TT's Lost in Tokyo — by TokyoTom

The following is an email message that I sent to Scott Horton, host of Antiwar Radio, regarding his September 18 interview with Bob Murphy. The exchange regarding Bob`s thoughts on the cap and trade bill monstrosity appears at 24:14 to 29:47. (Minor edits and link added.)

Scott, I listened with interest to your interview with Bob Murphy
(http://www.scotthortonshow.com/2009/09/18/antiwar-radio-robert-murphy-6/),
whom I generally like, but feel compelled to point out that Bob was
not being fully honest with you – on an important point – when he
discussed his role in studying and commenting on cap and trade and
energy policy as an economist at the “Institute for Energy Research”.
This group is a part of a lobbying front for big coal and the
utilities that rely on coal – not “big oil”, such as Exxon, which has
specifically stopped funding IER because of its anti-climate change
message and which now expressly supports carbon taxes!

More on IER and Murphy`s involvement with it here:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/search.aspx?q=IER+murphy

In other words, the legitimate criticisms that Murphy can make of cap
and trade (note that Exxon, Jim Hansen and most economists prefer rebated carbon
taxes) – such as existing bills are a way for government to give
favors to insiders – have to be balanced by an awareness that, for the
past few decades, government policy has been heavily skewed in favor
of investors in and consumers of fossil fuels. Murphy talks on this
topic only because he is paid to by the lobbying group that is getting
the shortest end of the stick – big coal.  If only he were honestly
even-handed, instead of in the pay of lobbyists, we might make some
progress in addressing a range of real problems in the energy sector.

Sincerely,

Tom

Anti-enviro gadfly Steven Milloy has a new blog post up that rightly skewers the green mandates that are providing a taxpayer-funded stream of business and profits to GE.  Notes Milloy:

GE announced today that utility giant American Electric Power (AEP)
will purchase 110,000 smart meters from GE. And just how is AEP
managing to buy all these smart meters? President Obama and Congress
are making us pay for them.

On Sep. 1, AEP applied to the Department of Energy for $75 million in federal stimulus money for the smart meter purchase.

It’s a good thing that GE’s Immelt sits on Barack Obama’s Economic
Recovery Advisory Board — how else would the Department of Energy know
to direct smart meter purchases to GE?

Of course, AEP isn’t the only conduit for sending federal stimulus
money to GE. So far about 50 utilities have applied to DOE for a piece
of the almost $4 billion in stimulus money earmarked for smart meter
projects.

From an Austrian perspective, what`s wrong with this post? The simple fact that Milloy isn`t interested in problem-solving, but in bashing greens, Dems and GE. If he were a problem-solver, he would be a little less partisan and would devote a little more effort to throw light on some of the underlying factors that fuel green concerns and utility mandates, such a the little problem that states have prevented the development of free power markets by granting “public utility” monopoly status to local power providers, as I have noted in a number of posts.

A problem-solver might also devote some time to examining the entanglement of the state with other rent-seeking corporations, such as the coal producers; but those trapped in partisan, rent-seeking games are often good only at seeing the flaws of those whom they criticize, while ignoring the way that they themselves are co-opted by other rent-seekers.

I left Steven the following comment:

Steven I think your criticism of GE is fair, but it`s clearly lacking in context.

Where`s your post criticizing the states for their continuing grant
of monopoly status to “public utilities”, which is the chief reason why
there is no free market in providing power to consumers? With a free
markets, we`d have seen smart meters like GE`s years ago, and there
would be no basis for all of these “green power” mandates.

I haven`t seen Michael Moore`s latest film, “Capitalism: A Love Story” – it premiered in New York last week, but who knows when it will make it to Tokyo? – but I`ve been reading some of his interviews and reviews of his film.

While Moore is confused in identifying the existing U.S. statist corporate system that he criticizes with “capitalism”, it seems to me that much of his criticisms of the U.S. political-economic system are consistent with libertarian views (even if Moore doesn`t understand the libertarian criticisms).

Accordingly, while Moore may be off on both his diagnosis of what`s wrong with America and his proposed prescriptions, his film – which appears to be resonating across the political spectrum – presents not merely a challenge to libertarians, but an teaching opportunity.  I hope that libertarians will take advantage of the opportunity to engage Moore`s concerns constructively.

I note below excerpts from media coverage (in no particular order), with a few comments of my own:

Fortune interview, September 22:

– The film covers …. “a privately run juvenile prison that paid off judges to give convicts
longer sentences, and last year’s $700 billion bailout of the banking
system.”

-　”I started out wanting to explore the premise of capitalism being
anti-American, and anti-Jesus, meaning it’s not a Democratic economy.
And it’s not run with a moral or ethical code. But when the crash
happened, it added a third plot line: not only is capitalism
anti-American and anti-Jesus, it doesn’t work.”

[The weakened moral code Moore complains of is clearly visible in political corruption (the sale of government favors to businesses and investors), which is tied to the regulatory spiral fueled by the state grant of corporate status, shifting or risks to the public and eliciting efforts from citizens groups to rein in increasingly powerful corporations. I have explored this on many posts, some directly relating to the state grant of limited liability to shareholders. I note that it is apparent from Jon Stewart`s recent interview of Ron Paul regarding Paul`s new “End the Fed” book that both Stewart and Paul share Moore`s concern about the entwining of the corporation and government (h/t Bob Murphy).]

– ”this crash exposed our economic system as a corrupt scam”.

– “instead of initially giving bailout money to a General Motors that was
never going to change or to banks so they can cover losses from crazy
betting schemes, this money should be going to helping to create jobs
in places like Detroit. People need to work.”

[Okay, but the best way to “create” jobs is for government to leave tax dollars with taxpayers, and to undo counterproductive government regulation (such as grants of monopoly powers to utilities, and the “war on drugs” and on inner cities) that benefit insiders at the collective expense of the common weal.]

– “You tried to get Hank Paulson on the phone in the film, but
weren’t successful. If you got him on the phone today, what would you
ask?”

“If I had a chance to talk to him, I’d want him to come
clean and tell me the truth about how he rigged this whole thing. Tell
us what happened because we don’t know the details. How did so many
Goldman people end up in the administration? How is it that Goldman- ‘s
chief competitors are left to die — not bailing out Lehman Bros., Bear
Stearns falls apart, Merrill Lynch is absorbed into Bank of America —
and look who’s left standing: the company that’s got all their boys
inside the administration.”

