Can you see any differences? Point them out if you can.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Follow Up - The Right to Discriminate
The comments made by a reader regarding my most recent post, warrant a reply post, as I believe there is some fundamental confusion regarding this issue. I am encountering similar misunderstanding in my non-line conversations as well.
The reader writes, "...but the majority of the criticism that I read did not focus on whether or not Paul is racist but on the accuracy of his statements and his understanding of history."
I am not sure what you mean by this. When Paul said he believes that business owners have the right to discriminate, he was charged with being a racist. That was the focus of outrage. As I mentioned in the main post, he strongly supports most of the civil rights legislation. Let me make this very clear, I do not like Rand Paul and the way he is handling this! Instead of using his abundant face time on cable news shows to hammer home this one CORRECT point about private property rights, he is sheepishly backing away from his previous statements and acting just like a politician. This strategy will likely help him get elected, but in doing so his is compromising what principles he appeared to have. His father would educate and stick to his guns. I defend the statements he made, not him or his candidacy for Senate.
"...I think it's important to note that he was being criticized by many members of his own party."
I guess that I haven't been clear enough about my disdain for both the Republicans and the Democrats. Republicrats, whats the difference really? Anytime you can be distanced from either of these parties, it is a good thing. I'll note that the republicans who were doing this are strictly playing moderate politics, fishing for that optimum number of votes.
"but Stossel and Paul are simply wrong in believing that free markets would have eliminated problems of extreme discrimination and racism that existed in this country not too long ago."
No one is making this outrages claim. What Stossel is trying to say is that the market would not allow for this kind widespread racial and religious discrimination in stores and restaurants specifically. Yes, some backwater business's could succeed with ignorant policies like this, but the majority of restaurant owners who tried would be, as Tom Woods of the Mises Institute say's "boycotted and picketed out of existence within ten seconds."
"I once believed we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow, I was wrong: federal intervention was necessary"
This quote you use makes the case for libertarianism! Jim Crow was LAWS! That's your team, the government. Those were laws that mandated racial discrimination. Bill Buckley was no libertarian.
And regarding the ADA, I like what Stossel says about it. It would be perfect if every business in the land had power ramps and voice activated door handles and escalators in lieu of stairs, but as with candidates, perfect is the enemy of the good. Which is better, those thing that I just mentioned or the untold jobs lost by the cost of the multitude of mandated insurance policies, the expensive ramps, the ever-glowing exit signs, etc? I think a lower unemployment rate is more desirable as well as a utilitarian outcome of giving back property rights to the owners of the property. There will be ramps. There will be exit signs. But not everywhere.
I hope this clarifies some of the points I was trying to make in my previous post
For more on this, see Milton Freidman at 3:08.
The reader writes, "...but the majority of the criticism that I read did not focus on whether or not Paul is racist but on the accuracy of his statements and his understanding of history."
I am not sure what you mean by this. When Paul said he believes that business owners have the right to discriminate, he was charged with being a racist. That was the focus of outrage. As I mentioned in the main post, he strongly supports most of the civil rights legislation. Let me make this very clear, I do not like Rand Paul and the way he is handling this! Instead of using his abundant face time on cable news shows to hammer home this one CORRECT point about private property rights, he is sheepishly backing away from his previous statements and acting just like a politician. This strategy will likely help him get elected, but in doing so his is compromising what principles he appeared to have. His father would educate and stick to his guns. I defend the statements he made, not him or his candidacy for Senate.
"...I think it's important to note that he was being criticized by many members of his own party."
I guess that I haven't been clear enough about my disdain for both the Republicans and the Democrats. Republicrats, whats the difference really? Anytime you can be distanced from either of these parties, it is a good thing. I'll note that the republicans who were doing this are strictly playing moderate politics, fishing for that optimum number of votes.
"but Stossel and Paul are simply wrong in believing that free markets would have eliminated problems of extreme discrimination and racism that existed in this country not too long ago."
No one is making this outrages claim. What Stossel is trying to say is that the market would not allow for this kind widespread racial and religious discrimination in stores and restaurants specifically. Yes, some backwater business's could succeed with ignorant policies like this, but the majority of restaurant owners who tried would be, as Tom Woods of the Mises Institute say's "boycotted and picketed out of existence within ten seconds."
"I once believed we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow, I was wrong: federal intervention was necessary"
This quote you use makes the case for libertarianism! Jim Crow was LAWS! That's your team, the government. Those were laws that mandated racial discrimination. Bill Buckley was no libertarian.
And regarding the ADA, I like what Stossel says about it. It would be perfect if every business in the land had power ramps and voice activated door handles and escalators in lieu of stairs, but as with candidates, perfect is the enemy of the good. Which is better, those thing that I just mentioned or the untold jobs lost by the cost of the multitude of mandated insurance policies, the expensive ramps, the ever-glowing exit signs, etc? I think a lower unemployment rate is more desirable as well as a utilitarian outcome of giving back property rights to the owners of the property. There will be ramps. There will be exit signs. But not everywhere.
