Wednesday, May 23, 2018
Moral confusion, emotional sickness, and powerlust: today's "progressive" leadership
Unfortunately, this is where the leadership of the left wing of America's political class is today -- the DNC, Congressional Democrats, the MSM, specifically - is today. I hope that the grassroots is starting to wake up, because this is very dangerous. It's not merely campaign rhetoric and hyperbole. The left proposes to put its moral confusions into action.
Here's a thought experiment for any progressive reading this (I assume there are none, so a hypothetical progressive reader will have to be a part of the thought experiment). Who would you rather have as a neighbor --me, or an active member of the MS-13 gang? Before you answer, keep in mind that not only am I not a progressive, I'm a Life Member of the NRA, and I own firearms. I would even use them in defense against criminals if warranted, and would even defend you if it were necessary. But you'd prefer the gang member, right?
That's a reductio ad absurdum. It's doubtful anyone would actually pick the MS-13 member, if confronted with the actual choice. So perhaps they really don't mean it and it is mere political rhetoric?
I don't think so - it's too far over the line. I think the left wing of the political class is genuinely contemplating silencing and purging dissenters -- the "deplorables," "irredeemables," "bitter clingers," and the like. It's discussed openly, and it's practiced on college campuses. The defense of MS-13 may be an accidental position the left has stumbled into in the process of demonizing Trump, but the attempted demonization of the NRA is no accident. The existence of an armed populace is the single greatest obstacle to grand social engineering schemes. People who are armed (citizens) aren't pawns who can be pushed about at will, unlike disarmed people (subjects). This enrages the left. They need docile subjects for their utopian schemes.
Fortunately, it seems rather unlikely that the American people will be disarmed -- certainly the sane ones won't disarm. I predict that the progressive agenda will fail, but let's hope that it's because the progressive base wakes up and begins defending reason and individual rights, and not because the left tries to implement a purge that they'd lose. It would be better if we reunited on common ground than if we came to blows.
Come to your senses, leftists!
Wednesday, May 16, 2018
Off to Montana!
Meanwhile, John Pepple of I Want a New Left has a report on our lunchtime meeting in Marshall, Michigan last week. It was quite enjoyable and I'll likely write something on this later. But for now, "Onwards!"
Photo: The staff of Unforeseen Contingencies discussing which is the best route through North Dakota.
Thursday, May 10, 2018
Cancelling the Iran Nuclear Deal
First, this is a very hopeful sign. The Iranian "deal" protected Iran's ambitions for nuclear weapons, as I've previously pointed out, effectively guaranteeing a nuclear arms race in the middle east and eventual nuclear catastrophe. The Saudis, who are in the midst of an unprecedented pro-Western liberalization, are overjoyed. They were prepared to develop their own nuclear weapons, should Iran proceed.That alone is sufficient reason for the cancellation.
Second, Iran had already announced that regardless of Trump's decision, they were considering abandoning the JCPOA. Benjamin Netanyahu's recent presentation on the Mossad haul of Iranian nuclear documents proved that the Iranians had plans for a MIRVed nuclear missile. That also was sufficient reason to cancel. Never appease a rogue regime. Doing so only encourages even worse behavior.
As John Pepple puts it, "Thank you, Mr. President!"
Addendum: I neglected to mention that the Iranian regime never signed onto JCPOA; rather, the Iranian parliament voted for its own version, containing things they'd added. Hence the only "signatories" that matter, the United States and Iran, weren't really signatories. The U.N Security Council and the E.U. both ratified it, so I guess it's binding on them. It may as well be binding on the moons of Saturn, for all that matters.
Tuesday, May 08, 2018
Why people hate Trump: Iran edition
The next step should be to shut Iran out of the SWIFT system. Following that, give Iran an ultimatum: end all ballistic missile and nuclear development programs, and end their wars and proxy wars in Morocco, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Close the weapons plants in Syria. Stop financing Hezbollah and Hamas. And end any additional Iranian imperialism and support for terrorist groups. Give them a reasonable amount of time, but make it the minimum. In the case of any non-compliance, obliterate the oil and gas terminals at Kharg, and remind them that Tehran will be next.
Of course, it goes without saying that elitist "experts," kumbayah progressives, radical leftists, and post- modern libertarians ("libertarians" who virtue-signal by allying themselves with the left) are upset. Donald Trump has done the unthinkable -- he's actually kept another campaign promise, and on top of that he's resisting a bad player as if we are the good guys! So of course they hate him.
