Archive

Author Archive

Times are a-changin'?! 'The American Conservative' runs Sheldon Richman's sympathetic view of the "Libertarian Left"

February 11th, 2011 1 comment

Wow — The American Conservative is now running a sympathetic overview by Sheldon Richman on the “Libertarian Left” (subheading, Free-market anti-capitalism, the unknown ideal).

Have conservatives lost their senses, or have they come to realize that the statist rot at the core of American “capitalism” is growing out of control?

Even libertarians who don’t consider themselves on the left (FWIW, I consider myself as a screwed-up RIGHT-leaning libertarian) will find the piece thought-provoking and insightful.

But it strikes me as funny that, if I judge from Sheldon’s piece, Left-Libertarians have not quite focussed on how the state grant of limited liability to shareholders – something that cannot be obtained merely by voluntary transactions) has set in motion and greatly fuelled the growth of the state and battles over the wheel of government — battles in which insider elites, generally acting through corporations, have the overwhelming advantage.

I have posted extensively on limited liability; for the interested reader perhaps this post will be a quick introduction:

The Cliff Notes version of my stilted enviro-fascist view of corporations and government

For those of you who prefer to not let their fingers do the walking, as I have noted elsewhere: “I am NOT arguing FOR a general rule that shareholders SHOULD be liable for corporate torts; rather, I have:

(1) pointed out that limited liability itself has served to muddle the question of whom, exactly, should be responsible for the very real harms that corporatons frequently cause,

(2) noted that the limited-liability corporate form has enabled risk-generation and -shifting on a massive scale, with innocent third parties frequently being stuck holding the bag (not solely when liabilities exceed assets, but more generally since the cycle of escalating government interventions to rein in corporations perversely ends up raising barriers to entry and giving corporations “rights to pollute” that curtail recourse even when sufficient assets are available),

(3) argued that libertarians should reconsider the grant of limited liability for torts (as opposed to limited liability as to those who contract with the corporation on a voluntary basis) not simply because it is clearly non-libertarian to begin with, but because it has had profound consequences – consequences at a serious enough level that state-loving libertarians concede simply by troubling themselves to argue against curtailing limited liability,

(4) noted that the most efficiacious way to roll back the regulatory state lie in the direction of shifting ultimate responsibility fpr managing risks to enterprise owners (and ending the counterproductive regulatory risk-management experiment), and

(5) noted that a curtailment of limited liability for torts could be hedged by shareholders via insurance, and could be achieved by state governments and the federal government offering more lenient regulation to busness enterprises that operate as partnerships, unlimited liability corporations, or in cases where shares are not fully paid up so that calls for signifcant additional capital could be made against shareholders if needed to pay claims.

IOW, the insistence by Kinsella . . . that one must “provide a theory of liability that coherently distinguishes shareholders from any other patron of the company” BEFORE one can examine the justifications FOR and the consequences of the state grant of limited liability is both sadly non-libertarian and dangerously blind and shallow.”

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

LVMI's curious blindness to corporate statism and the rot caused by limited liability, or, Jeffrey Tucker has fun with central planning

February 10th, 2011 No comments

Jeffrey Tucker‘s February 9 Mises Daily post, Obama on Auto-Defrosting Refrigerators, is perfectly fine and unobjectionable (quibbles aside about Jeffrey’s startling misunderstanding of Obama’s claims regarding the entirely voluntary EnergyStar program), spokesmen for government always oversell government’s accomplishments).

But being an ornery and objectionable cuss, I couldn’t resist commenting on what Jeffrey left out. (Where’s the beef?!, as I believe some old lady famously asked).(emphasis and minor tweeks added):

TokyoTom February 10, 2011 at 12:49 am

Government regulations have made a mess of our daily lives. Whether it is banning effective products or mandating inferior functionality in our appliances and fixtures, government’s role here is indisputably to degrade our quality of life.

Jeffrey, I’m sorry, but while you are certainly correct that government regulations have made a mess of our daily lives, your conclusion that “government’s role here is indisputably to degrade our quality of life” is extremely shallow, and the rest of your discussion suffers as a result.