– “Capitalism is not only an economic system that legalizes greed, it also
has at its foundation a political system of capitalism that is, “We
have to buy the political system because we don’t have enough votes.”

Fortune article, September 4 (Richard Corliss, a senior writer for TIME):

– “To Moore, it’s the bureaucratic-industrial complex — the combined might of the West Wing, Wall street and Wal-Mart — that’s evil. That view was never clearer than in his broadly entertaining,
ceaselessly provocative, wildly ambitious new film. Not satisfied with
outlining and condemning the housing and banking crises of the past
year, it expands the story of the financial collapse into an epic of
malfeasance: capital crimes on a national scale.”

– “The movie seems to be setting up the disappointment many on the Left
have felt over the awarding of more billions to giant banks and
corporations, among other things, since Jan. 20. And Moore does note
that Goldman Sachs gave more than $1 million to Obama’s campaign.”

– “But he doesn’t go after this Democratic President as he surely would
have if John McCain had been elected. Instead, he argues for
participatory democracy: do-it-yourself do-gooding, through community activism and union organizing. That’s an optimistic and evasive answer to the financial problem.

“Surely
what spun out of control because of government indulgence and indolence
needs to be repaired by government regulation and ingenuity…. In “Capitalism:
A Love Story,” Moore has cogently and passionately diagnosed the
disease. But for a cure, instead of emergency surgery, he prescribes
Happy Meals.”

The Nation, describing Moore`s appearance on “The Jay Leno Show”, September 16 (John Nichols):

– “Americans who didn’t witness filmmaker Michael Moore’s appearance Tuesday night on NBC’s “The Jay Leno Show” missed one of those rare moments when the vast wasteland gives way to an oasis of realism.

Rarely since the days when author Gore Vidal regularly appeared on the
“Tonight” show with Johnny Carson has a popular television program on a
commercial broadcast channel provided such extended and respectful
treatment to a scathing critique of the corrupt status quo.

Leno hailed Moore’s new movie, “Capitalism: A Love Story,” as “the best film he’s done.”

The talk-show host described “Capitalism: A Love Story” as
“completely nonpartisan” — and he’s right: Moore goes after sold-out
Democrats and sold-out Republicans — before declaring: “I was stunned
by it, and I think it is the most fair film.”

– “Even more meaningful than Leno’s review of a movie he had obviously watched and considered seriously was this exchange:

LENO: Now it’s one year since Lehman Brothers
collapsed. We’ve had all, OK, we’ve handed out… Is Wall Street any
better? Have they learned anything?

MOORE: No, not at all. It’s, it’s probably worse. They’re still
doing these exotic derivatives. They’re now trying to do it with life
insurance. They’ve got all these crazy schemes. I mean, that’s what I’m
saying about capitalism, it’s like a beast. And no matter how many
strings or ropes you try and tie it down with that beast just wants
more and more money. And it will go anywhere. It will try to gobble up
as much as it can. The word ‘enough’ is the dirtiest word in
capitalism, ‘cuz there’s no such thing as enough with these guys. And
we haven’t stopped them. We haven’t passed the regulations that
President Obama has suggested. I mean, I think he’s really on top of
this. And he said yesterday, he told Wall Street, ‘That’s it, boys. No
more free ATM machine at the U.S. Department of Treasury.’ And I think
that’s something we all support, right?

“The audience responded with enthusiastic and sustained applause.”

[When Moore criticizes “capitalism” he seems to be focussing on the political influence by which taxpayers end up holding the bag for irresponsible risk-taking in the private sector. But his suggestion that Obama`s “really on top of
this” is wishful thinking that ignores both the influence of money on Obama and misses Austrian/public choice understandings of how rent-seeking, bureaucratic incentives and the information problem continue to contribute to a cycle of regulation and manipulation.]

– “The applause rose again when Moore explained that: “I’m actually
suggesting go back to our roots of this country, democracy. What if we
had an economy that you and I had a say in? Right now, we all don’t
have much of a say in this economy. What if we applied our democratic
principles and said, ‘We, the people, have a right to determine how
this economy is run.’ I think we’d be in much better shape than what
we’re going through right now.”

Bloomberg interview, September 15 (Rick Warner):

– “Warner: Several clergymen in the film say capitalism is
anti-Christian and that Jesus would have deplored such a dog-
eat-dog system. Yet you hear from the right that capitalism and
Christianity go hand in hand. Are they reading different Bibles?”

“Moore: The number one thing in the Bible is redemption. The
number two thing is how we treat the poor. All the great
religions talk about this. The right wing hijacked Jesus 30
years ago. It was all a big ruse, but people fell for it. I
don’t think people are falling for it so easily now.”

– “Warner: You’re not the most beloved person on Wall Street.
When you went down there with your Brink’s truck and empty bag
to collect money for the American taxpayer, were you concerned
about your safety?”

“Moore: Yes. When I started wrapping the New York Stock
Exchange with crime-scene tape, I thought for sure this was when
the police were going to jump me and haul me off to the Tombs
(prison). And it didn’t happen. One cop says to me, “Don’t
worry Mike, we’ve lost a billion dollars in our pension fund.”
They were like, “Go get ‘em.”

USA Today, September 23 (Claudia Puig):

– “No matter what side of the political fence you’re on or what you think
of Moore as an activist and provocateur, a film that explores the
economic meltdown and its historical roots is something most of us can
get our heads around.”

– “Capitalism is as entertaining as Roger & Me, and its critique skewers both major political parties, calling into question the economic policies of Bill Clinton as well as Ronald Reagan.
This is quintessential Moore, with a clear-cut
agenda: Capitalism has superseded democracy, encouraged corruption and
greed, and failed our nation. Political bigwigs and wealthy executives
may love it, but it’s not working for the majority of Americans.”

– “His rallying cry is simple: The country needs to return to its democratic roots.”

– “The recurring theme: The rich have gotten richer, and everyone else has suffered.”

– “Moore has the rare ability to present economics and history in an
engaging and comprehensive fashion. Consequently, his movies draw large
audiences and spur debate. And films that inspire contemplation and
elicit discussion are welcome relief in a medium increasingly dominated
by formulaic and mindless diversion.”

