 2) finding more effective and cost efficient solutions to certain crimes.

Wednesday

29

August 2012

5 Issues Republicans Should Address At the Convention (Or After)

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Foreign Affairs & Policy, Liberty & Limited Government, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

Being the more leftist party, I criticize Democrats frequently. But Republicans do a lot of stupid things and have plenty to answer for themselves. Here’s a list of issues I’d like to see the party address prominently to the American people (at the ongoing Republican National Convention would be an ideal choice, but anytime during the rest of the campaign would be good).

Explain Why We Should Trust That Republicans Will Get Spending Right This Time. Republicans criticize the President, and rightly so, for spending like a drunken sailor. His massive and wasteful stimulus was bad enough as a one time deal, but he’s since set the new baseline at post-stimulus levels, and has called for ever more spending each year. But it’s important to remember that the big spending didn’t start with Obama.

Republicans can’t simply excuse Bush’s big spending as a response to an unusual financial crisis. Yes, a lot of money was spent in response to the financial meltdown, and perhaps that can be excused even if it was misguided. But what’s the excuse for creating a massive new prescription drug entitlement? Or the 30% increase in federal subsidy programs? Or the massive increase in regulatory spending? Simply put, when Republicans most recently controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress, they spent like drunken sailors, too. They need to explain clearly how they’ve internalized the lessons of those mistakes, and what controls are or will be in place to ensure they aren’t repeated.

(more…)

Saturday

25

August 2012

Overgovernment: Birthday Blues Edition

Written by , Posted in Big Government, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

It’s your birthday! But don’t hold the party just yet, citizen, step into my office and fill out some paperwork first…

When Martha Boneta hosted a birthday party for a friend’s 10-year-old daughter on her Virginia farm, she didn’t expect to have the county come knocking on her door.

But come knocking it did — threatening her with nearly $5,000 in fines.

Fauquier County officials say Boneta, owner of the 70-acre Liberty Farms in Paris, Va., didn’t have the proper permit to host the party, nor to sell produce on her own land. Zoning Administrator Kimberley Johnson sent her a cease-and-desist letter in April after the party, warning her with the financial consequences if she didn’t stop her activities within 30 days.

I’m beginning to understand how Michelle Obama must have felt all those years. An America that requires permits for birthday parties is not one I’m proud of.

But perhaps even worse in its overall impact than that utterly asinine requirement is the continued and widespread disregard for basic economic liberties, a particular problem when it comes to zoning laws.

Our economic rights are essential. The right to earn a living, to engage in commerce and trade, these are things which we are required to have if we are to be able to pursue happiness. If we can’t even walk up to our neighbors and buy a bit of food grown on their own land, I don’t even know what we’re doing in this country anymore. Whatever it is, it sure as hell isn’t “secur[ing] the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

For more on the story above, enjoy (or become enraged because of) this video from Economic Freedom:

Friday

24

August 2012

Overgovernment: “You Didn’t Get There On Your Own” Edition

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Government Meddling

Commenting on a story of a type common in my Overgovernment series, Dr. Mark Perry offered this brilliant repackaging of President Obama’s now infamous collectivist screed:

Look, if you’ve been unsuccessful, you didn’t get there on your own. If you were unsuccessful at opening or operating a small business, some government official along the line probably contributed to your failure.  There was an overzealous civil servant somewhere who might have stood in your way with unreasonable regulations that are part of our American system of anti-business red tape that allowed you to not thrive.  Taxpayers invested in roads and bridges, but you might have faced city council members who wouldn’t allow you to use them.  If you’ve been forced to close a business – it’s often the case that you didn’t do that on your own.  Somebody else made that business closing happen or prevented it from opening in the first place. You can thank the bureaucratic tyrants of the nanny state.

This is one of those times when all I can think is “wow, why didn’t I think to write that?”

Tuesday

21

August 2012

What’s Wrong With Gender Specific Clubs?

Written by , Posted in Culture & Society

A lot of the talk around Augusta National’s decision to admit its first two female members has me baffled, just as I was baffled when this whole brouhaha began years ago.  What principle, exactly, are the people upset with Augusta’s membership practices enforcing? What’s wrong with gender specific clubs?

On every college campus in America, you’ll find clubs excluding at least half of the population. No women in the fraternities; no men in the sororities. Who does that harm?

Augusta, up until now, was a private, male-only golf club. So what? There are a multitude of private, women-only clubs, and I don’t see the angry feminists busting down their doors demanding men be let in for the sake of equality. Because this really has nothing to do with equality. Anyone was already equally free to start their own private club and set their own rules for it. That’s equality.

These people, who usually prattle on about the benefits of diversity, don’t seem to actually want any. What’s that, how can I say they don’t want diversity when they are trying to make Augusta more diverse? Because if every club has the same rules, the same membership, and the same demographics, then there is no diversity among the universe of private clubs. They’ll all be the same. What’s the fun in that?

