Wilton Alston – Page 5 – The Libertarian Standard

Since When Does the Livestock Ask the Farmer to Improve the Fence?

Immigration, Nanny Statism, Police Statism, Protectionism, Taxation

By Wilton Alston / May 17, 2010 / 8 Comments / 5 minutes of reading

“It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. All the power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be drawn.” ~ Albert Jay Nock

My recent post on the GM-loan-gate has, thus far, generated some interesting feedback and at least one or more epic discussions on various social networking sites. Aside from enjoying my joke, several people commented on the paragraphs which highlighted several talking points which have troubled me over the last few years. This one in particular, on immigration, seemed to generate the most feedback:

“Illegal immigration represents a danger to the future of the U.S.” (The U.S. didn’t even have a comprehensive set of regulations on immigration until 1952. The Constitution doesn’t even mention immigration in those terms. Hell, damned-near everyone in the U.S. except for the people who were already here when America was “discovered” is an immigrant or descended from one anyway. Here’s my question: When does an immigrant become a visitor or a guest?)

It might be that since Arizona—and Arizona’s governor is currently in the news—that the issue is particularly hot, which therefore made the discussions far-ranging. Immigration policy generally seems to be a hot-button. Having written several pieces on immigration, I admit that the subject fascinates me, but something about these recent debates, particularly among libertarians, has intrigued me even more.

One is often tempted to attack the objections to open borders directly, as did I and a number of guests on a recent radio show. And certainly many of these objections seem ripe for attacking. By the way, are bumper stickers with “every Mexican who comes to the U.S. illegally is only 15 minutes from welfare” being passed out? I would hate to miss out on my chances to get one. Just as popular, but new to me is this one: “In Los Angeles, 98% of convicted murderers are illegal aliens.” Uh-oh! Better raise the fence! It strikes me that anyone who thinks welfare is an enticement for immigration must have never visited their local department of social services. Take the worst parts of the DMV and add in ample portions of emasculation and denigration and you’re starting to get close, but it’s still worse than that, on good days.

It occurs to me—finally—that one needs to take a step back to even begin to understand this issue. For example, of what value is a border? Specifically, why does the United States have a border and why is it so necessary to maintain it? Hopefully examining this more general issue will yield insight into the specific issue—and current political hot-button—illegal immigration of Mexicans. Let us explore a couple of examples, one simple and one a little more complex.

…

Since When Does the Livestock Ask the Farmer to Improve the Fence?Read More »

Since When Does the Livestock Ask the Farmer to Improve the Fence? Read Post »

Who Says TSA Can’t Take a Joke?

Humor, Police Statism

By Wilton Alston / May 11, 2010 / 1 minute of reading

Just when you thought the whole scene at airport insecurity couldn’t get any more surreal, this just in. A TSA supervisor was beaten up by one of his colleagues. Writes Scott Carmichael on Gadling.com:

During a training session at Miami International Airport, a TSA supervisor joked about the size of the manhood of one of his colleagues who had just stepped into the machine. The supervisor was operating the equipment when he made the remark – so his joke could have been based on facts.

Later that day:

Rolando Negrin couldn’t appreciate the jokes about his genitalia, so at the end of his shift, he used a police baton to beat up the supervisor in an airport parking garage.

One could easily find this episode filed under the heading, “Stuff Somebody Said About the TSA that Can’t Be True!” I admit that even I couldn’t believe it until I followed the link to TSA’s own blog for confirmation. (Wait. TSA has a blog? WTH?)

I won’t make any further editorial comments. Sometimes a story speaks for itself. The next time you’re in line wondering why you have to throw that perfectly-sweetened latte in the trash, think about the guy manning the video screen beating the crap out of his boss. That should be good for a couple laughs.

Who Says TSA Can’t Take a Joke? Read Post »

What’s the Real Message from Those GM Ads?

Business, Democracy, Humor, Immigration, Nanny Statism

By Wilton Alston / May 5, 2010 / 7 minutes of reading

“Whatever the State saith is a lie; whatever it hath is a theft.”
~ Nietzsche

There is no shortage of reporting about GM CEO Ed Whitacre’s recent series of TV ads touting GM’s ostensible early repayment of federal loan money. Fox News, or as I like to refer to it, Faux News, is all over it. A website known as Video Café – Crooks and Liars has posted a very good review of the coverage, along with a YouTube video of the actual ad, for those who have not seen it.