Variety, September 16 (Ted Johnson, managing editor):

– “His latest movie tries to tap into populist outrage from the left, at a
time when that anger has been channeled much more visibly by the right.
The outrage that we have seen, the town halls and the tea parties and
the birthers, have been over the fear of big government, not that there
won’t be a safety net. “They are very good at it,” he told me, adding
that conservatives’ ability to “own the bailout” is for “entirely
different reasons from me.” It is also one of the reasons he was so
anxious to get his movie out.”

– “this movie has a much larger scope, taking on the notion that
capitalism was never enshrined in the Constitution, but was sold to us
as the best possible system. In making his point he turns not just to
workers who’ve been left behind, but to Catholic priests and bishops,
who preach of capitalism as no less than evil.

“There’s ample fodder:  … Citigroup draws up a
memo for select investors, proclaiming a world “plutonomy” that can be
foiled by that pesky thing called the right to vote.

“Republicans, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush all take their lumps,
which is to be expected, but so do House and Senate Democrats and even
President Obama, as Moore treats his election as a turning point yet
notes Goldman Sachs and Wall Street showered him with contributions,
resulting in Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner. Special mention is
reserved for Chris Dodd, who is hammered for accepting VIP treatment
from Countrywide in the form of better terms on home interest rates,
reaping $1,175,133.

“On the other hand, Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) is treated as a hero for
speaking out against the bailout bill, and footage is shown of her
impassioned plea, before it passed Congress. “This was almost like an
intelligence operation,” she says of the timing of the bailout so close
to the 2008 election.”

BBC Interview, September 7 (Kelly Oakes); “Michael Moore takes aim at money men”:

– “I had been wanting to do a movie about capitalism and about a year
and a half ago, I finally started,” he says. “I saw a lot of things
happening in terms of people losing their jobs and foreclosures.

“So I decided to get going on this film because I thought we had an economy built on sand, a house of cards.”

– “I think that we must change the fundamental things about how our
economy is run and how it works or we are going to continue to have
problems and it is going to get worse.”

– Capitalism: A Love
Story takes a look at the government’s multi-billion dollar bank
bail-out, and compares it with how workers in small companies found
themselves out of jobs without severance pay.

– “Moore is adamant that capitalism is not the way forward, but
struggles to offer a real alternative for how the economy could be run,
or a way to convince people they do not need so much money to buy
“stuff”.

He does advocate shared ownership of companies in the
form of co-operatives, showing a handful of businesses where this has
been a success.

So with so much information thrown at the
audience in the film, and giving only his side of the argument, what
does Moore hope people will take away from the movie?

“I hope
the people will start to wake up a bit and see that they are
participating in something that is causing them a lot of harm.”

Politico, September 28 (Michael Calderone):

– “While Michael Moore remains a scourge of the right, the filmmaker says he’s gaining some conservative fans.

“Our own testing has shown that Republicans are interested in coming
to this film more than my other films,” Moore told POLITICO by phone
this afternoon. In Capitalism: A Love Story, Moore said, “you see for the first time Republicans inviting me into their homes asking for help.”

It’s actually not too surprising, given that the government’s
taxpayer funded bailout of the banks has attracted critics on the left
and right. And along with Washington and Wall Street, Moore also
targets the media, which he describes as “major enablers” of the
financial crisis and part of the “ruling elite.”

“They have celebrated this culture of making money off money, as
opposed to making money by making things,” Moore said. “That has been
detrimental for everyone, for society, bad for the economic system.”

– “The difference is that the other side of the political fence is
trying to take advantage of people hurting now,” Moore said. “They work
to manipulate them and get them afraid. And they’re blaming all the
wrong people.”

For instance, Moore considers Fox’s Glenn Beck — who once said on the air he’d like to kill the filmmaker —  to be “a sick puppy.” …

Still, Moore said he doesn’t disparage the right for flocking to town
halls this summer, and thinks liberals should be getting out there
more. 

“I admire those Republicans who even though they’re in a small
minority now, they do not give up,” Moore said. “They have the courage
of their convictions.”

TIME interview, September 26 (Bill Saporito)

– “You’ve called the TARP program part of a financial coup d’etat. But if we
get our money back, with interest, and the banking system reverts to doing
what it should do, haven’t the citizens won?“

“If you give me $700 billion per year, hey I have some good ideas. I can make
some money with that, for me and for you. I’m going to have my best quarter
if you gave me that money. I wonder how many people in the inner cities
would love a little bailout money to get out the hole they are in and have
one of their best years ever. This wasn’t a gift; it was a theft. They stole
the people’s money by gambling with it. They took the pension funds of
working people and gambled away their money, and went back to the same
working people and asked for $700 billion more of their money.”

– “But aren’t you really a model capitalist? You raise money. You hire people.
You create a product and sell it to the public, bearing the risk and gaining
the rewards that goes along with it.“

“Capitalism would have never let me be a filmmaker, living in Flint, Michigan
with a high school education. I was going to have to make that happen
myself. My last movie, I gave it away for free on the Internet: Slacker
Uprising. If I were a capitalist I would not give my employees health
insurance with no deductible, which I do, including dental, and paid
pregnancy leave. That’s not called capitalism, that’s called being a
Christian and someone who believes in democracy, so that everyone should get
a fair slice of the pie.”

[Moore doesn`t understand what “capitalism” really is.]

The Nation, September 23 (Naomi Klein):

CNN interview, September 21

New York Times interview, September 23 (Cyrus Sanati, DealBook)

– “In “Capitalism: A Love Story,” which had its New York premiere
this week, Mr. Moore contends that capitalism has failed to create the
kind of just society the country’s founders envisioned, and that the
big banks have essentially co-opted the government.”

– “In your film you point out the deficiencies of capitalism. What economic system do you think is best and why?

“Well, we haven’t invented it yet. Here’s what I don’t think works:
An economic system that was founded in the 16th century and another
that was founded in the 19th century. I’m tired of this discussion of
capitalism and socialism; we live in the 21st century, we need an
economic system that has democracy as its underpinnings and an ethical
code.”

[Sounds like he could be talking about a more libertarian society – somebody get ahold of Moore and start talking with him!]

-“There is a scene in the film where you mention that Goldman
Sachs employees were a big source of President Obama’s contributions
during the last election cycle. Do you believe the President was wrong
to take that money?”

