Rose Wilder Lane's "The Discovery of Freedom"

I'm not sure how I came across this book, but I'm honestly quite surprised that I hadn't heard of Rose Wilder Lane sooner.  Daughter of Laura Ingalls Wilder (author of the "Little House on the Prairie" series of books that later inspired the TV show of the same name), Rose was a prolific writer in the first half of the 20th century.  She wrote books and articles, traveling all over the world to find source material.  She, along with Ayn Rand and Isabel Paterson, is considered one of the founders of modern libertarianism.

She really loved freedom. And also (apparently) hats.

Like a surprising number of libertarians, she identified with the communist ideology before eventually turning to libertarianism.  Her conversion came on a trip she took to Soviet Russia as a volunteer with the Red Cross just after the first World War.  Speaking with local villagers and witnessing the inefficiency and stupidity of central planing first-hand, she left Russia no longer a communist.  She was instead instilled with a new found respect for the personal freedom that most of us take for granted in the United States.  She vehemently opposed the New Deal, and published a pamphlet entitled "What is this, the Gestapo?" that was meant to remind Americans to guard their liberties even in the midst of WWII.

But however interesting her personal story is, her book "The Discovery of Freedom" focuses instead on the history of liberty in the world.  She begins by establishing that the belief that an Authority (always capitalized in the text) is responsible for a people's welfare is a pagan religion.  It is a belief in group morality, which is radically different than a belief in individual morality.  And she shows that throughout history this belief has been pervasive; that the ancient leaders from all over the world were either supposed to be divine themselves, or supposedly possessed a divine duty to guide and care for their citizens.

Lane then points out that the first instance in history of an attempt to establish individual morality came from Abraham, who said there was only one God and espoused a belief in individual morality.  She traces this line of thinking forward until the Jews finally anoint a King and belief in individual morality was once again smothered (but later was reignited for a time, she claims, by Jesus Christ).  My favorite example here is the Old Testament story of Gideon who famously refused to become king of the Jews, telling them that only God was their ruler.

She then writes that the second attempt at establishing individual morality came with the advent of Islam.  Mohammed, she says, was also a believer in monotheism and individual morality.  His teachings crushed the local pagan religions and brought about a long period of prosperity and innovation for that region.  She traces this civilization forward until the Crusades, which she documents as a horrific time for liberty.  It was a time where the Kings of Europe believed they were even morally responsible for the thoughts of their subjects.

The third attempt at establishing individual morality, she documents, is in America.  And it is only a few generations old. (A few more than since she wrote the book, I suppose, although a strong argument could be made that this attempt has already ended.)  She talks extensively about the American Revolution, focusing specifically on Thomas Paine.  She then explains how our Constitution is written much differently than the Magna Cartas of the Old World, that the enumerated powers within are delegated to government, as opposed to rights oh-so-graciously granted by government. Democracy, she also points out, is not what this is about.  Belief in democracy, rule by majority opinion, is just the same ancient pagan belief in Authority dressed up a little differently.

I have to say, I really enjoyed this book.  The prose was so clear and full of life (as it seems to be from many writers of that era).  It went a little slow at first, but once I got into it I couldn't put it down.  It's also really cool, in my opinion, that she really links religion to libertarianism.  Many libertarians, mostly in the Ayn Rand tradition I suppose, spend a lot of time condemning religion or at best ignore it.  I have a few quibbles with some of Rose Wilder Lane's interpretations of the Bible, but overall I think she does a fantastic job of linking the moral beliefs of Christianity to a moral belief in capitalism, maximum individual freedom, and the minimal state.  (She probably also does a pretty good job with regard to Islam, but I don't know a lot about Islam so I can't really say for sure.)

The only thing I didn't like about this book is that she seems to have a thing against Germans.  I guess it's understandable, since was writing during the time of WWII, but as a person of German heritage I was slightly offended at times.  But that's ok.  It's easy be wrong about Germans and right about liberty.

If you haven't read this book already, I would highly recommend it.  You can find a pdf for free here, or pay a few bucks and get a nicely formatted version for your kindle here.  (Or for other e-readers here.)  Inspired by this book, I added Isabel Paterson's "The God of the Machine" to my list of books to read.