Here’s what shocks me about the ad: Nothing.

It strikes me as pretty obvious that GM had to expect that someone would find out about their using loan money to repay loan money at some point. Did Whiteacre, clearly a man with intelligence, credentials, and connections, think nobody would put 2-and-2 together? Of course not. He didn’t care. He knows it doesn’t matter.

Indulge me as I recount one of my favorite jokes to begin illustrating why.

A burned-out executive moves to the hills to escape the rat race. He moves into an old cabin in what he believes to be sparsely-populated woods and starts his new life. He hopes to decompress and recharge and maybe re-connect with the fast-paced life he once knew at some later point.

One day, he hears a knock on his door. In walks a man wearing nothing but a pair of tattered overalls, some old work boots, and a broad smile. “Hey there, neighbor!” exclaims the man. “My name is Enoch and I’m your neighbor!”

Initially taken aback, the executive-turned-hillbilly gathers himself and extends his hand. “Pleased to meet you, Enoch. My name is, Bill Exeter. I just moved here from the Big City.” Bill figures it is about time he got more acquainted with his new environment anyway.

Enoch begins, “Well, Bill, I just wanted to invite you to a little gathering at my house on Friday.” What great timing! Bill can relax a little and meet some of his neighbors too. Sensing Bill might be a little uneasy about coming to a strange neighbor’s house, Enoch begins to pitch the party.

“Listen Bill, I need to warn you. My parties tend to get a little wild.” Bill smiles, feeling better about his new neighborhood. Enoch continues, “I can almost guarantee that there will be massive consumption of homebrew alcohol.”

Bill thinks, “Sounds good!” and responds, “Enoch, I can hold my liquor!”

Enoch continues, “Well then, I should probably also mention that this consumption of alcohol tends to make my guests a little bawdy. As a matter of fact, things got bad enough last time that there was wild sex during the party! I expect this one to be more of the same.”

Bill has been away from the rat race for long enough that the possibility of sex sounds good. “Well, Enoch, I’m no virgin, if I must say so myself.”

Enoch continues, “OK. I should also probably mention that fights tend to break out in the aftermath of many of my gatherings, especially after the sex.”

Bill, still happily pondering the possibility of sex, confidently says, “Hey Enoch, I can handle myself.”

Enoch ends with, “Excellent! I’ll look for you around 8:00 this Friday then.” Enoch turns to leave the house.

Just before Enoch closes the door behind himself, Bill yells, “Hey Enoch! What should I wear?”

Enoch shrugs his shoulders and says, “It don’t much matter. It’s just going to be the two of us.”

<Rim Shot>

The key point—the understanding that is manifested over and over in U.S. politics—is contained in that punch line: It doesn’t much matter anyway. GM received the TARP money, even though it is not a financial firm. One might argue that since GM used to own GMAC—its erstwhile lending mechanism—it qualifies as a financial firm. That strikes me as a stretch, but that does appear to be the partial mechanism GM used to get the cash. Certainly, the TARP money was specifically for financial firms. According to Wiki:

The Troubled Asset Relief Program, commonly referred to as TARP, is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector. It is the largest component of the government’s measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.

GM mismanaged and underperformed its way into a deep financial hole. It didn’t much matter. The responsibility for GM’s problems rested with GM. It didn’t much matter. In the aftermath of all that underperforming, GM had the gall to ask the government for some cash, a huge wad of cash, and acquired that money for both GM and GMAC.

The overwhelming majority of Americans did not think any firm should be bailed out. It didn’t much matter. Congress gave money ostensibly aimed at saving the financial sector from the subprime mortgage crisis to a troubled automobile manufacturer with a management and sales crisis.

The American taxpayer was under no obligation to GM, its shareholders, or its employees. It didn’t much matter. GM got the cash. They have now paid back some of the early money with some of the later money, and have gone on TV to brag about it, despite the fact that such an obvious ruse should be found out. It didn’t much matter.