I really see an audience of one for that scene (President Obama). I
want him to know that we know that Goldman was his single-largest
contributor and what he does with that is his choice – he can choose to
side with them or with us.

– “It seems that a lot of the anger over the bailout and the
crisis has eased as the markets have recovered. Are you concerned that
the government will not step up and reform the financial system?

First, the market recovery is a bit of an illusion because the
other shoes haven’t dropped yet like the massive credit card debt that
can never be repaid and the commercial real-estate bubble.

Of course they are not going to revamp the system. The banking
industry and these financial institutions have been lobbying and
spending millions of dollars in the last year to guarantee that no new
regulations have been put in place.

Real change will only happen when the people demand it and the
people are going to have to demand more than a few new rules at this
point.

– “So how can the people ‘rise up’ in your view?”

– “You mention in the film that the United States may have experienced a financial coup d’etat. What did you mean?”

Wall Street, the banks, and corporate America, has been able to call
the shots here. They control our members of Congress and they get what
they want. I mean, 75 percent of this country wants universal health
care, but it looks like we aren’t going to get it again — how does that
happen? Well it happens when the health care industry spends a million
dollars a day on lobbyists. That’s how it happens.

So until we get the money out of politics, the coup d’etat that has
taken place by those with the money are really running the democracy.

New York Times, September 23 (Manohla Dargis, movie review):

– “America, in other words, is headed straight down the historical toilet, along with Nero and his fiddle (or rather Dick Cheney,
who’s anointed with a throwaway reference to the “emperor”), a thesis
that Mr. Moore continues to advance if not refine with another hour and
a half or so”

– “In the end, what is to be done? After watching “Capitalism,” it
beats me. Mr. Moore doesn’t have any real answers, either, which tends
to be true of most socially minded directors in the commercial
mainstream and speaks more to the limits of such filmmaking than to
anything else. Like most of his movies, “Capitalism” is a tragedy
disguised as a comedy; it’s also an entertainment. This isn’t the story
of capitalism as conceived by Karl Marx or Naomi Klein,
and it certainly isn’t the story of contemporary American capitalism,
which extends across the globe and far beyond Mr. Moore’s sightlines.

“Neither
is it an effective call to action: Mr. Moore would like us to vote,
which suggests a startling faith in the possibilities of social change
in the current political system. That faith appears to be due in some
part to the election of President Obama.

“As it happens, the most galvanizing words in the movie come not from
the current president but from Roosevelt, who in 1944 called for a
“second bill of rights,” asserting that “true individual freedom cannot
exist without economic security and independence.” The image of this
visibly frail president, who died the next year, appealing to our
collective conscience — and mapping out an American future that remains
elusive — is moving beyond words. And chilling: “People who are hungry
and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.”

It has come to my attention that Gene Callahan has responded to my remarks regarding “objective moral truths” that I noted here.

Rather than continuing the long threadjack of an unrelated post by Bob Murphy (on climate change science), I copy and respond below to Gene`s remarks:

1.  Gene:

“to say morality is objective doesn’t necessarily mean that ‘the same rules’ apply to everybody”

Right, Tom, of course it doesn’t. To say there are objective standards of science doesn’t mean that we judge all scientific discoveries without regard to the circumstances of time and place. If someone submitted to a journal today the fact that Jupiter has moons, he wold be laughed at. That doesn’t mean that objectively we cannot judge that Galileo made a great discovery.

“On the other hand, I have agreed that man has an exquisite moral sense, and have argued that our moral sense and capacity are something that we acquired via the process of evolution”

And, this is relevant how? We have clearly evolved our ability to see trees. Is that good evidence that trees aren’t objectively real? Isn’t it better evidence that they are objectively real? Similarly, if these evolved norms aid intra-group cooperation, isn’t that good evidence that there is something to them?

2.  Me:

a.  To whom do the rules apply?

The italicized quote is a statement made earlier in the same thread by Bob Murphy; my purpose in referring to it is to note that Bob and Gene have, as I have noted in a prior post, “clarified” that the “objective moral rules” that are embedded in the universe have a differing application, depending on the capacities of the creatures that perceive (or fail to perceive) them. This position would appear to collapse any meaningful distinction between “objective” and “subjective” moral rules.

As I commented to Bob on the post linked immediately above:

I`m afraid I have to disagree with you about Gene`s post, which in fact illustrates the weakness of his position regarding “objective truth”. While he suggests that by “objectively correct” we mean something that is correct for `any and all possible perceivers’ (so far, so good), he then presents the example of ants, for whom he asserts it would be wrong for them to commit murder IF THEY WERE CAPABLE of committing murder. But he`s failed to notice that he`s not only begged the question about what we mean by saying that “it is objectively true that murder is wrong”, but he`s suggested that because ants lack a capacity to perceive moral strictures against murder, they are unable to commit it. By doing so, he`s just invited in all of the questions that I`ve outlined above [in item 1 here], plus questions of culture and exigency that you have pointed out by your reference to Eskimos. Can any animals or life forms other than man commit murder? Do moral restrictions against murder require some threshold level of self-reflection, intellectual capacity, typical social structure, physical and social maturity, or upbringing?

So there IS an objective moral order, but it only applies to those able to perceive it?  This is both a very modest position, as well as one that oddly smacks of belief in Leprechauns.

Rather than arguing that still undefined but “objective” moral rules are embedded in the structure of the universe but have only limited application, isn`t it easier to acknowledge that man has a moral sense, observe that it enhances our ability to cooperate, observe that other animals also exhibit patterns of reciprocal behavior and posit that our moral sense is something that we have evolved, as it enhanced our ability to survive and procreate?

b.  Does our perception of moral codes mean they have an “objective”, much less “universal”, existence?

Gene suggests that because we can perceive trees, they have an objective existence; likewise, since we perceive there are moral rules, that such moral rules have an objective existence apart from man. But the parallel doesn`t work.  Ants and other animals clearly behave in accordance with inherited rules that are internal, and not external to them; likewise, our awareness of a moral dimension to our behavior does not imply that the moral parameters that affect our behavior have any objective existence, other than as genetically encoded rules – that find differing expression depending upon individuals, culture and circumstances.

Clearly we perceive that our behavior is imbued with a moral aspect, and we can objectively document the moral rules within various societies, but this does not tell us that there are objective moral codes that apply to all humans and to all human interactions – including to interactions to individuals in out-groups.  Nor does it tell us whether the moral rules that humans follow are “universal” in the sense that they would apply to non-humans.