While a great deal of stupidity accompanies government, why do you ignore the cupidity that DRIVES government? You know, the cupidity that drives the elites who always dominate the use of government, the self-interest that influences the decision-making of administrators, bureaucrats and employees, and the cupidity that drives the rent-farming by politicians? Are not the powerful corporations that use government to pick consumers’ pockets and to create barriers to entry worthy of mention?

And why no discussion of dynamics? We have a regulatory state not simply because we have elites, politicians and bureaucrats who wish to extend their control and purview, but because we have governments that create risk-shifting corporate machines whose owners have no downside liability for corporate misdeeds. By the simple act of granting corporate status, governments have set off cycles of social damage, growing demands for government action by citizens to “do something”, a growing “agency problem” as government interventions increase management independence from shareholders, growing opportunities for a socially irresponsible corporate elite, bureaucratic and political manipulation, and growing partisanship battle for control of the wheel (including fights over CSR and tort reform) and of the spoils of our increasingly top-heavy system.

Yes, we still have competition in the marketplace. But the reason we don’t have MORE freedom is not just “stupid government” by self-serving central planners who don’t understand the marketplace; the real reason is that that we have elites who used the grant of limited liability corporate status to avoid personal responsibility and to mask their depredations, and then further use their concentrated power to control government.

More thoughts here:

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/10/16/fighting-over-the-wheel-of-government.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2010/07/06/the-cliff-notes-version-of-my-stilted-enviro-fascist-view-of-corporations-and-government.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/search.aspx?q=limited+liability

Merely pointing out the stupidity of our court intellectuals does nothing to strike at the roots of our problems, and certainly is not persuasive to leftists who think that more government is the only solution to corporate risk-shifting and rent-seeking.

Kind regards,

Tom

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

George Carlin was correctly cynical about ‘the American Dream’, but are our elites monolithic?

February 9th, 2011 No comments

I recently ran across (again) the below clip by our now deceased comedian cum truth-teller, George Carlin. While he offers some refreshingly bitter criticism, Carlin is too simplistic and too black, and offers no particular avenues by which informed American sheep can seek to regain control over their lives.

There is no monolithic “them”. Our ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ politics both mask and manifest the very real power struggles among our governing elites — there is hope in this, but the real problem is not that none of them cares about making the world a better place, but that all of our elites seem to be statists who think that the struggle over the wheel of government is the only way to a better future.

Few of them seem to understand the centralization of power, parasitism and rot that have resulted from fractional-reserve banking and the subsequent capture of it by the Federal government — and none appears to understand that the very grant of legal entity status to corporations whose owners have no personal liability for what these entities do drives an even more pervasive socialization of risks, destruction of community and a snowballing growth of the regulatory state and the fight to control and profit from it.

Really improving our societies will require us really to understand and strike at, and not ignore, the roots of the problems that are strangling us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

BBC's naive 'Meet the Climate Sceptics' ignores that our governments today richly deserve the mistrust that makes collective action impossible

February 6th, 2011 No comments

In the not-unsympathetic hour-long presentation that BBC broadcast on January 31 (after surviving a legal challenge), climate ‘skeptic’ Christopher Monckton (the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley) says something about climate science that I can agree with and that is important:

The central question is this: it’s not whether CO2 or other greenhouse gases can cause warming, because we’ve known for 200 years that they can.

It’s not whether we are causing the CO2 in the atmosphere to rise, because we are.

The only question that really matters is, given the rate that we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, is how much warming that will cause, if it continues.

In other words, Monckton is correct that the core climate science issue is about what is known as “climate sensitivity”; that is, how much warming is going to be triggered by the rapid ramping up in atmospheric CO2 as we use fossil fuels.

Climate science skeptics like MIT’s Richard Lindzen and company adviser Pat Michaels agree and suggest that climate sensivity will be low (though in this film Lindzen rather jaw-droppingly suggests that “I can live with 5 degrees; you can live with a degrees” Fahrenheit increase in avergage global temperatures!).