There's no reason at all to tolerate a regime such as the Iranian one. It's totalitarian, expansionist, violent, and weak. Now is the time to kick them while they are down. Great work, Mr. President!
Saturday, May 05, 2018
The unfortunate Karl Marx: confused, dishonest, malignant
Good grief. Marxism is totalitarian, comrade Juncker. It will always lead to terror, butchery, and economic catastrophe. There's no alternative.
Marx himself seems to have been intelligent, well-read, and a damned fool. He was a notorious plagiarist -- he stole a great deal from Joseph Proudhon, whom he simultaneously trashed. His criticisms of others tended to be grossly unfair and he had no compunction about misrepresenting their views in order to attack them. As Ludwig von Mises points out, Marx' primary "contribution" to socialist thought was his doctrine of polylogism, the bizarre idea that different "classes" (class itself is an undefined and amorphous term) have different consciousness and different logic -- hence the "proletarian" need not address the refutations of socialist dogma from the "bourgeois" economist, and can pretend it's all just class pleading. That's an important "contribution" because socialist economic theory is a tissue of nonsense, and if a socialist grapples with a competent economist, the socialist will lose.
Marx is terrifically confused and intellectually dishonest on these points. For a telling example, Marx was a proponent of the labor theory of value, yet just after laying out the theory in Das Kapital, he noted that exchange value necessarily fluctuates with demand, a contradiction that English economist Philip Wicksteed pointed out. Marx was familiar with the subjective marginal utility theory of value -- probably from reading Menger or Jevons -- because he even notes it as the source of use value; but rather than draw the obvious connection between that and exchange value, he simply asserts that there's none. He has to sidestep utility theory, because it destroys his preposterous theory of surplus value and his entire economic system. Marx and his system predict that worker incomes shrink under capitalism; in fact, the greatest increases in individual income and wealth for the typical human being all have come from capitalism and the free market system.
Part of Marx's problem was his philosophical foundation in German idealist philosophy, and particularly the cockamamie ideas of the dialectic, from Schelling and Hegel. As Mises puts it, these philosophers "expatiate on the Absolute as if it were their pocket watch," or in Ken Binmore's words, "they have no more access to the 'noumenal' world than does the boy who delivers your paper in the morning." Somehow Marx -- a member of the bourgeoisie -- not only understood the world from a proletarian perspective (and understood better than the proletarians themselves, who didn't share his true proletarian consciousness), he is supposed to have had deep insight into process by which all human history unfolds. Der Geist whispered into his ear, apparently. Simply put, Marx's philosophy is all mystical fantasy, no more grounded in reality than Charles Fourier's dreams of lemonade oceans. He just made it up.
The market system is a system of voluntary, cooperative behavior. Because it is a system of voluntary exchange and protected rights, it generates mutually beneficial outcomes. People are free to reject offers and arrangements that don't make them better off. Socialists are people who cannot follow this and cannot get it into their heads that the world is not zero-sum. They cannot imagine how it can be that the gain of one person doesn't come at the expense of another. Socialism is, at root, a simple, primitive, shallow way of looking at the world, typically promoted with great prolixity. Marxism is socialism's apotheosis.
The malignancy of Marx deserves some attention. For all his claims of wanting to liberate the proletariat, his real driving force was a hatred of capitalism and an overwhelming self-conceit that he knew how the world should be run. In his lifetime he could see rising living standards of workers; earlier economists, such as Adam Smith, had even documented this carefully, as had Marx's contemporaries such as Menger and Böhm-Bawerk, or for that matter Roscher. But Marx ignored all this. When one is concocting a utopia in one's head, facts are best ignored. Reading Marx -- Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital -- one notices that his references to capitalists or members of the bourgeoisie are laced with venom; if you pay attention, you realize it really does seem that hatred and megalomania are what urge Marx on. It is even more evident for his followers, because for them it's an enormous problem that workers actually become much better off under capitalism. Hence the endless quest for other grounds for revolution, and the idiocies that emerge from the Frankfurt School and post-modernism. If their motive was caring about workers, they'd abandon Marxism as a failed theory and promote capitalism. (Some actually do this.) But Marx's followers share the megalomania and the urge to construct utopias, even if it requires "breaking a few eggs" (i.e. killing recalcitrant human beings).
Marxism is a repugnant system of thought. It is absurd philosophy and bad economics, and attempts to implement it involved snuffing 100 million human lives or more. The man who invented it had read real economics and knew better. I can understand lamenting the birthday of Karl Marx, but there's no reason to commemorate it. The sooner the world forgets the ravings of this unfortunate, confused, vile scoundrel, the better off the world will be.