We Need to Legalize Drugs. Seriously. (Also, Prostitution.)

So lately I've been watching these documentaries on drugs.  They're pretty disturbing.  Watching someone stick a needle into themselves makes me cringe every time, but even at a higher level it's so sad to watch people destroy their lives.  And yet I guess it's like a train wreck (or so I've heard):  I just can't turn away.

But as disturbing as these activities are, should they be illegal?  As a libertarian, I say no.  The only things that should even be considered for prohibition are those things which have negative third-party effects.  And even then, those negative third-party effects need to be substantially greater than the negative third-party effects of the prohibition. (As Milton Friedman said, "There is a smokestack on the back of every government program."  Which is to say, every government program has negative third-party effects:  taxes, regulations, limits on human freedom, and unintended consequences.)

Are there negative third-party effects from drug use?  Absolutely!  Drug abuse destroys families and social institutions.  Pregnant mothers who do drugs put their unborn children at risk of disease and deformity.  Someone's got to treat an overdose (and drug addicts rarely have health insurance) or bury an addict who has overdosed to death.  Those are all horrific third-party effects that would exist whether drugs were legal or illegal.  But most of the third party effects normally associated with drugs, such as violence, disease, and property crime, are not third-party effects from the drugs themselves.  They are artifacts of prohibition, they are the smokestacks on the back of the "War on Drugs."  They are side-effects of the supposed cure and they are worse than the disease.

How does prohibition cause these things?  Let's take a step back and go back to the documentaries.  Much of their focus is on the production of drugs, which I find to be quite interesting as a chemical engineer.  Most of the product gets made in Afghanistan or the jungles of South America.  These people are using car jacks and wooden beams to press out water.  They're mixing this stuff up in square wooden boxes and stirring it with sticks. As an engineer, I'm just watching this and thinking to myself, " This is ridiculous! Think how cheaply Pfizer or Merck could make this stuff with some modern equipment!" (Of course, they'd probably want to patent troll it and jack up the price, but that's another blog for another time.)

Guy adding "chemicals" to the raw opium in the process of refining it into heroin, other guys stirring it with sticks.

Afghans pressing the water out of "refined" opium using a wooden plank.

But shouldn't we want to keep the price high?  No!  The reason drug addicts are committing property crimes isn't because of some inherent property of the drugs, it's because they need to find ways to get a lot of money quickly and the only ways to do that are illegal.  A heroin addict (apparently) needs about 3 hits a day to stay normal.  That's about $100 per day at these inflated prices.  You can't work a normal job and get that kind of money, especially when you're high all the time.  But what if the price was $20 a day?  Or $5 a day?  (Like the average American's Starbucks fix?)  As a junkie, you still won't have a normal life or career obviously, but your addiction suddenly becomes a lot smaller problem.  Instead of having to steal car radios or break into houses, you can beg for some money from your neighbor or a charity.  You can sweep floors for a few nights a week.  Something like that.  At the very least, you have to steal a lot fewer car radios.

Another thing you'll notice, if you watch the documentaries, is how many of the female addicts eventually turn to prostitution.  Why can prostitution pay for an expensive addiction?  Because their "goods," so to speak, are being sold at inflated, prohibition prices!  If prostitution becomes legal, suddenly addicts can't just turn to it when they need some extra cash.  They'd need to jump through all the hoops (health checks, job interviews, etc) just to be able to become competitive in the prostitution marketplace, and even then to command prices as high as they can today they'd probably have to be relatively professional about it.  Would you buy an apple from some grungy looking girl on the corner?  Of course not!  But you might have to if you really wanted apples and apples were illegal.  And you'd also probably have to pay through the nose even for an apple of questionable quality.

Back to drugs.  Another problem with making these drugs in the most primitive way possible is that they become dangerous.  In one of the documentaries there is a doctor who runs a heroin clinic that gives out free heroin to junkies who have a prescription.  He describes the heroin found on the street as "soupy" whereas the medical quality heroin is completely clear.  It's much safer.  The heroin for sale on the street has probably been "stepped on" (diluted with junk like baking soda, sleeping pills, drywall, or even rat poison) over a dozen times along the way.  It's of questionable quality and strength, and because of that a junkie can inadvertently take too large a dose (because he has no idea what is actually in one dose) or end up injecting a lot of harmful trash into himself along with the heroin.