I hope this clarifies some of the points I was trying to make in my previous post
For more on this, see Milton Freidman at 3:08.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
The Right to Discriminate
A co-worker the other day asked me about Rand Paul and the "racist" comments he made regarding public/private property. For those of you who don't know, Rand Paul is running for a senate seat in Kentucky and a week ago he won the republican primary in a landslide. He is the son of Congressmen Ron Paul (TX), who I have cited in various posts, here, and here.
Immediately after Rand Paul's somewhat surprising victory the other day, the intellectually dishonest media began lambasting him as a racist based on his response during an interview about the civil rights movement. Basically, he said that he supported the majority of the civil rights legislation, but that the laws concerning private property, ie, resturants, bars, pool halls, etc are unjust. A business owner should have the right to discriminate if he or she wants to. As Paul says in the interview, "racism is terrible and always a bad business decision, but the owner the private property should be able to make that decision."
Racism is morally corrupt and ignorant and indeed a poor business decision, but the owner of private property has the right to discriminate if they want to. Even if it is a "public" place like a cafe, the fact of the matter is the owner of the property has the right to be a fool and discriminate based on race, sex, age, height, the car you drive, and so on and so forth. Should a there be a law mandating who you let in your home? As soon as we start talking about something like water fountains, public buses and schools, who are all funded with taxpayer dollars and therefore truly public property, then their MUST be laws preventing discrimination. So Rand Paul is correct on this subject the attacks against him are unfounded.
I only wish Rand could apply these same logical libertarian principals to other subjects, like foreign policy. This is a crucial fork in the intellectual road where he and his father go their own ways. Ron Paul maintains that foreign military engagements are bad, where his son seems to encourage the ever hawkish "strong national defense," which means at its core that war is good and America needs to be the COP of the world. He is not the consistent libertarian that I wish he could be, but I certainly maintain that he was correct about a private business owner right to discriminate.
Check out a clip of the story here and watch Stossel defend this right.
Immediately after Rand Paul's somewhat surprising victory the other day, the intellectually dishonest media began lambasting him as a racist based on his response during an interview about the civil rights movement. Basically, he said that he supported the majority of the civil rights legislation, but that the laws concerning private property, ie, resturants, bars, pool halls, etc are unjust. A business owner should have the right to discriminate if he or she wants to. As Paul says in the interview, "racism is terrible and always a bad business decision, but the owner the private property should be able to make that decision."
Racism is morally corrupt and ignorant and indeed a poor business decision, but the owner of private property has the right to discriminate if they want to. Even if it is a "public" place like a cafe, the fact of the matter is the owner of the property has the right to be a fool and discriminate based on race, sex, age, height, the car you drive, and so on and so forth. Should a there be a law mandating who you let in your home? As soon as we start talking about something like water fountains, public buses and schools, who are all funded with taxpayer dollars and therefore truly public property, then their MUST be laws preventing discrimination. So Rand Paul is correct on this subject the attacks against him are unfounded.
I only wish Rand could apply these same logical libertarian principals to other subjects, like foreign policy. This is a crucial fork in the intellectual road where he and his father go their own ways. Ron Paul maintains that foreign military engagements are bad, where his son seems to encourage the ever hawkish "strong national defense," which means at its core that war is good and America needs to be the COP of the world. He is not the consistent libertarian that I wish he could be, but I certainly maintain that he was correct about a private business owner right to discriminate.
Check out a clip of the story here and watch Stossel defend this right.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
On "Free"ways and Interstates
A recent reader comment regarding air travel and its subsides and true costs got me thinking about the Interstate Highway System. The 34th president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, championed the creation of a country-wide system of interconnected multi-lane highways for cars and trucks to get around the country with ease and speed in the mid nineteen fifties, at the height of the car culture boom.
I have traveled across the country a few times and primarily used these highways as a means of travel. It is slick. Fast, strait, bizarrely safe, and seemingly efficient. But this idea of true costs brings up some points I will address here.
First of all, from a property rights perspective, the creation of this system was atrocious. Quite a bit of private land was essentially stolen from the owners through the use of Eminent Domain. This is where the government decides that your property is worth more to the group than it is to you, whether it be productive farmland or pristine swampland.
Secondly, and most importantly as far as I am concerned, is the fact that we have essentially subsidized the long haul trucking and oil industry with these highways, which are still federally and state funded. As a result of these "free" highways, it is more economically efficient for businesses to ship goods with tractor trailer trucks instead of trains. Trains are astronomically more efficient in terms of energy consumption than individual trucks are at moving tons of material over long distances. So, instead of letting the market figure out the most efficient way to move goods, the government did, and in doing so, has essentially given trillions of dollars to both the trucking industry and the more insidious oil industry.
Of course it is in the favor of "big oil" to have a system that uses a lot more oil, like big rig trucks, than one that does not, like trains. I think this is just another example of corporatist government interventions into the decisions of the market which have resulted in the hiding of countless "true costs."
