Tag Archive for libertarian at Zeal For Truth

Tag Archive for 'libertarian'

Links: This is the libertarians fault!!!!

Published by Colin October 24, 2008 in Current Events. 4 Comments

A Slate.com article blames US “libertarian” policies for the current failing market, arguing for more intervention and stating that the current crisis proves libertarians are wrong. This Reason.com article is offered as a rebuttal.

Iraq Inches Closer to Security Pact With U.S.

The draft also includes provisions on another knotty issue — whether American soldiers would have immunity from Iraqi law. Senior Iraqi officials said the draft language would give Americans immunity from Iraqi law when they were on military operations but would not apply if they were off duty….

Many Iraqi members of Parliament say that the proposed immunity provisions, which the United States supports, are too broad, and that they want American troops to be subject to Iraqi law for all their actions. The Americans say that their troops must have immunity when on military missions….

“The heart of the matter is the jurisdiction over the searching of all cargos that are shipped to Iraq or from Iraq,” said Ali Adeeb, a close ally of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. “There is the possibility that the cargo contains weapons that may hurt Iraq, although the American side committed that no weapons of mass destruction would be sent to Iraq.”….

Adding to the volatility, attacks against Christians have increased in the past two weeks and nearly 1,900 Christian families have fled their homes in fear, said Abdul Qadir al-Obaidi, the Iraqi minister of defense.

Palin is the mom in Bobby’s World?

A few weeks ago, the truth was revealed that artificial inflation of certain stocks would eventually hurt the market….and the conspiracy to hide this on Wikipedia.

Bloomberg gets the rule changes to stay in power, voters aren’t happy.

Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof

Gap narrows between rich and poor, but the UK is still bad. And, oddly enough, if you look at the Gini coefficient scores, the US is worse.

Vote al Qaeda, Vote McCain

Cocktail of Crises

Published by Colin September 22, 2008 in General, Essays, Politics, Current Events and Philosophy. 4 Comments

I also thought about titling this post; “At least part of the reason I have chosen to leave the US and obtain other citizenship.” I do not want to rush, like many libertarians and apocalyptic Christians to hasty conclusions that the sky is falling. I don’t think we’re even near that in the civilised world. In fact, I would even argue that the whole thing is being exaggerated and perpetuated mostly by the media, politicians and business which seek to profit of people behaving like chickens with their heads cut off and reloading CNN every two minutes, asking for more government handouts/power and looking for sales in guns, oil, water, food, gas, metal, gold, silver and so on to go up.

However, having said that, I suspect that most people are missing the real crisis - the wider crisis. In the determination to focus on something like gas prices or civil liberties in detail, perhaps how these elements combine and mix in the current climate reveals the nature of the “crisis machine” that is being built. In other words, the bail-outs aren’t really a catastrophic problem in and of themselves, but combine them with say, inflation, lost civil liberties and foreign policy - and now you’ve got a little cocktail being mixed that might do some damage.

The essence of this comes from one of my few favourite quotations by one of my favourite men, Henry Hazlitt:

The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.

So, while various plans drawn up to solve one particular problem might stem the specific leak, these will weaken other-areas in a greater and greater ways. If we continue to pay more than what we are getting on the whole, if we borrow more from ourselves than we gain back in any given solution, then we are gaining momentum on the path to bankruptcy.

I don’t think that any one crisis would really damage the United States, but if crises are continually paid-forward with short term fixes at the expense of the aggregate, we’ll have a huge queue of multi-industrial, multi-dimensional problems bursting the seams of law and order that tie them down.

So I want to look at how some of the following areas have or may, in the future, combine to compound a larger crisis for the US:

Foreign Policy
The Domestic Economy
Immigration
Civil Liberties
Free Speech
Nationalism/Patriotism
Religion

I’m going to do my best now not to try and lose you.

Foreign Policy
Regardless of one’s view on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is clear that we are less liked in the Muslim world today than we were on Sept 10, 2001. Terrorist groups (including non-Islamic ones) have seen their numbers swell. America, regardless of why, has a lot of enemies.