Would you rather buy your heroin from this guy (he's diluting it with sleeping pills right now)...

Or this guy?

You might say you're glad it's dangerous to do heroin.  After all, less people will do it if it's dangerous.  Well... you might be right about that, but if my brother (for example) had a heroin addiction I would much rather he be able to use it (relatively) safely than have to buy junk on the street.  I would rather my brother get clean, but if he's not going to get clean I don't want him to die from an overdose or inject himself with harmful chemicals.  I would want him to be able to get his fix in the safest possible way. The other up-side to letting people get their heroin at a clinic is that they can be checked for diseases like hepatitis, syphilis, and AIDS while they are there and get treatment.  This reduces third party effects from the spread of disease.

Of note to the citizens of Cascadia, Washington state is going to have Initiative 502 on the ballot this fall which would basically decriminalize marijuana in the state of Washington.  I've been talking about hard drugs in this blog, but they are a much harder case than marijuana.  Marijuana is more or less a drug like alcohol, in fact it probably has fewer third party effects than alcohol.  Treating it like alcohol seems extremely prudent.  Prohibition of alcohol didn't work, why do we think prohibition of marijuana will?

Charles Murray’s “What It Means to Be a Libertarian”

In my first blog post I mentioned that the first book I read on libertarianism was Charles Murray’s “What It Means to Be a Libertarian.”  It wasn’t coincidence that I mentioned that particular book, or that it was on my mind.  I was just going through some of my old stuff at my parents’ house and found that book tucked away in a box in a closet.  So I re-read it.*

The broadest possible definition of libertarianism, as I see it, is this:  The belief that the most important political value is the individual liberty of each citizen.  Personal liberty as well as economic liberty.  Each libertarian comes at this from a different angle, but the goal has to be individual liberty.

Dr. Murray’s foremost concern is maximizing the long-term happiness of individuals.  He’s not concerned, necessarily, with the momentary happiness that might come from finding a $20 bill in your pocket or sipping on a cold coke on a warm day.  This kind of happiness is fleeting.  Dr. Murray is primarily concerned with the sense of satisfaction that one can expect to have when looking back on a life well lived.  And that sense of satisfaction, he argues, can only be found if a man can look back and find good things that would not have been otherwise accomplished but for his effort.  It appears to Dr. Murray that in order for a man to be able to get this kind of satisfaction, he must be allowed to fail or succeed on his own merits.  Whatever status a man reaches through life, he should, and most likely would, be able look back with satisfaction if he knows that he has earned it.  This is, in a nutshell, the ethical basis Dr. Murray gives for placing his highest political value on the personal and economic liberties of the individual.

The meat of this book is really focused on defining the framework of Murray’s ideal government and defending that framework.  Murray’s ideal government is sort of a minarchist-plus government:  One that defends the individual rights of people with police, courts, and a military but also provides “public goods” such as roads, utilities, and even school vouchers so long as the administration of these goods is controlled at the most local level of government possible.   His defense is constructed by taking on the hardest possible cases for libertarians (the environment, public safety, public welfare, discrimination, healthcare, etc.) and showing why it is reasonable to believe that his ideal government would handle these problems better than the current government. 

Ultimately, Murray claims that a return to a government like the one he describes is possible when people begin to think of the government as “them” rather than “us.”  I think he’s right.  In fact, a good definition of “what it means to be a libertarian” might just be this:  thinking of the government as “them” rather than “us.”

*I hardly ever re-read books.  In fact I can’t even think of another book I’ve ever re-read cover to cover.  So just that fact alone should be interpreted as a ringing endorsement of Dr. Murray’s manifesto.