The producer, Rupert Murray, suggests that the skeptics wrongly overstate their case and underplay the risks. Murray leaves unstated his premise (and that of the climate scientists he includes) that, if one accepts more conventional views of climate science, then one must also agree that government-imposed restrictions on personal freedom are necessary in order to moderate the threats posed by our use of fossil fuels.

Interestingly and sadly, rather than examining whether there may be common ground in policies that reduce climate risks, Monckton and other prominent skeptics like Lindzen and Michaels (and British commentator James Delingpole), all also appear to make the same assumption that the only possible policy responses are those that reduce personal freedom. Thus, rather than a focus on the content and merits of policy alternatives, we have a rather frantic search to find reasons to dismiss climate risks, and to question the motives and sanity of those who are concerned about them – all, of course, while ignoring the question of what economic interests benefit from the status quo. This behavior is, of course, also mirrored by many of the “warmers”; both sides have their own “Bootleggers and Baptists” coalitions lined up.

Not surprising when so much is at stake, and all are fighting over the use of government. Thoughtful people among the skeptics will acknowledge that the climate is a shared commons that can only be managed via collective action; thoughtful people among the “warmers” likewise should recognize that government itself is a commons that continues to be mismanaged for the benefit of elites and the expense of most citizens (witness our financial crisis and the BP disaster).

As Nobel Prize-winner Elinor Ostrom coninues to point out, trust is a sine qua non for effective management of common resources. Unfortunately, however, that trust is precisely what we are missing the most – and for good reason, as our politicians, bureaucrats and leading corporations have proven themselves unworthy of it.

It should not go unnoticed, however, that a policy to destroy public trust and foster our love of partisan acrimony is one that would be very effective in protecting the interests of those who benefit from the status quo. Creaming the commons while socializing risks is an inherent aspect of corporate business models (starting with the state grant of limited liability to shareholders).

Here’s a link to the video; my apologies that I couldn’t figure out how to embed it here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00y5j3v

[Update: It seems that he BBC has forced the removal of all non-BBC postings of the program, and only viewable via servers located in the UK. As skeptic Anthony Watts puts it: “the BBC does not allow people outside of Britain to watch the video; some sort of cranial-rectal problem I’m told, a proxy server in the UK is needed to view it if you live elsewhere”. Here is James Delingpole’s take on the the program – prior to actually seeing it: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100074116/meet-the-sceptics-another-bbc-stitch-up/. And here is one take by a relatively perceptive viewer: http://frank-davis.livejournal.com/140337.html.]

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

YouTube: Bank Bailouts Explained: the Sick Joke is on You (Thanks to Government-enabled Moral Hazard and Kleptocracy)

February 3rd, 2011 1 comment

I ran across this today and thought that you, my loyal readers, might like it too.

My favorite piece of dialogue:

A: Do these people have no shame?

B: When you constantly get the bailouts, you don’t care about the shame.

Just a small example of how government and statist corporations are destroying wealth and community.

More here on Moral Hazard and Limited Liability in banking and elsewhere; let’s not forget BPAvatar and CorpSpeak, too!

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yipV_pK6HXw&feature=player_embedded:550:0]

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Resources on gold, fractional reserve banking, money manipulation/inflation, central planning and kleptocracy

February 1st, 2011 1 comment

 This is a modest start; more suggestions appreciated!

 

Jacques Rueff, “The Monetary Sin of the West”, 1972

The Origin of Money and Its Value, Mises Daily: Monday, September 29, 2003 by

Can Gold Cause the Boom-Bust Cycle? Mises Daily: Monday, June 28, 2010 by

The Gold Standard and the Great Depression, Mises Daily: Friday, October 30, 2009 by

The Meaning of Gold in the News, Mises Daily: Thursday, September 30, 2010 by

 

Greenspan’s Bogus Defense, Mises Daily: Monday, April 06, 2009 by

Brad DeLong’s Erroneous Defense of Greenspan, Mises Daily: Monday, August 03, 2009 by