Even if we had the perfect military, intelligence and every move we have made and will make to combat this reality were perfect, the cost would be enormous - probably greater than any military effort that was ever unleashed. To stem everything from active terrorism and resistance in the middle east, to peacekeeping for US interest and allies in numerous other places, to protecting resources and trade partners, to preserving and install US-friendly regimes in places like South America and Eastern Europe would make the kind of scarcity, rationing and planning not seen since the forties.

Again, I am presuming that there is no waste, no bad intelligence, no blow-back and other bugling. Just this effort alone, in one area, might be doable if we had the savings and capital to pay for it.

However, we clearly have no capital and savings. America has been in the red for sometime. What is going to happen when all of these troops, assets and protections are pulled back from the fragile order which they are supporting? Those who have supported a planned, orderly decrease in military intervention for the past few years (heck, even the past decades) have been laughed at in favour of the idea that the current level of empire is a linear, sustainable stronghold. But as Ron Paul said as early as 2003, we will be pulling our empire back - either by planned, orderly and strategic organisation or as a reckless reaction to the bottom line that we no longer can afford it:

Policing the world and nation-building issues are popular campaign targets, yet they are now standard operating procedures. There’s no sign that these programs will be slowed or reversed until either we are stopped by force overseas (which won’t be soon) or we go broke and can no longer afford these grandiose plans for a world empire (which will probably come sooner than later.)

It should now be clear that we are facing this reality. Even those of us who are staunchly anti-war will not deny the fact that there are people out there being held at bay by the military who would otherwise seek to kill Americans. When the military is forced to downsize, we will have left the gates open for these people to come in and sack our country.

The reactionary answer by conservatives (and many democrats) is to rely on the same old argument to beef up the military. But what if there is physically no money to pay for it? We are going to have an increase in terrorism at home and abroad and the accompanying cries by the population for safety in the form of increased government power in exchange for freedom and civil liberties.

Next time: discussion on what the current economic situation reveals, along with the combined problem of immigration and civil liberty erosion.

The Libertarian Paradox

Published by Constitutional Conservati July 28, 2008 in Religion. 32 Comments

Is Libertarian philosophy Biblical? The contention generally arises from Libertarian Christians promoting prostitution and drugs (or other un-Godly actions), according to Libertarian philosophy. Does a Biblical motive exist for such a position? Or the contrary? The question is:

… which biblical imperatives justify that moral laws against sins (such as lying, adultery, and drug use) be automatically codified into secular laws in governments of men? For extra credit: why should sins such as drugs and prostitution be illegal, but sins such as lying, breaking the Sabbath and stumbling a brother not be punished by secular courts and police?

It’s going to take a bit to get to the answer as suitable groundwork must be laid. The question (and answer) isn’t actually the interesting part of this issue as it will turn out.

The Libertarian Problem
Libertarianism is liberal on foreign policy and social policy, while conservative fiscally. We’ll discuss motives in a bit, but for now just note Libertarians may not agree with the left’s motives, but they do agree on actions (legal drugs, and so on). On foreign policy, it’s because the Democrats aren’t far enough left which disturbs some Libertarians.

Libertarianism and Christianity — a combination rejected decades ago as it’s just not possible to justify promoting certain actions while ignoring others — Liberal social policy is anathema to Conservatives. But what is promote? Some argue doing nothing is not promotion, others argue doing nothing is. The reality is simple — if you’re a senator, and a bill comes across your desk about issue “x”, you are either supporting it or not by your vote. In the case of Libertarian morals, by actively opposing certain laws, they de-facto promote the activity.

It’s just not possible as a senator to be neutral. It’s either for or against. Just as some say “I don’t really want to think about Jesus, so I’m not saying no, I’m just neutral” — you must make a decision, either for or against. Avoiding the issue just means a decision will be made without your action, but that won’t remove your responsibility.

Obviously Libertarians disagree.

Nebo
The base nature of Libertarianism is self-contradicting. It’s not possible to state “Government can’t legislate morality”, just as “One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars (Titus 1:12 KJV)” is also self-contradicting. Morality is just right and wrong, good and bad. You can’t drive 90mph on the freeway because someone thought it’s bad — that’s a moral judgment. The only thing government can legislate is morality.