Other social animals appear to follow similar and clearly genetically-based rules in their mutual cooperative and hostile interactions. If they were aware of their own idiosyncratic rules (the rules unique to their species), no doubt they would view them as being “moral” (or even mandatory) strictures.

It seems to me to be more accurate and productive to view our search for understanding of our moral behavior as a study of the sociobiology of man, similar to the ongoing sociobiological study of ants, other animals and life, and even of neurons, rather than as a venture to discovery “objective” moral standards somehow existing OUTSIDE of or independent of man, that govern our actual or desirable behavior.

In conducting such a study, we may of course find ways in which the moral parameters that appear to apply to man are similar to those of other life forms, as these studies I referred to in another post (on consensus) seem to indicate:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/science/13traff.html
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/ants_and_neurons/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VH9-4V357R7-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1028980427&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=387f4778be933c406159a3815767e196

A reader of Bob Murphy`s recent post on climate science – “TokyoTom Moving the Goalposts?” – queried my views on whether perceptions of climate change problems themselves justified a need to establish government.  I copy below my response (with a few typo and editorial changes):

“Do you believe that averting climate catastrophe is, by itself, justification for establishing a government?”

No,
Taylor, I don`t see that a looming climate catastrophe (or other
apparent catastrophe) by itself would justify the formation of a state.
Absent governments, other voluntary responses would no doubt arise, and
more quickly than when hampered by governments and rent-seeking.

“I
am curious if you seek to use the government to solve this problem
because it already exists and thus you see it as expedient and
practical to do so”

My view is quite a bit more subtle.
First, the fact of the matter is that we HAVE a government; even if we
didn`t, we`d have to deal with the governments of other peoples on an
issue such as this. Theoretically, in negotiations with others around
the world regarding the atmosphere and climate, we might very well end
up creating forms of government. Be that as it may, we cannot ignore
that states exist; the question is in part whether we can put them to
any good use, and in part how do we avoid making them worse.

Then
again, our government has already helped screw up the issue in any number
of ways. In my view, the focus should be as much on UNDOING what has
been counterproductive and what libertarians have never supported.
Those who don`t want to see MORE government should not be closing their
minds to the fact of the status quo, and ought to see in concerns about
climate change and resources issues (irrespective if the concerns are justified or not) an OPPORTUNITY to undo existing
and damaging state actions.

See my point?

But in all this, libertarians rarely strive to be positive change agents, but instead have been almost
wholly co-opted by rent-seekers who benefit from rights to pollute for
free and barriers to entry under the status quo.

[A few lists of my many posts related to this subject can be found here, here and here.]

A recent post by the prolifically productive Bob Murphy, “A Quick Note from Baltimore“, provides an opportunity for further thoughts on my continuing effort to puzzle out what Bob and Gene Callahan mean by their insistence that there is an objective moral order to the universe, and on what science seems to tell us about how both brains and groups of individuals function.

In his latest post, Bob decries a statement by Brad DeLong that another economist (Edward Prescott) “simply does not live in the consensus reality with the rest of us.”

Says Bob:

Is anybody else weirded-out by the term “consensus reality”? Have you ever heard of a more Orwellian phrase? Not reality mind you, but consensus reality. Prescott’s sin is not being wrong per se, but rather that he disagrees “with the rest of us.” …

Now this “consensus” criterion has spread from climate change to economics?

I
am not being flip. DeLong’s use of the term “consensus reality”
disturbs me far more than his endorsement of a Keynesian model. At
least if he agrees that things are objectively right or wrong–and uses
language accordingly–we can at least debate the merits of a Keynesian model.

But
we have no hope of changing anyone’s mind, if we fall into the dreaded
minority viewpoint, in a world dominated by “consensus reality.”

My comments are copied below, with minor editorial changes:

1.  Bob, I think Bertrand has put his finger on the “problem” that seems to
bother you so much: religions – indeed, moral codes of all kinds – work
in precisely the same way.

Don`t you understand the role of
shared moral codes – which evolve to suit changed circumstances (i.e.,
it`s “wrong” to litter, to keep slaves or to make racist, bigoted or
ant-gay remarks) in our societies?

Are all shared consensuses “Orwellian” (which I thought involved a heavy-handed state role), or only non-Christian ones?

Or are you simply complaining that you don`t like DeLong`s effort to enlist public support, since you disagree with him?

On
this note, do you remember Gene Callahan`s post on how a libertarian
society might employ moral suasion as a key lever in addressing
concerns about man`s roles in climate change? [discussed here and here]; does moral suasion require “objective” truths, or merely shared/consensus values?

2.  “isn’t the “consensus reality” trick how Gene_Callahan usually tries to win philosophical debates?” [a comment by Silas Barta, with reference to comments by Gene Callahan on the thread I remark on here]

Silas, while I think your observation is fair, it seems to me the more
telling point is that Gene`s own behavior belies his arguments that
there are objective, universal moral truths.

Instead, we each
perceive our own reality, influenced by incoming information, including
the beliefs of others and apparent gaps between our mental map of
reality and incoming information.

Our reliance on an apparent
“consensus” should not be ignored. As a society of individuals, we are
significantly affected by what others believe, and we often find we are
weaker than we hope when faced with consensus views that we disagree
with.

Further, each of us lacks the ability to independently
confirm the validity of the beliefs about reality that we accept into
our mental maps.

As a result, the “appeal to” authority, popularity, etc. fallacies are not simply rife, but unavoidable.

Further,
scientists are finding that “consensus decision-making” processes are
at work not only in groups of individuals, but even at more fundamental
levels of personal perception, at the level of groups of neurons:

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/ants_and_neurons/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VH9-4V357R7-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1028980427&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=387f4778be933c406159a3815767e196
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/science/13traff.html

[Note: I find that Bob Murphy deleted the comment thread.]

Allow me to draw the curious reader`s attention to the latest post by Bob Murphy on the subject of mind, the brain and what is “real”.  Again, the ensuing conversation suffers from confusion since Murphy refuses to clarify what he means when he uses the term “mind” and “real”.Sure, we usually mean different things when we use different terms, but in my view a Venn diagram of these two would have “mind” entirely within the boundaries of “brain” (there are no disembodied minds).

