February 2012 – The Libertarian Standard

Are You Really A Libertarian?

By Stephan Kinsella / February 25, 2012 / 1 Comment / 3 minutes of reading

Over at the Hillsdale Natural Law Review, Tyler O’Neil has a post, “Are You Really A Libertarian?”, examining the views of one Matthew Spalding, author of the book We Still Hold These Truths, who apparently “says most libertarians aren’t Libertarians.” It’s a very confusing post, or, at least, a post about the views of a confused author. My reply, which is still being held up for moderation, is below.

Spalding’s views, as presented here, seem to me to be a very confused and incoherent. The argument switches back and forth between libertarian and Libertarian, sometimes using them as the same thing and sometimes not, and making strange definitions about creating one’s own sense of meaning, whatever that means. Perhaps the author is trying to bring in the philosophical doctrine of “libertarianism” which is more about free will but which really has nothing to do with the political philosophy of libertarianism. The “free will” use of “libertarian” is implied in passages such as this: “there is no human nature – individuals are free to form themselves into whatever they choose to become.”

In my article What Libertarianism Is, I provide an overview of the libertarian perspectives. First, we should recognize that capital-L Libertarian usually denotes someone who is a member of the Libertarian Party. Small-l libertarian means a person who accepts the main tenets of the political philosophy of libertarianism. These two sets are overlapping–some libertarians are Libertarians but not all (for example I am not a Libertarian and never have been a member of the LP); and some Libertarians are not libertarians because they are too mainstream in their acceptance of the role of the state.

Libertarianism is simply the view that aggression is unjustified, and that aggression is the invasion of property borders, where property borders are determined in accordance with (a) self-ownership, in the case of the body, and (b) Lockean homesteading, in the case of external scarce resources. The most consistent application of this view implies opposition to the state, since the state is simply institutionalized aggression. (See my What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist). That is, the consistent libertarian is an anarcho-capitalist, or what I usually refer to as anarcho-libertarian. Others who do not go quite that far are what we call minarchists.

In this sense libertarian has nothing to do with belonging to the LP (Libertarian), or with some volitional notion that “there is no human nature – individuals are free to form themselves into whatever they choose to become.” It also has little to do with the Founding Fathers who at most were types of classical liberal; and as I have argued elsewhere, thinking that the Constitution and early American government was proto-libertarian is a mistake, except in the sense that the state back then was smaller simply because it was just starting to grow. The Constitution is not libertarian and in fact is just an ambiguous, inconsistent statute drafted by special interest groups and bureaucrats with conflicting goals and ambitions, meant to establish and justify and give cover to a new and dangerous central state. A quasi-libertarian Bill of Rights was thrown in as a concession, but it just ends up giving the state even more cover for its crimes.

Update: See also Curt Doolittle’s “propertarian” reply to the Hillsdale post: Big “L” Versus Little “l” Libertarianism Defined: An post-analytical take on libertarianism for Hillsdale.

Are You Really A Libertarian? Read Post »

The price of employment “fairness”

Employment Law

By Brian Martinez / February 25, 2012 / 2 minutes of reading

If you receive an application for a position requiring a lot of driving or operating heavy machinery, and the applicant has a known history of alcohol or substance abuse, you’d probably be justified in turning the applicant down for the job, right?

You probably already know the answer to this, but: wrong.

A substitute bus driver for the Jefferson County, Colo., school district was cited for careless driving resulting in bodily harm after he struck three teenagers as they crossed the street on Tuesday. The driver, David Shaw, was convicted of DUI in 1992 and according to friends had been in and out of alcohol abuse treatment as recently as 2009.

But even had the school district known this, they could not use it as grounds to terminate him, or even to make a hiring decision:

When asked whether Shaw would have been hired if the district had known he’d been in and out of addiction rehab treatment, a representative cited the American’s with Disabilities Act, which reads “‘It is illegal under state and federal disability laws to deny employment solely on the basis of a history of treatment for alcohol or substance abuse.”