Thus, when a Libertarian states Government can’t legislate morality, they’re really promoting anarchy — if moral laws can’t be made, no laws can be made, as they’re all some idea of right and wrong.

It’s entertaining to watch the verbal twister played by Libertarians when this basic self-contradiction is pointed out. Most people (Conservatives, Liberals, Republicans and Democrats) at some point admit their position isn’t totally logical and consistent, but that’s the way they want it anyway. That’s honest.

But some worship knowledge and intellectualism — it’s their god. Ancient Babylon had their god of knowledge (Nebo) and it remains today in intellectual circles to those who worship logic, knowledge and intellectualism. It’s what Paul encountered in Athens in Acts 17 as the Greeks desired to argue about something new (what it was didn’t really matter). The idol may not exist anymore, but satan doesn’t change tactics much, he just adapts them to current times. Man is just as susceptible to the worship of Nebo today as in Babylon.

And that’s why some fight vigorously to defend an absurdity — they’re worshipers of Nebo, and a worse fate than hell is for them to admit their hallowed intellectualism and logic is really a house of cards, built on sand, as the tide comes in.

Motives, Actions, Results

COLIN: Prostitution and drugs are not libertarian ideals. But freedom is - which would include the freedom to chose both good and evil.

Let’s consider three concepts surrounding actions. You are motivated to do something, you act, and a certain result is obtained (pre-action, action, post-action).

Results (post-action) are God’s problem, so that’s all that needs to be said.

Motives and actions, however, are your responsibility (and under your control), and accountable to God. By allowing prostitution, your motive may be good (liberty), but your actions aren’t. And half right is totally wrong.

This repeatedly comes up by people equating motives and actions. They are different. If you have good intentions you can’t justify poor actions (gee, to solve world hunger, if we have enough abortions we’ll have less people, and the food can feed more). Good motive, poor action. (Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”, for example, even though satire)

Similarly, you can have poor motives, but good actions. It doesn’t matter why a senator supports your law, as long as he votes for it — he could give his support due to a back room deal, but that has no effect on the inherit nature of the legislation as good or bad (that’s classic politics). Nobody cares in 20 years why a law was passed — we have to live with the action, not the motive; motive is irrelevant to politics (save that it causes action).

Actions differ from motives. Politics concerns itself with actions and results (motives only because they cause action), God deals with actions and motives (and handles the results Himself). For the Christian, it’s important to consider both actions and motives. For the politician, only actions impact society.
Continue reading ‘The Libertarian Paradox’

Why I am not a Democrat

Published by Kenneth Martens July 16, 2008 in Religion and Politics. 14 Comments

This is part of my Christian libertarianism series, which is a description of my beliefs. I do not claim to speak for all Christians, all libertarians, or all Christian libertarians. In previous articles I explained how:

My libertarian beliefs are compatible with a biblical worldview
Why I believe in minarchy (small government) rather than anarchy (no government)
Why I appreciate Ayn Rand but cannot be an Objectivist
Why I am not a Libertarian Party member

Today I will discuss why I cannot in good conscience join the Democratic Party.

In my last article, I explained why I believe the Libertarian Party (LP) is not a serious political party. If the LP isn’t the answer, maybe I can have an impact in one of the major political parties. Let’s look at the Democratic party. At a surface the Democratic party appears more congruent with libertarian values than the Republican party is. The Constitutional Conservative explains:

There are three areas to conservatism (or liberalism, if you prefer):

Foreign Policy

Social Policy

Fiscal Policy

Libertarians will generally be liberal on foreign policy (isolationist, anti-military, many are anti-Israel, etc), and liberal on social policy (legalize drugs and so on), while conservative fiscally (return to gold standard, etc).