Photo: Statue of Marx is dismantled to make way for a new church. Penza, Russian Federation, 2011.
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
Intellectual Property, part 1. Theory
The great economist Ludwig von Mises observed that intellectual property (IP) differs from physical property, in that an idea can be shared without reducing the availability of the idea to the creator. But if the creator of an idea can't share in the benefits generated from an idea, her/his incentive to create ideas is reduced. Hence patent and copyright protection can be warranted, if they increase beneficial innovation. In most places, such legal rights are not permanent, but last only a matter of years, giving a creator short term profits to recoup the investment.
Note that trademark, another form of IP, is different. Trademark is a certification of the source or producer of a product, important if the producer has a reputation (another ephemeral IP of sorts) or guarantee of quality. This can be a life-or-death matter. I cannot find a news link, but some years back counterfeit Johnson & Johnson surgical membranes from China made it into hospitals and were implanted in patients. Unlike authentic J&J materials, the membranes slowly decomposed into toxic chemicals, and by the time this was detected, it was too late to save the patients, who were condemned to slow, agonizing deaths.
My own position on IP is nuanced. It seems to me that trademarks are perfectly legitimate. They are simply contractual guarantees and really not an example of IP at all. But they require that words and symbols. Rolex, for example, is a trademark that says a great deal about the watch bearing it, and a cheap Chinese copy that says "Rolex" is not the same thing. Of course, trademarks require that certain words (e.g. Kleenex, Xerox, Band-aid) and symbols be off-limits to competitors. If one could trademark a word or phrase already in common usage, that would be problematic, hence trademarks must usually be newly concocted, for the purpose at hand. (Someone tried to trademark one of Montana's mottos, "Big Sky Country," and charge royalties for use, an obvious abuse of the trademark idea. They failed.) Conclusion: trademarks are perfectly acceptable.
With respect to patents, I'm in line with Mises: what are the tradeoffs? In areas where it is likely that innovation requires substantial investment, patent protection is likely to be more important for inducing innovation. Pharmaceutical research is especially expensive, and it's certainly of high value when successful, so patent protection seems warranted. The research costs are substantially increased by government regulation, but even without that, developing new chemical formulations that work is difficult. It's hard to determine efficacy. It's hard to determine unwanted side effects. It's hard to determine whether an efficacious treatment is effective. Alternatively, new software is often not so expensive to develop, and many people are willing to undertake development, often just for the sake of doing it, e.g. R statistics environment and contributed statistical packages. (Yes, the best statistical software in the world is free. It's just ideas, and the developers willingly relinquish any property in them.) Thus patents make sense, if the benefit-cost tradeoff is made sensibly.
Copyright is similarly ambiguous. Large corporate music producers act as if downloading of music is among the most heinous crimes imaginable, while simultaneously paying performers as little as possible. That sort of rent-seeking is beside the point, though. What are the benefit-cost tradeoffs for copyright and development of new music? It's unclear to me that pop commercial music is superior to homegrown, homemade stuff. I cannot imagine what the loss in innovation would be if Lady Gaga, Miley Cyrus, the late plagiarist Michael Jackson, or George "My Sweet Lord" Harrison hadn't had copyrights to make them millions. I know far too many people who can concoct a catchy tune, or do justice to musical instrument or voice. Homegrown, live music is ubiquitous. Music can be improvised, songs made up on the spot. On the other hand, of course, there's higher, more complex, sophisticated symphonic music, which takes time and great effort to compose. Giuseppe Verdi did not receive copyrights on most of his works. But once he finally did, and consistent royalties began, his productivity plummeted. Oops. (Note: clicking the link will download a pdf from Harvard Kennedy School. The author of the linked article points out that Verdi's financial success still may have induced creative innovation by other composers; still, the evidence is that the music blossomed most in places without copyright.)
Written words are different yet. There's a great difference between an unauthorized performance of "Happy Birthday to You" and publishing a bootleg copy of a novel that perhaps someone took years to write. This ambiguity explains why copyrights and patents are not natural rights, and why they might reasonably be temporary legal rights.
Next... Part 2. China, Intellectual Property, and U.S. Trade Policy
There's just no way to comment on all the current events that deserve comment, and instead I'll try to return focus to issues that are more in line with economics and philosophy, as in the upcoming (above) post.
Tuesday, April 03, 2018
Armed citizens are safer than disarmed citizens...
Anyway, a few years ago Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership published a short piece, "18 Little-Known Gun Facts That Prove That Guns Make Us Safer," and it is well worth rereading.