While some of this behavior initially upset me, looking back on it—particularly in context with the normal behavior of the State—I see that my anger was misplaced. The State generally and its agents in particular spew forth all manner of unmitigated, easily-identifiable equine feces on a routine basis. Think not? Here’s a recent sampling of talking points that have, inexplicably yet inexorably, fallen from the mouths of our leaders:

“They hate us for our freedoms.” (This phrase is generally uttered in regard to Islamic terrorists wanting to attack the U.S. Somehow the fact that other equally-free countries are not being similarly attacked gets obscured. Some have argued, persuasively, that such a designation as “free” for the U.S. is a little dicey anyway.)

“… too big to fail.” (What does this even mean? Can a firm be too small to fail as well? Can a firm be too big to succeed? Can a firm be too small to succeed? What does size have to do with the economic realities of losing money at business?)

“You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists.” (That a reasonably-intelligent representative of the species Homo sapiens could say something this insipid and not be placed in a padded room—wearing a straitjacket and a mouth guard—speaks to the awesome power of patriotism, and stupidity, but maybe not in that order.)

“Illegal immigration represents a danger to the future of the U.S.” (The U.S. didn’t even have a comprehensive set of regulations on immigration until 1952. The Constitution doesn’t even mention immigration in those terms. Hell, damned-near everyone in the U.S. except for the people who were already here when America was “discovered” is an immigrant or descended from one anyway. Here’s my question: When does an immigrant become a visitor or a guest?)

“We fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here.” (C’mon. Does anyone think the U.S. was in danger of being invaded by terrorists? Really? The truth of the matter is this: The U.S. military murders innocents abroad. Call me touchy, but that might upset me too.)

So Ed Whiteacre went on television, in an ad ironically entitled “Trust” and bragged about GM “putting people back to work” and how GM had “repaid their loan in full, 5 years ahead of schedule.” Don’t hate the playa! He was only doing what politicians do to the American public on a regular schedule: lie for specific gains, to an audience who wants to hear the lies, while knowing that even if the lie is found out, it won’t matter that much anyway. Consider: Since anyone who was seriously considering buying a GM car probably didn’t care about the bailout, what’s the downside of trying to rope in a few other suckers via bogus advertising? Moral hazard epitomized.

Is GM going to stop getting government bail-out money? Nope. Will any subsequent event preclude the next chronically mismanaged firm from getting a boatload of statist cash? Not likely. Will the skilled propagandists who do their best to lead rank-and-file Americans around by the nose change their tactics? Absolutely not.

It doesn’t much matter. It’s just them and our money—taken at gunpoint—anyway.

(Cross-posted at LRC.)

What’s the Real Message from Those GM Ads? Read Post »

What Do the Montgomery Bus Boycotts and Trash Collection in San Francisco Have in Common?

(Austrian) Economics, Anti-Statism, Business, Police Statism, Racism

By Wilton Alston / April 24, 2010 / 5 minutes of reading

“Dr. King did not make the boycott, the boycott made Dr. King.”

~ Veterans of the Civil Rights Movement

The lessons of the past keep being repeated, over and over and over, and…

Blogger Mike “Mish” Shedlock posted a fascinating story on his website regarding a situation in San Francisco. In “Trash Collecting Entrepreneur Squashed In San Francisco” he cites one of his respondents, known simply as Michael, who relates a story about trash collection. One of the customers of the local trash collection service—a contractor referred to as Joe—got fed up with paying $37 per trash can, per week, for garbage removal. He and his neighbor began to take their own trash for disposal at a local dump, using “Joe’s” truck. Shortly, other neighbors joined their informal garbage disposal network, opting to pay the contractor $10 a week for more service than they were getting from the city union. Soon, after their little business had begun to unexpectedly take off, their competitors decided to call in the big guns.

When the local garbage company and its union found out about “Joe” they complained to the city. Within a year a law was passed stating that garbage service was now mandatory for all residents at the price the city’s monopoly charged, which was shortly raised. And “Joe”? For a while he still took our recyclables until he was fined $4000, even though he had our permission.