Tom Woods on Gary Johnson (The Peter Schiff Show 5/17/2012)

On today’s edition of The Peter Schiff Show, guest hosted by the great historian Tom Woods, a caller asked what Tom’s opinion was on Libertarian party presidential nominee Gary Johnson.  Now, I’m a huge Gary Johnson supporter so I was saddened by Tom’s answer.  Tom basically acted disappointed in Governor Johnson, saying he was “too wonkish” and needed more charisma… *sigh*

Maybe, being the kind of person who watches videos of all the events at the Cato Institute and reads books about monetary policy and zoning laws for fun, I’m just more of a wonk myself but I tend to identify more with a guy like Gary than a pitchforks-and-torches kind of candidate.  And I think the fact that Gary Johnson has a great record as a former governor is a huge comparative advantage, even if he doesn’t necessarily have the charisma of a Ronald Reagan or even a Michael Badnarik.  His credentials give him credibility, and that credibility can hook people who might ordinarily ignore the Libertarian candidate, assuming he’s a kook.

 

Think about it.  If I tell one of my non-libertarian fence-sitting friends about Michael Badnarik (a software engineer who has, for all I and my friend know, never run anything larger than his own household) and get him to watch a youtube speech or, if I’m some kind of a miracle worker, get him to come out to a Badnarik event he might sense the charisma and look more closely into the libertarian principles Badnarik is talking about.  Maybe.  Or maybe he’ll realize that Hitler also had quite a bit of charisma but his ideas were obviously very bad.  But either way he’s going to be pretty hesitant going into the whole thing.  A guy like Badnarik really has not done anything to show that he’s ready for the job of president, and so his ideas probably won’t get a fair shake.

But with a record like Gary’s, I have ammo to ply my friend’s sense of logic.  I can say, “Look, Gary Johnson cut 1,200 government jobs and New Mexico did fine.  They did better than fine!  They created 20,000 private sector jobs, and had a balanced budget to boot. Let’s bring him to the national government where he can do the same thing!”  From there we can get into a discussion of the issues, and I can point to a youtube video or a website once my friend is interested.  I don’t have to drag him around and hold his hand to get him to come.  And once he comes he’s going to be there because he’s genuinely interested in the ideas, not because he wants to experience some new and different sub-culture of America; not because he wants to observe us like he would some kind of strange species at the zoo.  On top of that, this is the more likely scenario.  Let’s face it, I’m not going to be able to get him to watch a speech.  I’m not going to be able to get him to come out to an event.  It’s going to be me and him talking about the issues, and Gary Johnson’s record brings credibility to the ideas I’m going to put forward.  If anything, it's my charisma that's going to matter, not Gary's.

This perception that our libertarian ideas need to be sold by some charismatic demagogue...  I mean, sure, it would be great if we could have a charismatic candidate who also has a stellar record of governing as a libertarian, but it would also be great to wake up and find $50,000 in cash dropped on my doorstep by the tooth fairy.  I doubt either scenario is going to happen, so why complain when it doesn't occur?  We should be focusing on what we’ve got to work with here:  A stellar record, built on libertarian principles, that easily beats Mitt Romney’s abysmal record in Massachusetts and Obama’s appalling record of economic stagnation.  Maybe Gary Johnson’s red meat speeches aren’t quite as red and juicy as libertarians would like them to be (although I thought his speech at the convention was pretty good), but I think his record is a much bigger asset than charisma if we choose to use it wisely.
    

But anyway, while Tom was on a rant about the kinds of things he wished Governor Johnson would say, he did come up with an awesome line that I’ll leave you to ponder: 

“The problem is not that the government is 7% too inefficient, the problem is that the government is composed of sociopaths who have no sympathy for the average person and who simply want to make a living on the backs of working people doing jobs that not only accomplish nothing, but are positive hindrances to growth in this country.”

Amen, Tom.

Ryan Avent’s “The Gated City”

The sexiest political theory is undoubtedly at the national level.  Everyone cares who the president is, no one cares who the mayor is.  But despite the lack of interest, your local government will most likely have a lot more influence over your day to day life than the national government will.

Ryan Avent’s e-book “The Gated City” explores the economic benefits of high-density city life and the barriers that local governments put in the way of growing cities.  These barriers, he argues, have led to drastic increases in the cost of living for residents.  And those cost increases have kept people out of cities, where they would be most productive.

 

If you talk to most people about this kind of thing they’ll explain to you that people are payed more in big cities because the cost of living is higher there.  But anyone who understands the marginal revenue product theory of wages understands that this is not, usually, the case.  The real reason people are payed more to work in big cities is because they are more productive there.  And then, as a consequence of the higher wages, housing prices are bid up.  Ordinarily, this would signal builders to redevelop underused areas into higher density living quarters, but government restrictions stand in the way.  And so housing prices stay high in the city.   