Also, Gene Callahan makes an appearance and does battle with Silas Barta in an interesting exchange that reveals to me, at least, how little I know. Not surprisingly, though, Callahan again storms FROM the Bastille, earning the following playful admonishment by Bob:

“Whoa there tiger. I realize your brain chemistry made you type those insults out, but by the same token my neurons are making me chastise your tone here. Remember, it is the Rothbardian wing of Austrian economics that resorts to name-calling as opposing to scholarly debate. You NYU guys are supposed to be above that.”

Which leaves an interesting question: when we emote, are our minds actually thinking? Or, as Bob seems to concede (by adopting my “the brain produces the mind” rhethoric), are we really just reacting, and verbalizing the flow?

Lord knows I`ve got better things to do, but I can`t resist.

Rob Bradley has written extensively on energy regulation from a libertarian viewpoint and spent a number of years as an adviser to Ken Lay inside Enron – apparently seeing up-close (while conscientiously fighting a losing battle to steer Enron away from) the now well-known efforts of Enron to use the power of government to create profitable markets for it. Bradley`s energy commentary came to my attention a few years ago (on the Mises pages), and I have been observing him fairly closely over the past year, particularly after the launch of MasterResource, his “free-market energy blog”.

Unfortunately, even while Bradley has been making some very thoughtful comments on energy policy, he is now rather nakedly involved in precisely the game of
rent-seeking (Rob`s preferred term is “political capitalism”) that he
so loudly decries in practically every blog post or other piece of
“free-market” commentary that he spins out.

Bradley`s activities now include:

• his commentary and support for Institute for Energy Resources –
  a “free market” “think tank” that he founded and remains CEO of but which is
  now staffed by former Republican K Street apparatchiks Essentially the same staff as AEA, noted next), and which has moved froｍ
  Houston to DC, the better to engage in influence peddling, but whose
  cover was blown wide open last year when ExxonMobil (a firm that Bradley has made clear, in post after post, that he adores), announced that it would no longer fund
  IER and others whose activities were tied too closely to anti-climate change
  science and policies that Exxon has decided are counterproductive);

• support for the public lobbying arm of IER, the American Energy Alliance, staffed by former Republican K Street apparatchiks, which
  has been coordinating “grassroots” events to put political pressure on
  Congresscritters from coal-producing and -consuming states; and

• his relentless blogging on climate police at MasterResource –
  his chief soapbox – with co-bloggers who are generally well-regarded
  but nevertheless professionals at the climate policy influence game (such as Chip Knappenberger, who works at a self-proclaimed “advocacy science consulting firm”).

This is clearly a rent-seeker`s game, and Rob is in the thick of it, producing a steady stream of one-sided political, economic and scientific argument after another.

Bradley valiantly pretends simply to be an opponent of some possibly counterproductive government policies (of which there are plenty, to be sure) that various nefarious and/or corrupt interest groups are advancing, but in reality serves as a paid spokesman for that group of interests that have benefitted most from the status quo, and have the most to lose from any form of carbon pricing –  including “King Coal“, as Bradley so aptly names them. Coal merits unfailingly positive references – it`s clean, it`s cheap, it`s the FUTURE – but never any observations of the pollution resulting from coal (significant annual deaths, breaches of fly ash dams, court cases regarding cross-border pollution) or of the negative role of government ownership of coal reserves or of misguided federal regulations (Clean Air Act grandfathering of the oldest, dirtiest plants, and right to pollute; and the federal supplanting of private tort protections regarding air pollution and mountaintop removal practices).

It looks like a pretty good brew that Bradley serves up – he serves his clients well – but it`s always been a bit too strong for me. As a result, Rob has booted me from his bar, and I`ve been left to occasionally grumble outside. I haven`t particularly lost interest so much as run out of time and an ability to keep up, particularly as the flow of rhetoric and partial “analysis” has increased (in step with the legislative agenda).

But in a couple of recent posts by Bradley, the brew of self-righteous, self-serving and self-deceptive rhetoric has proved too rich for me to ignore.

1. The first is a naked appeal to influence the policy leanings of the natural gas industry, in Bradley`s September 8 post, the title of which lays bare Bradley`s clients: “Why Natural Gas Should Not Play the Cap-and-Trade Game (the real enemy is mandated renewables/conservation, not coal)” (geez, has he beat my record for long titles?). Why is this rich? First, because coal is the heaviest producer of GHGs per BTU, so coal is obviously most threatened by climate bills (that`s why Bradley and a legion of others can make a living at this, after all). Next, some of the reasons he trots out, such as his reference to “grassroot” citizens in Houston that Bradley and the American Petroleum Institute organized, and the more straightforward argument that, to be blunt, “Big Coal is too powerful for a Kill Coal bill on the Senate side“.  But despite all of coal`s bluster, Bradley knows that it is THEY that are on the table, not natural gas, and so he argues that it`s really natural gas “as the swing fuel in electricity generation” that loses mostly from a climate bill. Which is why Bradley closes with an appeal to natural gas to help not coal, but “capitalism in its desperate hour”.

2. The second post is a re-post of interesting earlier commentary by Bradley concerning Enron. This is rich because Bradley continually tries to draw important lessons about what went wrong at Enron (while thumping his chest about his own efforts to correct “philosophical errors” at the firm), while blindly ignoring his own present involvement in the self-same “political capitalism” that he decries. Bradley just conveniently overlooks that “political  capitalism” lies not solely in seeking CURRENT political favor, but also in PAST efforts to secure such favor, and in ongoing efforts to preserve it. One wonders whether for Bradley, reciting the lessons he learned from Enron might be serving as a salve for a guilty conscience for actually forgetting the inconvenient part of such lessons (and deeper Austrian lessons about problem solving and the frustration of preferences when government is acting heavy-handedly).

Okay, I`m all out of rants for now.

[Well, the Mises server just swallowed my first attempt at this post, so the reader will just have to suffer this sketchier one.]

I have been chasing both Gene Callahan and Bob Murphy to try to get them to spell out what they mean when they assert that there is an “objective moral order” in the universe; until recently Bob has been by far the most congenial, as well as evidencing more interest in discussing the subject, but he has just thrown in the towel for the time being, after conceding that “to say morality is objective doesn’t necessarily mean that ‘the same rules’ apply to everybody” and that he has no good answers my questions as to whether the objective moral order applies to all creatures and to all men regardless of age, gender and mental development.