Ignoring the DUI for the moment (which should have been caught in a background check), only the government could come up with employment policies which result in alcoholics driving schoolchildren around in buses.

It’s not that they shouldn’t be hired at all. But the many-headed beast that is the Americans with Disabilities Act has made it virtually impossible to apply common sense when making hiring decisions. And since the ADA has proved to be a potent legal weapon against businesses who have turned down or fired disabled workers, it has actually had the opposite effect it intended: employment of disabled workers have decreased steadily since passage of the ADA in 1989. But as with most other anti-discrimination laws, merely suggesting that the ADA needs to be overhauled (or heavens forbid, repealed) makes one an enemy of the very group of people the law was intended (but failed) to protect.

More from another hater of disabled people, Cato’s Walter Olson, on the occasion of the ADA’s 20th anniversary.

The price of employment “fairness” Read Post »

Many Americans don’t pay income tax. Is this a bad thing?

(Austrian) Economics, Democracy, Taxation, The Right

By Ryan McMaken / February 24, 2012 / 4 Comments / 5 minutes of reading

Last week, the Heritage Foundation published commentary on the number of Americans who pay income tax, and decried the fact that 49.5 percent of Americans are “not represented on a taxable return.” The Daily Mail then picked up the statistics and announced that “HALF of Americans don’t pay income tax despite crippling government debt.”

To its credit, the body of the Heritage post began with a reference to the “the sharp increase of Americans who rely on the federal government for housing, food, income, student aid or other assistance.” The emphasis of the piece, however, and thus, the emphasis of the other news outlets and pundits who have picked up on the statistic, is that too few people pay taxes.

The increase in reliance on government assistance is the problem here, not a lack of people who pay income tax.

Yet, it has become something of a right-wing talking point to claim that a declining number of taxpayers among some income groups is a nefarious development in American history.

The emphasis on the lack of taxpayers is getting the whole issue backward. The problem is the increase of income from government transfer payments. There is nothing bad whatsoever about fewer people paying income taxes.

The Conservative obsession with getting people to pay more in taxes comes from a preoccupation with class warfare in which it is assumed that if middle-class and wealthy people are paying too much in taxes (which they are), then the solution is to punish low-income people by making them pay more in taxes. It’s allegedly not “fair” if everyone is not being extorted by the state in a similar fashion.

The just solution, however, is to greatly decrease the tax burden of those paying taxes now. In a recent NPR interview, Ron Paul nicely summed up what is actually “fair”:

MR. SIEGEL: This week’s release of Mitt Romney’s taxes and President Obama’s advocacy of a millionaire’s tax raise questions about fairness in funding the government. The first question: Do you believe that income derived from dividends interest or capital gains should be taxed at a lower rate than income earned from a salary or commissions?

REP. PAUL: Well, I’d like to have everybody taxed at the same rate, and of course, my goal is to get as close to zero as possible, because there was a time in our history when we didn’t have income taxes. But when government takes it upon themselves to do so much, you have to have a tax code. But if you’re going to be the policemen of the world and run all these wars, you have to have a tax code. But as far as what the rates should be, I think it should be as low as possible for – for everybody.

It’s a safe bet that Siegel’s underlying assumption behind the question is that in order to make taxes fair, then anyone who is paying a tax bill that is too “low” should therefore have his taxes raised.

The opposite is true, as noted by Paul.

So, when Conservatives get bent out of shape about some people not paying tax, the response should be to demand lower taxes for everyone, not to complain that people aren’t paying their “fair share,” which seems to be the Conservative sentiment.

We might also note that this statistic apparently only applies to income taxes. It says nothing about payroll taxes, which for many middle-class people is by far the largest part of one’s monthly tax bill. Any teenager with his first job notices just how much those payroll taxes take out of one’s paycheck. So, to claim that people aren’t paying taxes simply because they’re not paying income tax is rather disingenuous. Since there’s no such thing as a Social Security or Medicare trust fund, payroll taxes are really just income taxes under another name.