Foreign policy
Our own Colin Elliott has written an article explaining that libertarian policy is not isolationist, but is rather based on the non-aggression principle. The Democratic party may sometimes support policies that coincide with libertarian values, but this does not indicate any real agreement in principle. You might think that a libertarian would be eager to vote for Barack Obama, a candidate who has steadfastly voiced opposition to the war in Iraq. You would be wrong: Obama objects to the war in Iraq, but he’s no friend to libertarians. Just this past Monday (July 14) he vowed to send 10,000 additional troops to Afghanistan while reducing the troop levels in Iraq. Democratic foreign policy is unacceptable to a libertarian.

Social policy
This is the tricky one. As a libertarian, I support liberal social policy. That is, I can agree with legalizing drugs, permitting gay marriage, and so forth. However, as a Christian I cannot condone those same activities. I’m not advocating sin, I just want the government to get out of people’s lives. So although I sometimes agree with the policies the Democratic party advocates, I can’t agree with their reasons for advocating them. I can’t associate with an organization that asks me to accept sin as a legitimate lifestyle.

Today, on behalf of Democrats across America, we join together in celebrating the contributions that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans and their families make to our society and reaffirm our Party’s commitment to promoting full equality under the law for every American.

As leaders of the Democratic Party, we stand proudly with the LGBT community and commit ourselves to working together to build an America that is truly inclusive. Every American has the right to live in dignity, with equal rights, responsibilities and protections under the law.

[Democrats.org]

Sure, I agree that everyone should have “full equality under the law,” but I cannot agree with the implicit assumption that Americans must accept the homosexual lifestyle as morally acceptable in order to have an “inclusive” society. I can advocate full equality under the law while also speaking out against sin.

Oh, and the Democratic party’s support for abortion rights doesn’t help much.

Fiscal policy
This is an easy one. Democrats typically favor increasing the scope of government programs, a more progressive income tax, and all manner of wealth redistribution programs. No principled libertarian can support Democratic fiscal policy.

To sum up
So, while libertarianism might appear to match with Democratic values, on closer inspection it is a poor fit. Libertarian principles are at odds with Democratic values in foreign policy and fiscal policy. On social policy, the Democratic party’s policies are often congruent with libertarian principles, but the underlying Democratic agenda is antithetical to biblical values. As a Christian libertarian, I disagree with the Democrats about foreign policy, fiscal policy, and social policy. Three strikes, you’re out.

Why I am not an Objectivist

Published by Kenneth Martens July 3, 2008 in Religion and Politics. 24 Comments

In my previous articles I explained how my libertarian beliefs are compatible with a biblical worldview, and why I believe in minarchy (small government) rather than anarchy (no government.) Today I will explore Objectivism, the ethical philosophy developed by Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand is best known for her novel Atlas Shrugged. In it, Rand lays out a consistent ethical framework based on the inviolable rights of life and property. She calls her ethical system Objectivism because the rights are objectively determined by reality, not by the subjective whim of the masses or by the varying interpretation of religious scriptures. Objectivist ethics are inherent in the universe. They are objectively true.

I started reading Ayn Rand because she gives a vigorous defense of small-government libertarianism. Her essays have played a part in shaping my own views of political philosophy. I agree with much of what she says about government. However, I am not an Objectivist.

Objectivism is incompatible with biblical principles. To explain why, let’s study the underpinning concepts of Objectivism. Let’s begin with the Essentials of Objectivism as presented by the Ayn Rand Institute.

Metaphysics

Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural

A belief system that rejects the supernatural is contrary to the Bible. The Bible is filled with accounts of supernatural miracles. Jesus walked on water. God appeared to Moses in a burning bush. Ten plagues afflicted the Egyptians. Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. God spoke to Paul on the road to Damascus.

Epistemology

Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge)

The Bible says a great deal about faith. In John 20:29 Jesus says “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Hebrews 11 says it is “by faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command.” Hebrews 11 lists off all the biblical heros and declares that “these were all commended for their faith.” Faith is not an optional part of a biblical worldview. Because Objectivism rejects faith, it rejects Scripture.