None of this is really that surprising. The State often passes laws to prevent competition. For example, Lysander Spooner’s attempts to compete with the post office led to the passing of laws specifically designed to prevent competition in delivery of first class mail. Recalling my Southern pig farming roots, I’d offer this metaphor. When a hog is sucking the teat, he tends to fight to keep his place in line. He cares not about his siblings and their hunger. Nor does he care that he is full. He cares about one thing: maintaining vapor lock on that teat. With apologies to any unionist garbage men in our studio audience, the garbage collection unions employed by the city of San Francisco are comparable to government teat suckers, so their reaction to some random guy actually providing service and “stealing” their business is no surprise. What I find ironic is this. Not only does this situation in San Francisco compare to Spooner’s mail delivery business, it also reflects the scenario during the Montgomery Bus Boycotts.

Consider: When the Montgomery Bus Boycotts began, black people immediately tried to find alternative means of transportation. This was a classic market response. Some of the local taxis, specifically the ones driven by other black people, began to offer reduced-price rides. They charged a fare equal to the cost of a bus ride. How did the City of Montgomery respond? The city began to fine taxis for charging reduced fares. They made it against the law to charge whatever you wanted for the service you sold to customers who voluntarily sought you out. (Sound familiar?) Not to be outdone (and using techniques from similar boycotts in other places), the black citizens organized extensive carpool options. These were people attempting to use their own resources—pieces of private property known as automobiles—to provide a voluntary service for people who needed rides. How did the City of Montgomery respond? The city forced insurance carriers to drop coverage for any such car. Note that this was a struggle between citizens of Montgomery who happened to be black and the City of Montgomery—an arm of the government.

Any competent student of U.S. history knows how all this played out. The boycott lasted for a very long time, much longer than comparable ones in other cities. The federal government eventually rode to the rescue, passing legislation that required the bus company to treat all passengers equally. What is generally not known is this. The bus company, losing money hand over fist early in the boycott, was actually considering a way to acquiesce to the citizens’ demands early in the boycott, since a large percentage of the bus company’s ridership was black people. (They say the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach. I say the way to a racist’s heart is through his wallet.) Furthermore, the business community of Montgomery, also feeling the burn of less black spending, formed a group called the Men of Montgomery with the express purpose of finding a way to end the boycott. One could argue that it was only because the city blocked alternative travel options and outside financiers “spotted” the bus company money that the whole thing wasn’t over in a few weeks.

One arm of the State ostensibly stopping another arm of the State from infringing on black folks is an example of the irony of coercion. One would be wise to learn from the words of Laurence J. Peter, “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” The initial statist actions—of the City of Montgomery—had the effect of forcing those who did not want to pay for poor service to walk, and for much longer than the market would have otherwise allowed. The secondary statist actions—the laws passed to supposedly protect black bus riders in Montgomery—gave those against whom the law was enforced an excuse to remain upset for years to come. Would the owners and operators of the bus company have eventually given in, faced with bankruptcy? We’ll never know, but I bet it’s a lot harder to be mad at a paying customer who is not the beneficiary of statist action. (As an aside, Rosa Parks was not the first black person to refuse to move from her seat, but that’s probably another essay.) Certainly one has to admire the tenacity of those who risked so much for a privilege for which they should not have even had to ask. The courage of those on the front lines in Montgomery cannot be overstated! Still, it would have been nice to see if Montgomery would have become the epicenter of a black-owned bus and taxi company movement.

Either way, we’ll never know. The rest is history, and it keeps repeating itself.

(Cross-posted at LRC.)

What Do the Montgomery Bus Boycotts and Trash Collection in San Francisco Have in Common? Read Post »

How Big Is Your Tent?

Democracy, Libertarian Theory, Political Correctness, The Left, The Right

By Wilton Alston / April 20, 2010 / 5 minutes of reading

“I am not one of ‘those’ types, whatever type you have in mind.”

~ Anna O. Morgenstern

When I was regularly attending church, between the early and late 80’s, way back before becoming a fire-breathing atheist (and thereby damned myself to a life of unfettered and guilt-free joy on earth, followed by an eternity fighting off all manner of demons in a very hot place) I occasionally enjoyed attending church generally, and one church in particular. It’s not really important for me to identify the specific denomination (although the members of this church would balk at the use of that term) except to say this: The members of this church spent large portions of every Sunday congratulating themselves on the fact that they were the only people, religious or otherwise—particularly in comparison to the Catholics—who would ever see Heaven. In retrospect, I reckon many denominations take this approach, although not to the extent of this particular faith. Paraphrasing the comic, these people took it to a whole…’nother… level! Never, not once in many stirring and thought-provoking sermons did the pastor—and I heard several different ones—fail to mention this ostensive fact.