Also, any demand for more taxation is really just a demand for increased government revenue. It’s a call for more money so government can bomb more people, bail out more banks and spread around more largesse to politically well-connected friends.

So, the focus on whether or not “enough” people are paying taxes completely misses the point. The larger point is that far too many Americans receive government benefits. Indeed, recent increases in income as measured by the BLS, reflect increases in government transfer payments, as I’ve shown here.

Ludwig von Mises wrote in Bureaucracy that a system in which a majority of the population is dependent on the government dole leads to an unstable political and economic situation, since a majority of the population then has a vested interest in increasing the power of government to redistribute wealth. While the Heritage article makes some comments in this vein, it nevertheless makes the claim that “The rapid growth of Americans who don’t pay income taxes is particularly alarming for the fate of the American form of government.” Really? By that logic, “the American form of government” would be in danger if the income tax were abolished. Oh, how did America ever survive prior to the 16th Amendment?

There is no doubt that the growth in dependency on government largesse is a serious problem, but that doesn’t mean that any American pays too little in taxes. It simply means that the government spends too much money.

The Conservative reaction to this statistic, however, seem to be: “Hey, those guys aren’t being taxed! Tax them!” This is hardly a phrase that should be uttered by anyone who claims to be for limited government.

Many Americans don’t pay income tax. Is this a bad thing? Read Post »

LibertariaNation (Italy) on the “New Wave of Libertarian Intellectuals”

(Austrian) Economics, Anti-Statism, Libertarian Theory, Statism

By Stephan Kinsella / February 23, 2012 / 2 Comments / 4 minutes of reading

I was contacted recently by Fabrizio Sitzia, of the Italian libertarian group LibertariaNation.org, to do an interview on IP and libertarianism; we are doing this later this afternoon.

I was browsing around their site, which is in Italian but noticed that there is an English language introduction to the group on their site here. There is also an interesting post on their site, New wave of libertarian intellectuals (Dec. 7, 2011) (google translation). The post notes the seminal influence of Mises and Rothbard (and Hoppe), and bemoans the very low prominence of libertarianism in Italy, and notes that the US is still the center of libertarian ideas and innovation. It also–flatteringly–highlights my work and that of my friend Stefan Molyneux–the two Stefs of libertarianism, I guess we might be called. Below is a rough automatic google translation of part of the post, with some light editing by me:

We often speak of the founders of the Austrian Economic School nearly so sacred. Rightly venerate Mises and Rothbard (to name but two) as our teachers and how our figures. It can not be thus seen that the grandeur of their thought and their works. But despite the themes of the Austrian school are universal and can be applied to any decade, century or millennium Mises and Rothbard were men of their time and did not know the problems that people face today. Perhaps the most insidious problems because more invisible than those of decades ago.

Compared to the Italian and the libertarian world for ideas and innovation is ridiculously set at zero (and perhaps also why we felt the need to establish libertariaNation) the U.S. is always evolving and always ready to tackle new issues. Among the young people I consider the most influential libertarian thinkers of my mind there are two that are little known to the Italian public, but I want you to know in this post: Stephan Kinsella and Stefan Molyneux.

Let’s start with Stephan Kinsella, the founder of Libertarian Papers and senior fellow at the Mises Institute, who is a lawyer specializing in intellectual property. And intellectual property is the topic of his best known book, Against Intellectual Property. As the title says the monograph has as its subject intellectual property and copyright. And in my opinion the book is a solid foundation against the arguments that defend copyright and patent, and especially against the libertarians who defend IP. Kinsella reminds us that Friedman and Rand, for example, have argued in favor of copyright despite the logical fallacy of their defense, especially within a libertarian framework. But the details of the book we will discuss later with a proper review. Kinsella, in my opinion, represents a modern libertarianism free from many of the artifacts of other past and contemporary libertarians. Together with Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Kinsella is definitely one of the most influential authors of the Mises Institute in recent years.