Human Nature

Objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate, upbringing, genes, or economic conditions)

According to the Bible, God is sovereign over all things. God can harden the heart (Exodus 7:13, 9:12). He controls our eternal destiny: “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.” (Titus 3:5). God is in control of nations: “The LORD nullifies the counsel of the nations; He frustrates the plans of the peoples.” (Psalm 33:10). A man does not control even his own destiny: “Many plans are in a man’s heart, But the counsel of the LORD will stand.” (Proverbs 19:21).

Ethics

“Reason is man’s only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action.”
“Rationality is man’s basic virtue.”
Objectivism rejects any form of altruism—the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society.

Man’s reason is a poor guide: “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.” (Proverbs 14:12).

Politics

Objectivism rejects any form of collectivism, such as fascism or socialism. It also rejects the current “mixed economy” notion that the government should regulate the economy and redistribute wealth.

The sociopolitical system that is compatible with Objectivism is laissez faire capitalism. The way to achieve this is through a minarchist libertarian government. This is not incompatible with biblical values. The underlying values of Objectivism are unbiblical, but Objectivist politics are not.

Esthetics

“Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments.”

I don’t even know what this means.

Of the Essentials of Objectivism, only one out of six (Politics) is compatible with biblical values. As a Christian, I cannot be an Objectivist. Objectivism is based on a godless secular view of the world. It worships man instead of man’s Creator.

A Biblical Case Against Drug Prohibition and Anti-Prostitution Laws

Published by Colin February 13, 2008 in Religion and Politics. 14 Comments

Author’s Note: This article arose from a discussion following last Friday’s set of links. It was buried in the comments of that piece and is being brought out separately for consideration as part of its own case. For clarity and consistency, there have been some changes and additions to the original post.

Because there is no specific (or implied) biblical mandates for how we are to address the secular legality of drugs and prostitution (some would stop me here and cite certain commandments, but I will deal with those later). Indeed, there is very little political philosophy in the bible at all - we must use a different approach. One legitimate way to determine biblicality then, is to draw logical conclusions from the fundamental nature of God revealed in scripture. There may also be related or implied passages that can then be applied with the knowledge of God’s character. To start, let’s explore the fundamental nature of God, as it relates to these issues.

God Unilaterally Grants, Respects and Supports Free-will through Allowing Choice
God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree, but he left the tree in the garden (Genesis 2:9). He left the choice available to them (and they chose poorly). God gave his law to the people and allowed them to chose if they would follow him (Joshua 24:14-15) - he did not make them robots which unconditionally loved him. Jesus died for all mankind and God desires that all men be saved (2 Peter 3:9), but he doesn’t force them into heaven. He does not force them to repent and believe. He educates, he explains the consequences, he unabashedly reveals his desire that men would turn from sin (and drugs and prostitution are sins, morally evil in the sight of God) but yet he does not whisk the drugs and lust away as he well could.

God holds absolute respect for the order he gave the world, and the freedom he gave man. He demonstrates his love by declaring, in frank terms, the consequences for evil that man will bring upon himself if he continues to chose poorly. God’s respect of freewill is based on education, love and choice not on fear and control (2 Timothy 1:7).

Each individual man is responsible for his own sins. Fathers aren’t punished for their son’s sins. God will not destroy the righteous with the wicked. A sin that anyone commits, from lies, murder, drug-use, lust, fornication, etc… is soley accountable to the man who did it. No one else is punished (Ezekiel 18:20).

Real Change Only Comes Through Conversion
The only way a man can make morally good choices is through conversion, otherwise he is darkness (Ephesians 5:8). It is not compliance with God’s law, in and of itself, which converts a man. God’s law is an educational tool, not a list of requirements. Obedience to the law is totally unable to produce actual inward change (conversion). Conversion takes place by education about the law (Psalm 19:7).

The law reveals that man is sinful and requires a supernatural change (Romans 3:20). Through understanding the purpose of the law, he is empowered to seek Gods power to convert his soul and make wise, morally good choices. But God still does not remove the choices, reminding the man whenever he choses evil, that he must depend on God for goodness, not on his own willpower. Were God to remove choice after conversion, man would consider God’s work a one-time-only solution, and not a consistent change in lifestyle for the rest of his life. The converted man now despises sin and is convicted when he sins - the unconverted man has no ability to gauge sin, and has only the inward inclination to continue in sin, without a real desire to change. Sin is not effectively addressed without conversion. Christians have no other solution or alternative to see man actually turn from sin.