The Fed as Giant Counterfeiter, Mises Daily: Monday, February 01, 2010 by

Is Our Money Based on Debt? Mises Daily: Monday, August 16, 2010 by

Fiat Money: How Else You Gonna Kill 600,000 Americans? Mises Daily: Friday, September 11, 2009 by

My Reply to Krugman on Austrian Business-Cycle Theory, Mises Daily: Monday, January 24, 2011 by

 

The Nuttiness of Negative Interest Rates, Mises Daily: Monday, April 27, 2009 by

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

On climate, another libertarian bravely fights to keep Mises' light under a bushel

January 25th, 2011 No comments

I just left the following closing comment on Jim Fedako‘s December 30 Mises Economics Blog post, “What?!? No one mentioned the cult or kooky parts“:

 

TokyoTom January 25, 2011 at 12:37 pm

You’re done here, Jim? Hardly, as you never even started — in the sense of honest engagement.

Once more, as you flee from engagement, you fail to address ANYTHING I’ve actually said, while continuing your penchant for attacking strawmen of your own making. I “continue to advocate for government interventions”, you say? Oh? Anywhere on this thread? I did offer you the following link to my thinking, but if you had troubled yourself to look, you’d see it’s a libertarian proposal for de-regulation: http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2010/02/10/towards-a-productive-libertarian-approach-on-climate-energy-and-environmental-issues.aspx.

You might not like to hear it, but the apparent lack of sincerity in your engagement IS shameful — even if one of a piece of many other libertarian/Misesean thinkers here who forget their thinking caps in favor of falling into partisanship and cognitive traps:

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/search.aspx?q=watermelon

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/11/02/the-road-not-taken-iv-my-other-hysterical-comments-on-climate-science-amp-how-austrians-hamstring-themselves.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2010/02/13/bill-gates-roger-pielke-avatar-amp-the-climate-of-distrust-or-can-we-move-from-a-tribal-questioning-of-motives-to-win-win-policies.aspx

My reference to ‘libertarians’ was to this pantheon, who quite obviously have not really troubled themselves at LvMI pages to engage on climate or natural issues, other than in the most pathetic and shallow way.

A good recipe for libertarian irrelevancy, as I keep pointing out. Am I wrong to hope for better?

Sincerely,

Tom

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

Gerald Celente sees global uprising of repressed+linked youth, rise of ‘progressive libertarians’ in 2011

January 25th, 2011 No comments

Good summary at The Raw Deal of an interview of Gerald Celente of the Trends Research Institute, conducted by Russia Today on January 10.

Here’s a clip of the interview:

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO45VBO6Swo&feature=player_embedded:550:0]

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

More by Nader and Napolitano on pushing a libertarian-progressive alliance

January 25th, 2011 1 comment

[View:http://mises.org/Community/themes/mises2008/utility/

:550:0]From The Raw Story on January 12 (‘Nader: Progressive-libertarian alliance ‘the most exciting new political dynamic’ in US’)(emphasis added):

Prepare for the rise of libertarian progressives.

That was the message earlier in the week from trends analyst Gerald Celente, who predicted that the rapid acceleration of wealth into the coffers of the ultra-rich would drive a global youth resistance movement in 2011 and reformat long-held political boundaries. …

Longtime American politics gadfly Ralph Nader, a man of many ideas almost diametrically opposed by most libertarian conservatives, said Wednesday that he sees a coming convergence of liberals, progressives and libertarian conservatives in the wake of a worsening financial crisis and dogged partisanship that’s put the government into gridlock.

Speaking to Fox Business’s libertarian host Judge Napolitano, Nader called these shifting alliances “the most exciting new political dynamic” in the US today.

Nader has long been an advocate of overturning “corporate personhood“: an oft’ criticized legal principle that treats massive organizations with vast stores of wealth as individuals under the law.

So how will this left-right alliance begin?