Stefan Molyneux is instead a completely different kind of libertarian. While Kinsella moves within the frame with academic essays, lectures, etc., and legal arguments, Molyneux is a real stage animal. The ‘ we saw the crowd to win Libertopia 2011 and we hear every day on FreedomainRadio. In his own channel on Youtube addresses topics as diverse as state-worship by the copyright laws, reviews books and science fiction films to interviews with famous people libertarians. I like Molyneux because he has a way of making direct points, does not mince words, and especially has no degree in Economics. Thanks to these characteristics Molyneux can reach a wider audience than a book of Mises or Rothbard could ever do. He also has new ideas, and even when he speaks of the masters Mises and Rothbard he always manages to fit perfectly with our times. He rarely uses the patriotic rhetoric of stars and stripes, simply because he is a Canadian. A character like this, a haranguing crowds of this caliber does not exist in Italy and perhaps even in Europe. The spread of libertarianism and the philosophy of non-aggression principle must necessarily come from people of this type. These are just two of the representatives of what some jokingly call the New Wave of Libertarian Intellectuals. The first “wave” was represented by the economists of the Austrian School and is the foundation of libertarian theory. Now it is time for someone to bring them out from the halls of universities and make known to the general public.

LibertariaNation (Italy) on the “New Wave of Libertarian Intellectuals” Read Post »

Is an involuntary samaritan good? And can libertarians support a “good samaritan” law?

Democracy, Libertarian Theory, Nanny Statism, Police Statism, The Left

By Geoffrey Allan Plauché / February 22, 2012 / 3 Comments / 6 minutes of reading

This post is a slightly revised version of two comments I left on the Bleeding Heart Libertarians blog in response to Matt Zwolinski’s post “What We Can Learn from Drowning Children.”

In his post, Zwolinski takes Bryan Caplan to task for arguing that there is not much we are morally required to do for a stranger. Caplan couches his discussion in the context of what we are within our rights to do; in this case, to not help strangers if we so choose. I don’t know if Caplan would go further and say that we don’t have much in the way of unenforceable positive moral obligations to strangers, i.e., things that we should do even though we have a right not to. But I think Zwolinski takes him to hold this. In any case, they’re two separate issues; it is quite possible to be a libertarian who thinks that we do have some unenforceable positive moral obligations to strangers.

But Zwolinski goes beyond making the case for this. He actually argues that we do have enforceable positive moral obligations to strangers, i.e., that we don’t have a right not to help them and that others have a right to force us to do so and, I suppose, punish us if we do not.

Zwolinski also seems to be arguing in favor of “enforceable collective duties,” including wealth redistribution by the state. It sure seems like he is heading in that direction toward the end of his post.

Moreover, part of Bryan’s argument actually counts against viewing those obligations as individual, private duties and in favor of viewing them as collective duties that should be coercively enforced. In other words, Bryan’s given us no reason here to oppose institutionalizing the duty to rescue in the form of a state-funded minimal social safety net.

I hope Zwolinski isn’t arguing in favor of this. Libertarians oppose wealth redistribution by the state.

Given his line of argument in his post, I wonder if he has any principled arguments against wealth redistribution by the state — assuming he is against it, that is. If he does have such arguments, I’d like to see them. It would help reassure many people that bleeding-heart libertarianism really is a form of libertarianism rather than welfare “liberalism” lite. Consider it a challenge.

I”m a virtue ethicist, not a consequentialist or a deontologist. I don’t see that there is any such thing as “collective duties,” much less enforceable ones. I can see a moral obligation to save a drowning child, depending on context — but not a duty, not a universal and absolute rule, much less a law to enforce it.

Moreover, the way Zwolinski frames the debate assumes a modern statist system of law and punishment. What is he going to do to people who break his “good samaritan” law?