Prohibitions on drugs and prostitution are a tremendous detriment to conversion, which is the called work of the church. By forcing the right choice (by removing wrong choices), we disable a man to chose correctly. It is required of a man to humble himself and chose to follow God - this is the responsibility associated with free-will (Micah 6:8). In order to turn from sin, there must be sin to turn from - otherwise it’s a false choice. God is smart enough not to do this, are Christians smart enough to obey God?

Christians Must Emulate God
As Christians (”Christ-like”, “little Christs”) it is our job to emulate God (Ephesians 5:1) not to do things our way, and violate his order. That means we must never (because God does not ever) violate free-will. He has given us no permission to do so and will not because he himself does not violate his own order.

We see that God will act on behalf of innocents to protect them from violations of their free-will by others. And, not surprisingly in perfect consistency, man is given jurisdiction to protect against violations of the above (Gen 9:6), not to violate God’s order and infringe these things. There was, at least, some Christian foundation to our country, as these principles were enshrined in the declaration of Independence. Namely, that

…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

How Should the Christian Deal With All Sin?
To determine what the Christian should do, we must determine what God does. God will punish sin in the day of judgment. His “punishment” though, is interesting because it is a punishment of ultimate permission. That is, God submits his desire that all would be saved to the principle of free-will, and allows man an eternity of total absence from God and all things pertaining to his nature (love, joy, goodness, hope, light, etc…). God’s punishment is not a negative punishment, but a positive one. It affirms man’s freewill rather than deny it (Galatians 6:7).

Continue reading ‘A Biblical Case Against Drug Prohibition and Anti-Prostitution Laws’

The Dangers of Political Pragmatism

Published by Colin November 7, 2007 in General. 39 Comments

Generally in presidential elections, voters really aren’t ecstatic over either candidate A or B (yes, even if there were a C and a mythical third party, people still could care less). Instead, they cast their vote based on who will likely not screw it up the most.

This election is no different - if Clinton and Giuliani win out, we will see republicans likely tossing out more than half of their major ideals to vote for a guy who, relative to the emblematic republicans of old - looks like Chairman Mao.

Why in the world do they do this?

The answer is pragmatism. Republicans see Clinton as a rabid, feminist, socialistic… well, Clinton. So even though they are actually voting for an anti-gun, pro-choice, pro-taxer, big spending, illegal immigration supporting, big-government politician - it’s ok because the pragmatic alternative is supporting Hillary. Forget the fact that, for all intents and purposes, they are voting for a democrat in everything but name.

Ironically, these people openly talk about why they are sorely disappointed with George W. Bush’s big-government legacy, as though they totally forgot that Bush openly ran as a big-government conservative. His immigration stance, spending-philosophy, government health care and big-government education program were all out in the open in both 2000 and 2004 - but republicans were terrified of Al Gore and John Kerry. Again, pragmatism.

Where Strategic Thinking Goes to Die
This is the ultimate danger of such a voting philosophy - pragmatism is only good for one battle - one moment in the thousands of moments of A versus B. When we elect a president, for example, we aren’t picking a winner and then everyone goes home. They stay in office for at least four years - and they do all the irresponsible things that we ignorantly hoped they wouldn’t do, but blatantly indicated they would.

As it has been said before - the lesser of two evils is still evil. And pragmatism is not a strategy -it’s suicide. Death by hanging or by jumping off a cliff?

Genuine strategy, the kind that is above base pragmatism, takes into account total wins and losses in each battle, and attempts to gain victory in the end. In other words - it’s not the end of the world if one battle is lost!

The candidate that a voter actually likes may be in tenth place, or in some obscure party which has no chance of winning. Of course, the battle will certainly be lost and the candidate will be soundly defeated - but that is one less person choosing not to play the game when the rules are stacked against them. It’s one more kid picking up their ball, and going home. Eventually, the only ones left are the bullies and thugs, and their threats and lies are exposed for the world to see.