On the other hand, I have agreed that man has an exquisite moral sense, and have argued that our moral sense and capacity are something that we acquired via the process of evolution, as an aid to intra-group cooperation and conflict with out-groups. Similar arguments have been made

– by Bruce Yandle,

– by Roy Rappaport (former head of the American Anthropology Assn.) in his book “Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity” (which I have discussed here) and

– by David Sloan Wilson in his book “Darwin`s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society“.

However, Bob did point to a related post by Gene Callahan in which Gene essentially argued that the “objective” moral truths rules that are embedded in the structure of the universe apply only to those creatures able to perceive the rules. In other words, not to ants – and perhaps not to other life forms or to humans whose age and mental development leave them incapable of perceiving the rules. 

I have received no response from Gene on my posts here (perhaps he hasn`t yet perceived them), but he did start to provide a little meat in a rather long threadjack at a totally unrelated blog post by Bob (TokyoTom Moving the Goalposts? – regarding my comments on the rush to sell poorly-understood science in the political marketplace). 

Since it`s a topic of interest but I don`t wish to continue the threadjack (and it`s difficult to follow there, given unrelated comments, and contains largely irrelevant ad homs/replies), I take the liberty of excerpting relevant portions here, and I respond further below.

1.  From Bob`s thread (unedited, with emphasis added):

Gene:

As you assert, right and wrong are all just subjective opinion, so, if I can profit from these impacts, why should I care? By your own principles, the fate f those poor schucks in Sri Lanka should mean nothing to me.

TT:

Again you misunderstand my principles. But the glory of the world, of course, is that you get to base your behavior on your own principles (and objective truths as you perceive them), not mine, as well as on any moral pressure you might feel from the broader community in which you dwell.

Gene:

I am not saying you actually think it is merely a subjective matter whether or not millions die in a man-made tsunami, etc. In fact, you correctly think that such a thing is objectively wrong. For the third time, I will say that what I am saying in posts like this is not what I think your views are, but what by logic you ought to think, given your rejection of objective moral truths. I am pointing out that you’re position is inconsistent, and therefore incoherent: You claim not to believe in objective moral truth, and yet you make arguments that depend on the existence of what you deny.

TT:

– I have not so much “claim[ed] not to believe in objective moral truth” as to note that G.C. has singularly failed to explain what he means by his statement or to offer any support to for. Proof of this is not only in GC`s threads, but in the fact that Bob felt the need to re-open the subject himself.

– If I “make arguments that depend on the existence of what I deny”, then G.C. has failed to show it.

First, I have made it clear that not only to I believe that the material universe (of matter and energy) objectively exists, but that I believe that it has an underlying structure that we can strive to understand (and express mathematically) even as our understanding (and descriptions) of it will always be incomplete. Thus, an algorithm may or may not be an accurate description of the structure of the universe. In any case, the objective existence of a poorly-understood structure to the universe offers no support for the proposition that there is a moral order to the universe.

Further, G.C.　has argued that there is an object moral structure to the universe; I have argued that man has an exquisite inherited moral sense, and that we inherited this moral sense via evolution over eons because it provided benefits by allowing enhanced intra-group cooperation and reducing tragedies of the commons.

Accepting that man has a moral nature which is genetically based (but that is expressed differently in each individual and culture, and that is largely applied to in-group transactions but applied much more lightly in interactions with those outside our groups) does NOT depend on arguments that there is any universal moral order, applicable outside of man to all of Creation (or to such of Creation as may be conscious).

Sorry, but my arguments simply do NOT “depend on the existence of what I deny” – including arguments over whether or not G.C. has “behaved badly”, or arguments that man ought not to engage in actions that directly or indirectly harm others. Such things may be measured and tested based strictly on a study of human nature (which is objectively different from other animals and has an objective genetic base).

Gene:

“I have argued that man has an exquisite inherited moral sense, and that we inherited this moral sense via evolution over eons because it provided benefits by allowing enhanced intra-group cooperation and reducing tragedies of the commons.”

And so what? Either “enhanced intra-group cooperation” and “reducing tragedies of the commons” are objectively good things (and you’ve given up moral subjectivism), or you’ve gotten precisely nowhere.

Let’s say in the remote Amazon some group has evolved so that THEIR “exquisite moral sense” requires the smashing in of the infant’s skulls of whatever other tribe they meet. Then, through some fluke, they wind up in Tokyo and go on a skull-smashing rampage. Hey, well, that’s just the way their moral sense evolved, hey? You, by your own premises, are in absolutely no position to tell them what they are doing is wrong. In fact, since obviously my behaviour is a result of my evolutionary past, then if I am being “rude” to you, well, that’s just MY “exquisite moral sense,” isn’t it? Who are you to go saying my moral sense is wrong and yours is right, when clearly both are the product of the same evolutionary process!

So, although I realize that you do not understand that you pre-suppose that which you deny, you do. (In fact, we should suspect that anyone making such an error will pretty much always fail to recognize that they are making it, since no one can consciously embrace incoherence.)

2.  My further comments:

Ironically, it is Gene who is pre-supposing what my presuppositions and my objectives are. 

First, I can argue (though I haven`t made such a case) that it would be wrong if millions die in a man-made tsunami, without “think[ing] that such a thing is objectively wrong,” based on a moral code external to man. Rather, I can simply rely on my own values and those of the communities of which I am a member.

Likewise, I need not (and do not) make any arguments that either “enhanced intra-group cooperation” and “reducing tragedies of the commons” are “objectively good things”; I need merely to observe scientifically that man, like his cousin critters, has evolved, that he has a moral sense akin to, but more more highly developed than, patterns of reciprocal behavior in other animals (while more genetically identical communities of social insects cooperate even more closely), and to suppose that this moral sense of right and wrong and the related predilection towards the social development of norms and rules were evolutionarily ADVANTAGEOUS, by enhancing group cohesion while moderating internal frictions and behaviors that were costly to the group as a whole, better enabling the group to take advantage of resources in the environment and respond to challenges, including challenges by out-groups.

Gene suggests one must have “objective truths” to get somewhere, but that just tells us the HE has an agenda for man; rather than particularly trying to get SOMEWHERE I`m just applyng an evolutionary approach to figure out how we got HERE.