Put them in prison? Many libertarians, such as myself, don’t approve of prison systems; they amount to enslavement systems.

Extract restitution? That’s more like it, assuming the obligation is enforceable. But still…

None of this will bring the child back to life. None of this will necessarily force someone to be a “good samaritan.” Indeed, an involuntary samaritan is not a good samaritan.

And how would he enforce the law? Put up CCTV cameras everywhere to make sure everyone is complying with his “good samaritan” law? Encourage neighbors to snitch on one another? That hardly sounds libertarian.

Why not look to boycotting and ostracism as adequate methods of dealing with anti-social people who do particularly heinous things that they have a right to do? You don’t even need a “good samaritan” law for this. It’s purely voluntary and can be quite effective. Just shun the bastards.

I think it’s inappropriate and invalid to generalize moral principles from lifeboat situations and other emergencies and edge cases; a code of ethics is first and foremost for everyday life and we must use prudence in applying it to such rare cases, not the other way round. It’s even more wrong to generate laws from such uncommon cases.

Why is Zwolinski so worried about an enforceable obligation to save a drowning child in the first place? As he says, the passing-stranger-and-drowning-child scenario is “a bizarrely rare occurrence.” Even more uncommon is the passing-stranger-lets-the-child-drown scenario. Is this something we really need to worry about in a free society? Drowning children everywhere for want of a “good samaritan” because “there oughta be a law!”? To riff on Michael Barnett’s point in the comments, the path of the moralistic do-gooder busybody is a dangerous one to start out on; it’s bad for one’s character and leads away from libertarianism.

Zwolinski also wondered,

Why, oh why, does it always have to be about guns for libertarians? Yes, I know that in some ultimate sense, every law is backed by the threat of violence. If you break the speed limit and are sent a fine, and don’t pay it, and resist when the cops show up at your house, and resist very effectively when they try to physically force you into their car, then eventually they very well might take out their gun. But that just. doesn’t. mean. that posting a speed limit sign is the same thing as pointing a gun at you. Or even the moral equivalent of doing so.

No, it’s not morally equivalent; it’s more cowardly. It’s voting for and “hiring” someone else to use the gun.

It’s perfectly valid to ask someone if they would be willing to point a gun at you, and use it, to enforce some statist law or regulation they’re proposing or defending. If they are willing to do so, well, that shows their depravity clearly and puts you on notice that they’re not fit for civilized society. If they aren’t willing to do so, but are willing to vote and pay (or rather, force someone else to pay) for someone else to do it, I think that speaks to a certain level of cowardice and probably in many cases an unwillingless to fully accept what their beliefs entail. The statist-democratic process allows people the illusion that the laws and regulations they favor are voluntary and legitimate. Somehow the state magically transforms actions that we normally consider evil by private individuals into good when performed by agents of the state. The state is the great transvaluer of values — the coldest of all cold monsters.

The reason it always has to be about guns for libertarians is that we’re opposed to the threat or use of initiatory physical force, so when someone insists we have a duty to do something we want to know if they plan to initiate force to make us to do it against our will. If they do, then we know to do evil to impose their values on others, that they’re uncivilized, and that they’re not libertarian. We live in an unlibertarian world full of such people, so yes, it’s always rightfully on our minds. That doesn’t mean we all think there are no unenforceable positive moral obligations. We just like to make sure you will respect our rights first before we enter into largely academic discussions about what one should do in certain rare emergencies.

Maybe I’m becoming a cranky old man before my time, but more and more these days I’m finding these sorts of discussions strike me as unnecessary mental masturbation — something to which I think philosophers and libertarians are particularly prone. Most people don’t see any need to discuss it; they would just jump in and save the child. In the moral (not the political/legal) sense, it’s not a matter of choice — it’s just the right thing to do (HT Mal). Yes, even in the eyes of adjectiveless libertarians.

Is an involuntary samaritan good? And can libertarians support a “good samaritan” law? Read Post »