That is the moral victory - and yes, even in amoral politics there are moral victories - the size of both A and B’s electorate and donation base just got smaller. Eventually, and maybe it takes twenty years, the politicians realize that a good number of people are actually voting on principles and not pragmatism and adjust accordingly. Now that would be real change!

The Motivation for Pragmatism is Fear
Are pragmatists afraid? Yes. They get caught up in every election - which is built up by both A and B - that this is the defining battle between the two sides. They and their pundits will say that compromise is essential, because there is just too much at stake. If you don’t vote for A, B will raise your taxes, socialize your health care and make you use lightbulbs that cost $400 a piece. But if you don’t vote for B, A will instate a draft, round up the Muslims and start arresting you for jaywalking.

It’s fear people. The heart of pragmatism exposed.

How to Break the Cycle
In choosing pragmatism, the only safeguard built into the plurality system is neutered: idealism. When democrats, for example, who overwhelmingly oppose the war, pick Clinton who has no qualms about keeping troops in Iraq another five years - they are saying that they don’t really care about ending the war. In the next congressional election, democratic candidates are going to be more moderate on that issue because they know they can win without being an ideologue. Eventually, ending the war gradually fades from the platform.

However, if Giuliani gets elected, then the democrats in the congressional elections react strongly against the war - and win - because that’s what the democratic electorate really wants. In other words, even though it’s only in baby steps, the parties are gradually shaped back into what people actually want them to be, and not what they are willing to settle for to prevent that other crazy party from getting power.

Is all of this even realistic? Probably not. People will go on, voting for their own destruction, until the whole thing breaks (if it isn’t there already). But the vision should be held, because even when this country finally breaks beyond repair, a new one is going to have to be built from scratch.

The Minimum Wage I: Economic Analysis

Published by Colin October 24, 2007 in General and Politics. 9 Comments

The minimum wage is a popular and well-thought-of piece of legislation which many people believe is only helpful - or, may have some drawbacks but is more helpful than not. Fortunately, the minimum wage can be looked at objectively by examining how general economic law works as well as socially, by examining what kind of affects the minimum wage has on real people. This two-part article is designed to look at the minimum wage at a fundamental economic level and then for its broader impacts on society.

Removing Morality
For the first part of this article, a pure economic analysis, we must put aside anecdotes and emotional arguments. For example, “but he’s a waiter and deserves minimum wage!” is not a valid point right now, because we are going to look at pure economic law and effects. If the reader comes into this analysis unwilling to engage the material for what it is, then the reader should be honest with himself and admit that he does not want his preconceptions on the idea to be challenged.

Many times, this results from not taking a moment to remove the subjective morality or “fairness” ideas that one brings with them into an argument. Besides, we will deal with these entirely in part II - so just hold your horses.

Wages as Prices
What is a wage anyway? Often, people don’t make the connection that wages are just another price in the massive global market of good and services. Just like a new bike has several components and interactions on the market that determine it’s price, so to does a person’s time and skills - their labor - fetch a price based on these same phenomena.

We only separate out wages into a special category because in modern society, this price has a significant impact on the seller (the employee is selling his labor; the employer is the buyer of labor) because his livelihood, status and often his access to opportunities are dramatically affected by the price he can fetch on his labor. But those are moral considerations, and you promised not to go there until next time, remember?

We have to understand that a price on a wage is reached when there is mutual consent - the employer wants the labor more than he wants the money from the wage and the employee wants the wage more than he wants his time. So if a price can be reached, then it is because both parties believe that they are better off.

People have to trade this way because there is scarcity - not only are material goods finite, but time is finite as well. So demand and supply can’t shoot up into infinity. If it were so, we could legislate a minimum wage as high as we liked and there would be no consequences. However, because things are finite, there is a limit to how high we can raise a wage through legislation.