Sure, you can make a particular women’s only college more diverse by forcing them to accept men, but in so doing you’ll have made colleges as a whole less diverse. Take the extreme example and say you eliminate gender specific colleges altogether. People will necessarily have fewer choices when it comes to the type of collegiate environment they can choose, meaning the total universe of colleges has become less diverse.

True diversity means allowing different types of clubs, universities and other institutions to exist. If every institution must cater to the exact same crowd, then people will have less interesting and meaningful options available to them. Yes, Augusta is prestigious and well-known, but should their success mean that they are no longer free to set their own membership rules? Shouldn’t the same be expected of every club, or better yet, none at all?

Saturday

11

August 2012

The Other Problem of Dependence

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Liberty & Limited Government

A lot has been said about the growing dependence of American citizens on the federal government, including in this great CF&P Economics 101 video narrated by Emily O’Neill. But there’s another kind of growing dependence about which we need to be concerned, and that’s the degree to which states are being made dependent on the federal government.

This is an issue in which I take a particular interest, considering how important our federalist and competitive system is in protecting freedom and promoting prosperity. At the time the stimulus was passed, I noted that “funneling federal dollars into the states … leads to significant waste.” I’ve also defended federalism against attack from central planners, and explained how federalism helps preserve tax competition and the ability to flee confiscatory tax rates.

Most recently, I took a rather pessimistic view of the impact of Supreme Court’s Obamacare ruling on federalism, despite it overruling the federal government’s attempted Medicaid bullying. Now Veronique de Rugy, writing in the Washington Examiner, makes a powerful case of her own:

In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act, many claim that the choice of states’ ability to opt out of Medicaid expansion requirements without losing all Medicaid funding was a big victory for federalism. That may be true, but federalism is still seriously in jeopardy.

…[T]the federal government is pouring billions of dollars each year into the states’ coffers.

…This money isn’t free. It comes with strings attached — mandates and rules dictating how the states should spend their money, what services they should provide and how they should provide it.

…These requirements weaken states’ independence, especially since the federal government can bully states into doing what it wants by threatening them with “cross-over sanctions.” The classic example was the threat to withhold highway grants for states that failed to adopt a national drinking age above 21, or adopt federal clean air requirements.

And if the funding is temporary but the requirement permanent, this “aid” becomes even more expensive. Using data from 50 states over a 13-year period, a 2010 paper by economists Russell Sobel and George Crowley shows that temporary grants from the federal government to state and local governments cause the latter to increase their own future taxes by between 33 and 42 cents for every dollar in federal grants received.

Limiting the combined state and federal size of government will require returning to a strong federalist model, where states are again autonomous bodies responsible for the bulk of governance, and more importantly thus constrained by the forces of tax competition. The current trend toward greater and greater state reliance on the federal gravy train to administer federally mandated programs is politically, fiscally and economically untenable.

Tuesday

7

August 2012

Nope, the Science Still Isn’t Settled

Written by , Posted in Energy and the Environment

The Warmmongers like to pretend that all the data supports their non-stop hysteria, and that anyone who disagrees is either ignorant, hates science, or is a dirty liar paid off by the oil industry. Lately, they’ve taken to pointing to current “extreme weather” anecdotes as further proof of AGW. But what does the data say? Dr. John Christy offered testimony to the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee exploring that question. From GlobalWarming.org:

Increasingly, we hear experts blame global warming for bad weather. Most acknowledge that no single weather event can be attributed to global climate change. However, they contend, the pattern of recent events – the sheer number and severity of heat waves, wild fires, droughts, freak storms — is exactly what climate scientists have predicted and must be due to mankind’s fuelish ways. Such assertions, Christy shows, are not based on real data.

One way to measure trends in extreme weather is to compare the number of state record high and low temperatures by decade. Many more state high temperature records were set in the 1930s than in recent decades. Even more surprising, “since 1960, there have been more all-time cold records set than hot records in each decade.”

…One might object that state temperature records are not informative, because the number of data points — 50 — is so small. So Christy also investigated “the year-by-year numbers of daily all-time record high temperatures from a set of 970 weather stations with at least 80 years of record.” He explains: “There are 365 opportunities in each year (366 in leap years) for each of the 970 stations to set a record high (TMax).” Adding the TMax days by year, Christy found that there were several years with more than 6,000 record-setting highs before 1940 but none with record highs above 5,000 after 1954. “The clear evidence is that extreme high temperatures are not increasing in frequency, but actually appear to be decreasing.”

So keep that in mind the next time some media commentator breathlessly attributes “unusual and extreme weather” to global warming.

← Older Entries
Newer 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