I have traveled across the country a few times and primarily used these highways as a means of travel. It is slick. Fast, strait, bizarrely safe, and seemingly efficient. But this idea of true costs brings up some points I will address here.
First of all, from a property rights perspective, the creation of this system was atrocious. Quite a bit of private land was essentially stolen from the owners through the use of Eminent Domain. This is where the government decides that your property is worth more to the group than it is to you, whether it be productive farmland or pristine swampland.
Secondly, and most importantly as far as I am concerned, is the fact that we have essentially subsidized the long haul trucking and oil industry with these highways, which are still federally and state funded. As a result of these "free" highways, it is more economically efficient for businesses to ship goods with tractor trailer trucks instead of trains. Trains are astronomically more efficient in terms of energy consumption than individual trucks are at moving tons of material over long distances. So, instead of letting the market figure out the most efficient way to move goods, the government did, and in doing so, has essentially given trillions of dollars to both the trucking industry and the more insidious oil industry.
Of course it is in the favor of "big oil" to have a system that uses a lot more oil, like big rig trucks, than one that does not, like trains. I think this is just another example of corporatist government interventions into the decisions of the market which have resulted in the hiding of countless "true costs."
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Audit the Fed Bill Gutted!
A little over a week ago a version of Ron Paul and Allen Grayson's bill to Audit the Federal Reserve was passed through congress by Sen. Bernie Sanders of VT. Unfortunately the bill that passed has been heavily watered down from the one that Rep. Paul has worked relentlessly to get passed.
According to Ron Paul, he is very disappointed in Sanders quickly folding under to political pressure. Sanders and Paul, who are sort of on the opposite ends of the spectrum philosophically, had agreed on this bill and worked together to get the original one passed. Now, this lame version of the original may only cause more harm than good because it offers a one time Audit of the fed and only regarding the bailout money. It says nothing of the Fed's dubious secret dealings with foreign banks and governments. Now people can say, "The Fed has been audited, we found nothing, happy now?"
Again, this goes to show that there is no one in politics who holds a candle to Ron Paul in their ability to resist political pressure. I have, from time to time, thrown a bone to the once seemingly principled Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders, even though they are socialist geeks, but now after Kucinich folded on health care and Sanders on the Fed bill, I realize there is only one Ron Paul.
According to Ron Paul, he is very disappointed in Sanders quickly folding under to political pressure. Sanders and Paul, who are sort of on the opposite ends of the spectrum philosophically, had agreed on this bill and worked together to get the original one passed. Now, this lame version of the original may only cause more harm than good because it offers a one time Audit of the fed and only regarding the bailout money. It says nothing of the Fed's dubious secret dealings with foreign banks and governments. Now people can say, "The Fed has been audited, we found nothing, happy now?"Again, this goes to show that there is no one in politics who holds a candle to Ron Paul in their ability to resist political pressure. I have, from time to time, thrown a bone to the once seemingly principled Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders, even though they are socialist geeks, but now after Kucinich folded on health care and Sanders on the Fed bill, I realize there is only one Ron Paul.
Friday, May 14, 2010
GM Follow Up-I was right
As the always suave Nick Gillespie explains in this short video from Reason.com, GM did not pay back their loan for real. General Motors was given a 50 billion (that's right, 50 BILLION) dollar TARP loan. It turns out only a mere 6 billion dollars was an actual "loan". The rest was a generous gift from you and me and your grandmothers. That loan was paid back from an ESCROW account set up for them. They paid the loan back with money loaned to them from the government. So next time you you see that ad, raise your clenched fist in disgust!
Sunday, May 2, 2010
In Response
Regarding a thoughtful comment to my post Friendly Skies,
Colin,
Thanks for taking a look at this!
I guess I should clarify a little bit and say let the airports be in charge of their own security.
I think you are raising good points in regards to the minutia of air travel and security, but I don't see why a private company couldn't take care of all of these issues far more effectively and efficiently than a Giant central government bureaucracy.
Having a plane crash is very, very bad for business in the airline industry. Take away absolutely all subsidies and tax breaks given to the airlines and airports, put them in charge of their own security, and watch it flourish. It will be more pleasant to fly, and you won't be treated like a criminal every time you board.
Also, if the US government would stop slaughtering innocent people overseas, I suspect it would help the cause of airline safety a bit.
Colin,
Thanks for taking a look at this!
I guess I should clarify a little bit and say let the airports be in charge of their own security.
I think you are raising good points in regards to the minutia of air travel and security, but I don't see why a private company couldn't take care of all of these issues far more effectively and efficiently than a Giant central government bureaucracy.
Having a plane crash is very, very bad for business in the airline industry. Take away absolutely all subsidies and tax breaks given to the airlines and airports, put them in charge of their own security, and watch it flourish. It will be more pleasant to fly, and you won't be treated like a criminal every time you board.
Also, if the US government would stop slaughtering innocent people overseas, I suspect it would help the cause of airline safety a bit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)