How Wage Prices Are Determined
Jobs and wages do not come about by employer generosity (or, on the contrary, greed). That is, companies don’t just provide jobs for kicks and don’t pay wages as charity. They actually have a demand for labor in order to get something done - the end result of which is likely for their profit (either financially or maybe idealistically [they need labor to build a free hospital in Sudan]). If they don’t think this way then they lose money and go out of business (and provide no jobs by the way).

On the other hand, laborers are not slaves by nature - they only want to trade their time if it benefits them. In most cases, this is to seek a wage that provides at least their basic subsistence and usually a little more than that - again this is profit.

These two parties meet somewhere above the employee’s minimum value on their time and somewhere below the employer’s cost for what the labor produces. The price is driven down by the scarcity of demand - the less demand for labor, the lower the price that laborers will have to set for their abilities. The price is driven up by how talented, experienced, educated, hard-working, skilled and so on the laborer is. The more talented the laborer, the more objective value he has in the market.

What a Price Floor Does
If then, a wage is just like any other price, than a price floor (a minimum price allowed) is going to have a universal effect. If we legislate that gas, for example, must be at least $5 a gallon to help those poor oil companies, then a lot of people are going to go without gas, simply because they can’t afford it (other will have to cut back significantly in other areas to pay the increased price). It might elevate all the profits from gas for just a little while, but the customer base is going to shrink a lot more than it normally would. So you may have the average customer paying more for gas, but you will have so few of them that, in time, the gross profit is going to actually be less. Neither of the parties benefits.

Say it’s a price floor on wages now. The minimum wage is $15. It’s not just a matter of everyone currently making $5.15 getting a whopping raise. Rather, many of the employee’s customers (employers) can no longer afford their service. In fact, so many employers would be unable to buy labor at that rate that over time, the net profit on labor is going to go down. In fact, the scarcity of jobs is going to rise so much that those employees still left will make less money because supply and demand have been adjusted against them. There are less laborers to compete, but there are even less jobs, so all parties lose.

Raise the Sea - Float All Boats?
Many think of the minimum wage (and price floors in general) like a sea of water that carries boats with it as the water level rises. But employees are not floating - that would imply that their value is totally subjective. Rather, they have anchors, made of all the talents and skills, which hold them to the bottom. The anchors only get longer as more talents and education (and the like) are gained by the employee.

Realize that each employee is a unique combination of skills, experience, training and talents - no two are alike. They earn a unique price for their labor on the market. We’ve already established that someone working for $8 is not making that because their employers likes them “eight dollars worth” or is generous or mean, but $8 is the price that his labor can fetch on the market. What happens then when the minimum price allowed for labor rises above $8? Objectively, our $8 man is drowned because it’s not like his talents and abilities (which got him the price in the first place) increase along with the wage floor. No, we have raised the water level over his head, and drowned those least able to swim.

Tomorrow we will cover the social aspects of a minimum wage and take into account what kind of effects this has on working people and their families. This is the realm where most of the support for a minimum wage comes from.

Inflation Surges Correlate with War

Published by Colin July 17, 2007 in General. 19 Comments

After every major US war, there is a general surge in inflation. Presidential Candidate Ron Paul and several libertarian economists have theorized that this is because spending on wars is largely financed by fiat printing via the federal reserve. According to Paul:

If every American taxpayer had to submit an extra five or ten thousand dollars to the IRS this April to pay for the war, I’m quite certain it would end very quickly. The problem is that government finances war by borrowing and printing money, rather than presenting a bill directly in the form of higher taxes.

Just taking a cursory look at an inflation graph will prove this point rather easily. Here is one, with periods of war highlighted in red.

The year after World War I saw the CPI go up 14.9% and 15.8% in 1919 and 1920 respectively. After World War II, the next three years were 8.5%, 14.4% and 7.8%. There was a negligible surge after the Korean War. But after the long, costly war in Vietnam, rates rose 11% the first year and stayed relatively high for several years.

Obviously it is tough to correlate these figures exactly. Overall production has a large effect on these figures – either augmenting or taming inflation. Whatever the cause, it should be clear that there is a historical president that may see repeating at the end of the current war.

Zeal For Truth