Ryan Avent’s biggest gripe doesn’t actually seem to be with government, necessarily, but with the NIMBY’s (Not-In-My-Back-Yard types) that use the government to prevent construction projects that they don’t like.  He explains that the NIMBY’s actually have good reason for standing in the way of new construction:  Owning a property is an, often highly leveraged, undiversified bet on a hyper-local asset.  Any risk at all is probably not worth it for these people, even if there is a good chance that new development will increase the value of their property.   They are acting perfectly logically, and in their own self-interest, when they lobby their neighbors and their local government to preserve neighborhoods in their “historic” state, or to install restrictive zoning laws in order to keep out new developments.  Unfortunately, this keeps housing prices high and urban densities lower than they should be.  And, from a moral perspective, using government to prevent new construction in your area is like waving a gun at your neighbor and threatening to kidnap him (or worse!) if he tries to build on his property.  Except it’s legal…

I think Ryan Avent would probably be described by most as a libertarian, although that’s not entirely clear in this book, but he supports quite a few deviations from the minarchist ideal and he does not go into detail to show their necessity.  He seems to believe that government should plan and build transportation infrastructure to encourage urban living; that local governments should “invest” in urban rail and transit (despite the fact that the vast majority, perhaps even all, of the municipal rail lines being operated in this country are unprofitable) and that government is the only entity that can build subway systems (despite the fact that the New York City subway system was originally built with private money).  He also offended my personal tastes by quoting Paul Krugman in a positive way with regard to unionism.  But these faults, as I see them, will probably make the book more palatable to non-radicals, and they are not pervasive.  The book is a very quick read and only a couple bucks on Amazon so I highly recommend it.

The other book I’ve read on (sort of) this subject is Randal O’Toole’s “Gridlock.”  There’s also a pretty good blog I discovered that deals with this kind of thing at marketurbanism.com.  On my list to read is Edward Glaeser’s “Triumph of the City.”

Statement of Purpose

I decided to create this blog to share my thoughts on political philosophy and current events, particularly as they relate to the North American region of Cascadia, from a libertarian perspective.  My plan is to regularly post reviews of the various political and economic books I read, lectures I view, and perhaps comment on various news stories and issues of the day as they are relevant.  I would also like to get some of my libertarian minded friends to guest author some posts as they are able.

A little background on my perspective:

I guess I'm what they call the "minarchist" flavor of libertarian, meaning that I think that a minimal state, one which provides for the common defense and the rule of law but otherwise leaves its citizens alone, is the optimal form of government.  I first discovered that I was a libertarian when I heard the great professor Walter E Williams on the radio guest hosting the Rush Limbaugh show back when I was in high school.  For some reason this epiphany was revealed to my extended family members, one of whom bought me a copy of Charles Murray's "What It Means to be a Libertarian," which was a wonderful introduction but probably written at a much higher level than my thinking at the time.

My interest in economics began with the first (and only!) class I took on economics at Columbia Basin Community College.  It was an online summer class, so we didn't really have lectures, but I devoured the textbook.  To this day, through all 8 years of taking college classes, I can say that it is the only class in which I read every single assigned reading.  And then some.

I didn't really do much in relation to libertarianism or economics at any point during my undergraduate career.  Then, during my first semester of graduate school, I remembered how much I connected with that economics course at CBC and I picked up Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics (3rd ed.)" and read it, cover to cover, treating it basically as a self-study course in economics.  From there my interest was sparked.  I began to pick up the pace on my reading and listened to probably hundreds of lectures online (mostly on various youtube channels, the Cato Institute, or the Mises Institute).  Each new book I read or lecture I listened to seemed to lead to 2 or 3 others that I was interested in.

I'm currently reading at a pace of about a book a week (ok, probably more like a book every 2 weeks, depending on the length) and I subscribe to Reason Magazine, the Peter Schiff Show, and the Larry Kudlow Radio Podcast.  My amazon wishlist is about 100 books long and growing at an alarming rate.

I'm hoping this blog will encourage me to keep chipping away at my reading list, help me to organize my thoughts, and maybe even provide a little bit of value to readers.