Prospects for Liberty

"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics" - Thomas Sowell

Name:
Location: North Dartmouth, Massachusetts, United States

I'm a sophomore at Umass Dartmouth, double majoring in Political Science and Economics.I'm a Roman Catholic and a Libertarian. Not much to say here really.

Thursday, November 30, 2006

How to turn our quagmire in Iraq into our enemies'

After 9/11, Iraq seemed like a perfect solution to all our woes, signed, sealed, and delivered. The terrorist threat we faced on 9/11 came from medievalist theocrats with an ideology and culture as alien as it was menacing. But all those problems could be swept away, the neoconservatives assured us, with the power of liberal democracy and American sunshine. We could transfer our own ideals into the heart of the Middle East and trigger a chain reaction that would free the region and its people, and cause them to repudiate radical Islamism and slay the Al Qaeda dragon that represents it.

Al Qaeda had, essentially, exactly the opposite vision. An invasion of Iraq would reveal once and for all the imperialist intentions of America and the west. The people of the Middle East would rise up in unison, to overthrow their western-backed rulers, and restore the caliphate. This would cause Islam to return to its former glory, and once more surpass the west, as it had done from its founding in the late Dark Ages to about the time of the Reformation and Renaissance.

Neither has come to pass, and it now seems clear that neither will. On America’s side of the war, a failure to ensure security, rebuild infrastructure, and bring about effective governance has caused both Americans and Iraqis to become disenchanted. On Al Qaeda’s overthrowing Saddam triggered the ascendance of Shi’ite Iran and violence between Iraq’s Sunni and Shi’ite factions. Violence is now more often between Muslims than against Americans, and across the Middle East, a intra-civilization-al rift has been opened. Sunni core-state Saudi Arabia would prefer to cooperate with even hated Israel before Iran, as exemplified by their condemnations of Iranian ally Hezbollah during the recent Israel-Lebanon War.

So it now seems we are at a point of extreme despair. The attempt to win the War on Terror by exporting western values and western institutions has not been a success, and Iraq seems destined for civil war. But not all is lost. Indeed, an enormous opportunity has been opened. It is often said that we cannot leave Iraq, because if we did, we would create a “safe haven” for Al Qaeda and other terrorists. Preposterous! Consider the ramifications of the US pulling out of Iraq, or retreating into friendly Kurdistan. Shi’ite-Sunni violence would increase, creating a constant drain on resources for the decidedly Sunni Al Qaeda. Such a situation achieves three strategic objectives for the US. A.) It deflects much of the terrorist threat away from us, as major terrorist groups begin to spend resources on fighting their rivals in Iraq. B.) It causes inter-Islamic strife, discouraging the Al Qaeda dream of a unified caliphate to destroy the west. C.) It would create, in southern Iraq, a humanitarian crisis for Iran, as shi’ites fled across the border to escape violence.

There are two possible costs to this plan. The first is that it would surely lead to Kurdish secession, and may provoke Turkey. The second is that it may spill over into Saudi Arabia, and threaten the royal family there. Both can be remedied. If American troops re-deploy into Kurdistan, the Turks would not dare challenge an independent, and US-friendly Kurdish state. The Saudi threat can be reasonably contained by creating an alliance of US-friendly states in the region, likely consisting of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Kurdistan, (unofficially) Israel, and others, designed to hedge against any possible threat from Iran and her allies. The solution then, is clear. Pull out of Iraq’s sunni and shi’ite regions, and work with our allies to form a clear alliance against Iran. Before you know it, the quagmire will not be in Wahington’s lap, but in Al Qaeda and Teheran’s.

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

iTax

Looks like a Dutch music industry group, SONT, is looking to impose a tax on digital music players, such as Apple's iPod, and Microsoft's Zune. The music industry is claiming that products such as the iPod and the Zune encourage piracy, and discourage consumers from purchasing music through venues such as CDs.

This sort of behavior is corporate welfare and economic protectionism as its worst. If the objective is to prevent "unfair competition" as some call it, why not make cars illegal? I'm sure they put a lot of coach-builders out of work, and I bet many of those guys had families to feed.

Its the consumer that matters, not the rest. Protectionism of this sort hurts consumers, stunts economic growth & technological advancement, and in the long run, is bad for all of us. Yes, even the CD manufacturers, and yes, even the coach-builders.

Trade Deficits: Good or Bad?

Russell Roberts of George Mason University has a great article dispelling the hysteria over America's rising trade deficits.

A trade deficit is actually quite desirable, not the other way around. For each good or service America imports, that is one good or service it does not have to spend time producing on its own. Exports are, more or less, the cost that a nation pays for its imports. A smaller export-to-import ratio is really no different than lower prices on the shelves at your local store.

In our personal lives, we pursue trade deficits all the time. Grocery shopping is a great example. We WANT a large trade deficit with our supermarkets. For every essential item they provide us, we do not need to invest time, effort, and money ourselves. And certainly we do not want to see prices raised, just for the knowledge that we now have a smaller "trade deficit" with our market, and it would be more painful for that supermarket if we stopped going there.

But, as with so many other things in life, cool-headed reason goes out the window when politics gets involved.

Does Public Property Exacerbate the Problem of Environmental Damage?

We hear a lot these days about the problem of environmental damage. Whether its the ozone layer, the ocean, or any other hot issue of the moment, the general message is that the environment is in trouble, capitalism and western development are the causes, and government intervention is the solution.

I don't think its so simple.

Most of us have heard the parable of the "Tragedy of the Commons", originally published in 1833 by William Foster Loyd. The story goes that, in England, there were once common areas to which the peasantry could take their herds to graze. However, after a time, the commons had become so completely destroyed by grazing that the government passed the enclosures act, allowing private firms to develop on them and paving the way for the Industrial Revolution.

This illustrates an important principle: Private property is what gives people an incentive to pay the costs of upkeep. Why would one incur that cost, if one does not have ownership over a thing? Since others will profit from your cost, should you choose to incur it, and you have no personal incentive to do so, since it will not prevent you from using this thing, there is no reason to do so.

A more modern example goes like this: Say that I own a factory which produces wingnuts, and this factory belches smoke out, all day, and all night, over a river. But who owns the river? Nobody, it is public property. And public property really means the property of nobody.

So while diplomats and dignitaries wring hands over accords and resolutions, nothing is done.

But what if somebody owned the river? Well likely they would be unhappy that I was belching smoke out over it. Certainly my actions would lower their own enjoyment of the river, but would also likely have an effect on their ability to use the river for other ends.

Any property-owner who cared would certainly sue for damages! And it is unlikely that the cost of reaching some settlement with the river-owner would be greater than the cost of a protracted legal battle with him, for my factory.

There would likely be no hole in the ozone layer if there was somebody who owned the ozone and had something to say about people ripping large holes in his property.

But nobody does. When everybody owns something, nobody owns it. And nobody takes responsibility.

Government interventionist plots being hatched up are almost universally plans to expand, not contract, the reach of public property.

Count on them to be policies to expand, not contract, the level of damage to our environment.

Welcome!

This is my first post. I love to write on issues of culture, politics, philosophy, religion, and economics, and often have no particular venue for what I want to say. So, I figured a blog was a good idea. You'll be able to stop by for all my rants on the world as it is, and as I think it ought to be.

My names Ben Tansey, I'm a undergrad at Umass Dartmouth, where I double-major in Political Science and Economics. I'm a Catholic Libertarian. Weird, huh?