It`s a shame I lost my previous post on this, but I think it pretty clear that our “exquisite moral sense” is both highly developed and very two-faced (highly selective would be a more gentle expression): we act one way to members of our group (based on highly developed codes and bonding rituals that became religions as our groups grew larger), but generally act as if we have little or no obligations to outsiders, to whom we might very well be downright suspicious and hostile. Why would that be? Maybe because, like the chimpanzee bands that so famously disillusioned Jane Goodall, we`ve been engaged in murderous competition with rival bands from time immemorial.

While it`s possible to argue that man`s deliberate struggle through history has been one of extending the limits of those whom we need to be decent to from a small circle to all of mankind (or further, to pets, other animals, etc.) – and there have certainly been individuals who have made conscious efforts to do so – one may also see the “progress” in this direction as being the simple consequence of Darwinian struggles between different human groups and societies, with the societies that more successfully united their own peoples, seized opportunities and vanquished other groups (through a combination of defeat, elimination and inclusion). Religions and our moral sense have clear served as both weapons and tools in this process; the gods have served on both sides of most conflicts, at least until one won, frequently by putting the heathen to the sword. Thus, “moral progress” has frequently been bought by brutal blood-soaked violence in which the victors routinely failed to pay much attention to the morality of their own conduct toward the other – as has always been our nature.

Forced change can be seen in both in the US. Civil War in the case of slavery and in this anecdoctal quote regarding British attempts to stamp out the Hindi practice of ritual immolation of the wives of a deceased husband in India:

You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.

Very seldom has such forced change been primarily motivated by a desire to bring about moral progress.

Persuasion and mass moral suasion can often work, as can be seen in the cases of ML King and the civil rights movement, as well as Ghandi`s efforts, particular when public opinion was mobilized. Gene has argued for this himself; while those arguing for change of course may feel united by religion and may employ appeals to the shared beliefs of others, no external “objective” moral order is needed for moral suasion to work.

Gene conjures up an Amazonian skull-smashing tribe at loose in Tokyo, but why look so far? The Japanese and the rest of the “modern” slaughters millions of unborn infants annually (and particularly females in China, India and the Middle East). The difference, of course, is that we are just doing it to ourselves, rather than having it inflicted on us by outsiders.

Gene is right to note that my rather cold-eyed observations about our remarkably self-serving moral sense might leave me in “absolutely no position to tell [Amazonian skull-smashers rampaging in Tokyo] what they are doing is wrong,” but so what? Gene is simply asking the wrong question. The Japanese do not need “objective” external moral standards to deal with such behavior; they need simply to STOP it. And make no doubt about; stop it they would FIRST, and then ask questions, and perhaps later, if time and a surviving Amazonian or two permits, they might attempt a discussion on moral issues. This of course is true of every community when faced with an attack; banding together in self-defense is virtually instinctive.

Gene might posit other, stickier situations, of which we face a bottomless pit. We have our tribal need for close groups, but have on large parts of the planet blessedly stilled the fraternal slaughter between rival societies. In larger societies, we face stresses between our attenuated bonds to others and our wish for close communities. On one front the religious bonds that united particular societies have frayed, but our urge for uniting bonds of ritual and belief remain, while on another we`ve managed to stir up more religious fundamentalism and distrust at home and abroad.

In all this, the desire for an objective set of universally binding moral rules that is floating around in the universe just waiting for everyone to become enlightened and to voluntarily submit to them is quite understandable, but obviously pie in the sky. I suggest that we try to work instead in understanding our own nature better and work at trying to persuade each other and to lessen tensions that may become murderous.

P.S. Gene`s error can be seen further in his comments about rude behavior. He thinks that taking a cultural, evolutionary view leaves one without a basis for criticism, so therefore I must unintentionally be relying on objective, external standards to criticize him. He`s got it precisely wrong – while clearly we ARE both “the product of the same evolutionary process”, my appeal is not to objective external standards, but to shared COMMUNITY standards (that can be objectively described). Further, by publicly arguing my position, I hope to marshal public support of the kind that he has himself usefully pointed out.

The questions are simply whether Gene and I actually share ANY communal bonds and obligations, what those obligations are, how they apply in this instance, and whether Gene cares what anyone else thinks.

What is ironic is to see someone like Gene who so clearly wants to see a better world take the position that “objective” moral standards permit such lack of concern for how he treats others and how such treatment is perceived. But an evolutionary thinker would simply see it as more evidence for the remarkable moral flexibility that the Creator has endowed us with.

I left the following comment at a recent Mises Blog post by Stephan Kinsella, but the number of links included apparently triggered the spam filter and held up the comment.  According, I post it here, so I can re-comment with a cross-link here.

Stephan, we have extensively discussed this matter previously, focussing mainly on the point that Vincent Cook raises, namely, the consistency with libertarian principles of the state grant of limited liability as against parties who become unwilling “creditors” of the firm as a result of being injured by the actions of the firm.

You continue to dodge this point just as Block and Huebert have explicitly begged the question in their latest effort (emphasis added):

“As long as there is no fraud, as long as all those who deal with corporations know full well that in case of any dispute, they will only be able to sue for an amount up to the full capitalization of the corporation and not have access to the shareholders’ personal assets, there can be no problem with the libertarian legal code.”

It goes without saying that injured persons don`t choose ahead of time who will injure them, much less the whether the liability of their tortfeasors will be limited to corporate assets. [IOW, when it comes to limited liability corporations, there IS a fairly glaring problem with the libertarian legal code.]

Our previous discussions on the Mises Blog took place here and here: 

And an earlier related discussion on the Mises Blog was here:

I have commented extensively myself on the consequences of this grant – which I see as fuelling risky corporate behavior and a cycle of “rent-seeking” fights with private interests seeking to use the state as a check against corporations – in a number of blog posts, such as the following:

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/11/26/corporations-amp-the-state-some-criticisms-of-huebert-and-block-s-criticisms-of-long.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/03/03/when-will-tom-woods-and-other-quot-free-market-quot-intellectuals-have-second-thoughts-about-limited-liability.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/02/26/the-curse-of-limited-liability-wsj-com-executives-traders-of-big-financial-corporations-generate-risky-businesss-while-smaller-partnerships-are-much-more-risk-averse.aspx

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

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

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/pages/legal-resources-on-the-state-creation-of-limited-liability-for-shareholders.aspx