Of one thing we can be certain: They were certain.

That particular (and frankly, somewhat annoying) foible aside, the thing that comes to mind now—and this is an observation I had not previously considered in the context of libertarianism—is that this church was different in one other substantive way from any other church I attended during that approximately 10-year period. By way of establishing my credentials for making such a comparison, it is worth noting that I grew up in an A.M.E. Zion Church in North Carolina. I have attended Baptist churches, Methodist churches, predominantly black churches, predominantly white churches, Lutheran churches, churches where they have a professional-quality choir, churches where there is purposely no choir, churches where the pastor preaches for 2 hours, churches where the pastor preaches for 15 minutes, and pretty much everything in between.

As a matter of fact, I have attended churches where the members scream and shout like James Brown and churches where even a modest “Amen!” uttered under one’s breath draws harsh glares. I’ve been to churches where they pass the offering plate every 10 minutes and churches where they never even bring money up. (The latter is rare, but I digress.) I’ve enjoyed church services that employed timing so precise as to engender thoughts of military marching bands and churches so entrenched in the concept of CP Time that the sermon had not begun by 2:30 p.m. even though the service began at 11:00 a.m. (No, I’m not making that up. Having had the good fortune to be seated in the balcony, I sneaked out the back around 2:45 p.m., pausing briefly to make eye contact with a girl I had met during Happy Hour the previous Friday night. Again, I digress.)

Anyway, so I’ve been around when it comes to churches.

What made the particular church of which I speak so different? And what does that difference have to do with libertarianism generally and anarchism particularly? Simply this: that church—like radical libertarianism—seemed to attract and accept all comers. Wait. Stop. Don’t look up my e-mail address yet! Please, save your card and letters. I know your church is open-minded. I know your church loves “all God’s children” and all that. No, I don’t need any examples from last week’s Volunteer Recognition Dinner.

My point is simply this: My experience has been that the folks who attend a given church—and who ascribe to a mainstream political ideology—generally tend to “look” the same, inside and out. Not at the church about which I speak. What was one major difference? There were noticeable numbers of interracial couples. And these weren’t just patrons, but members with responsibility. Maybe now, in 2010, after the U.S. has elected a black president and we’re all hip-hopped, ride-pimped, and enjoying The Wire together over a bottle of “ultra premium” Ciroc vodka advertised on prime time TV by Puffy—yes, I still call him Puffy—this seems like a small point to notice. I assure you, it was not. In the early 80’s in Western New York the number of interracial couples openly walking the streets was already more than I had seen in my entire life growing up in the South. And the number of interracial couples I saw at this church was still obvious even against that backdrop. This church seemed to attract and accept those with differences.

And so it is with freedom. Libertarianism, at its core, is about individualism, full-bodied, raw, thick and chewy, leave-me-the-hell-alone, individualism. One does not need to understand methodological individualism to “get” this truth. One just needs to be unique himself, while he also understands and accepts uniqueness in others. (Diversity is the current buzzword, isn’t it?) That’s how one can tell that the neocons or the Moral Majority members or Rush Limbaugh’s ditto heads are not libertarians, no matter if they attempt to steal the nomenclature. When one is trying to get elected and/or take over the tools of coercion for himself, it requires that he appeal to an audience. (This is also why voting cannot be a libertarian exploit.) There is a reason why every presidential candidate wears a suit and tie that looks like they were purchased at the same store. They were. Not (necessarily) so with radical libertarianism! If you’re not worried about forming a coalition for the express purpose of imposing your beliefs on everyone else, it frees you to just be yourself. And with that freedom will come this inevitability: Anyone who could not find true acceptance in one of the mainstream clubs will eventually find his way to yours.

Good for them! Welcome. Have a seat. (Or stand. It’s up to you, and always will be.)

How Big Is Your Tent? Read Post »