Nader suggested that it already has, thanks to the unity of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the most conservative and most liberal members of their respective chambers. They’ve teamed up to propose cuts to the US defense budget, which has long been by far the largest sector of America’s annual budget, and to push a more thorough audit of the Federal Reserve, the private central bank which controls America’s currency. …

Republicans in Congress have instead championed their success in extending President George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. The Congressional Research Service reported (PDF) that extending debased tax rates to the wealthy will add an additional $5.08 trillion to the US deficit over the next 10 years.

Nader added that the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, which recently failed due to a secret hold by a Republican Senator even in the face of support by libertarian conservatives and progressive liberals, could be the linchpin that brings the two groups together.

“The authentic tea partiers hail from the conservative libertarian wing of the Republican party that has been so disrespected and corporatized by the likes of Bush and Cheney,” Nader said. “So here they come into town and they’re going to go after a lot of things the Republican establishment is opposed to.”

He added that a coming “liberal-conservative connection” will ultimately “draw that distinction between the corporatist and the genuine libertarian conservatives.”

Even Napolitano agreed that there’s a “certain philosophical agreement” underlying “the role of government in our lives” that’s become shared by libertarians and progressives.

“The key thing is when they go after all the bloated corporate welfare subsidies, handouts, give-aways, bailouts — they’re going to alienate all these corporate Republicans, but they don’t care,” he said. “The one’s I’m talking about, in the House and Senate, they operate on principle. They don’t care if they’re overruled, if they don’t get the monuments or the freebies. They operate on principle and they’re going to make an alliance with the liberal progressives.”

Here is the video:

[View:http://mises.org/Community/themes/mises2008/utility/

:550:0]

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

A productive, progressive, anti-corporatist libertarianism? Ron Paul and Ralph Nader build bridges at Judge Napolitano's

January 25th, 2011 No comments

Ron PaulRalph Nader and Andrew Napolitano are joining forces to emphasize common ground between right-libertarians and progressive Left.

This holds some promise of steering dissastifaction with government by the Tea Party Right into positive directions, possibly blunting efforts by Big-Government GOP to capture and emasculate the Tea Party movement. It may also lead some on the Left to question their reflexive hatred of Tea Partiers and re-examine their assumptions that what is needed is MORE government.

Here’s a clip of a joint appearance by Paul and Nader on Judge Napolitano’s Freedom Watch program on the Fox Business channel on January 19, 2011: 

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=kwIZ4syCFLc:550:0]

As noted by the liberal The Raw Story (‘Ron Paul, Ralph Nader agree on ‘progressive-libertarian alliance’) (emphasis added):

In this corner, a libertarian, tea party hero who ran several campaigns as a candidate for US president on the Republican ticket. And in that corner, a progressive icon of the left who also ran several campaigns for the US presidency but on the Green Party ticket.

One might think the two men, seemingly ideologically opposed to one another, would rather argue than help one another.

However, on Wednesday’s broadcast of Freedom Watch on the Fox Business channel, Judge Napolitano sat down for an amiable interview with Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and Ralph Nader to discuss a progressive-libertarian alliance in the 112th session of respective chambers in Congress.

Nader, who has recently called this coalition “the most exciting new political dynamic” in the US today, explained that it works well because both groups stand against corporatists who believe government should be run in the interests of corporations.

“I believe in coalitions,” Rep. Paul echoed. “They talk about we need more bipartisanship, and I say we have too much bipartisanship because the bipartisanship we have here in Washington endorses corporatism.”

Paul added that he agreed with Nader on a host of issues, such as cutting the US military’s budget, ending undeclared US wars overseas, restoring civil liberties and civil rights by dumping from the Patriot Act, and withdrawing from the NAFTA and World Trade Organization agreements.

“I think we should come together and work together, and I think we can,” he said, noting that the coalition had previously worked on deficit financing solutions.

Rep. Paul and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the most conservative and most liberal members of their respective chambers, joined forces last session to fight for an audit of the Federal Reserve, a private institution that handles America’s monetary policy, which Nader explained is under no legal control of Congress.

 I would add:

Categories: Uncategorized Tags: