Handouts

A few years back I worked for an independent grocer who made the point of treating his customers with the utmost respect. I usually worked in backstock or on the register, but on rare occasions I would bag groceries and carry them out. If the customer had several bags we would offer to help them to their car.

One afternoon I asked an older woman if she would like a hand out with her groceries. She thought I used "handout" to mean some financial assistance in purchasing her goods. She became rather irritated and it took a manager to explain the communication breakdown.

I used to think she was crazy, but reflecting on it, I think people like her are disturbingly rare.

The Human Side of Austrian Economics

Jim Fedako has a great post Forgotten at the Door on the Mises blog. He does a great job explaining the importance of recognizing individuals the way Austrian economists and libertarians do. For all the statist's talk about helping people, he is only helping one imagined group and hurting everyone else. As Ron Paul explains, we need not be concerned with women's rights, gay rights, or minority rights. There should only be individual rights for real individuals, not collective rights for imagined groups.

In addition to writing for Mises.org, Jim Fedako has an excellent blog of his own, Anti-Positivist. I have taken the liberty of adding it to the links list.

Endgames

The major topic of the 2008 Presidential Elections seems to be the war in Iraq, or issues related to that overarching argument, whether it's torture, the PATRIOT Act, or the concept of wire-tapping. Only two of the candidates for the Republican and Democrat parties voted against the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, with individuals like Barack Obama not having served in the legislature at the time of the vote. Nearly everyone else has openly supported the war at some point in their careers, and many continue to support it still.

There are a variety of endgames which could occur, depending on which candidate is elected.

If a mainstream Republican wins, the war will most likely continue with a blue legislature demanding benchmarks. An unlikely event would involve an invasion of Iran. As much as the mainstreamers hate Iran, if they're mainstream they hopefully have enough political savvy to realize we all might riot at that point. If a mainstreamer wins, I'm going to practice tying bandanas on my face. Humor aside, this second option would almost guarantee that the Republican party would become unelectable for a time.

Mainstream Democrats are a bit harder to call. One pundit, and I forget who it was, suggested three ending scenarios for Democrats and Iraq. The second is that Democrat is elected on a withdrawal platform, and faced with all of the information about Iraq, switches positions and uses the benchmarks idea, but keeps our troops in the area (and perhaps even surges). This could really gum up the party, and it would be interesting to see what would happen to our blue friends as a result.

The second possibility is that a Democrat withdraws the troops and permits Iraq to have a civil war (and we just don't see enough of those these days). If troops are withdrawn, we can certainly expect this to happen. The resulting conflict would then be blamed on Democrats for withdrawing, not for Bush's invasion, and that would be a credible assessment. This would render the Democrats, like any Iran-invading Republicans, in a supremely unelectable position.

The third option, if I remember it correctly, is that Democrats would withdraw and Iraq would get it together. Since we've established a democracy (an irony in itself), it is highly unlikely that Iraqis would get behind a political tradition almost completely foreign to their regional history.

Other possibilities would involve breaking Iraq up into three districts for Kurdish, Sunni, and Shia Muslims. Dennis Kucinich, the other Congressman in the running, also has a somewhat detailed plan for withdrawing.

When it comes to the war, I have a harder time accepting Ron Paul's approach than any of his other ideas. He advocates a quick troop withdrawal. He thinks that our military presence keeps lesser extremists in check, but at the same time it keeps Iraqi politicians from taking steps towards independence or even decent responsibility. If we withdraw, Paul suggests, the Iraqis will have to govern themselves because of the grizzly alternative. I'm not sure that this concept is present in the minds of the Iraqi public. Between dictatorial rule for a couple of decades and Islamic traditions that usually have monarchic/theocratic rule, I doubt self-interest will enter into the equation for your average Iraqi citizen.

In short, I'm still not sold on any Iraq war plan. I don't like the idea of staying there, but there are a lot of risks involved in leaving. I do think we invaded a sovereign nation under false allegations, or failing those WMD-charges, poor rationale. While the functional history might judge George W. Bush as a decent president for offing a dictator, ideological types like myself will still be nauseated for quite some time.

Exploitation of the Majority

I saw this article on the Mises Institute's blog:
Why Government Can't Make Decisions Rationally by Ben O'Neill

O'Neill does a great job of explaining why government decisions are always biased in the favor of small groups, particularly when it comes to cutting spending. Since every government action involves using tax revenues for things that benefits the population in non-uniform ways, every government action is really a redistribution of wealth. Since taxes are collected from almost everyone and most government programs primarily affect a much smaller group, the people on whom the program will have the greatest effect is that smaller group. As O'Neill points out, these people will be far more vocal about decisions concerning the program, and the government will give their views disproportionate consideration.

This mechanism explains the myriad of government programs that are of little advantage to most of the population. This is what is really going on with all the "special interests" that politicians always talk about. Since programs that take from the many and give to the few are allowed (even if forbidden by the Constitution), it is only rational for every small group to use their disproportionate influence to profit from the political system.

The proper functions of government such as national defense and police protection primarily benefit the entire populous. Even these cases, however, every change to expenditure or allocation will disproportionately affect some group(s), and they will be disproportionately vocal about these changes. Opening or closing a military base has a greater effect on the area immediately around the base than on the nation at large. When considering a proposal to decrease the size of a police force, the effect on the police officers will be given disproportionate weight over the issues of public safety and cost.

This over-representation of all small groups does have an advantage: it helps prevent the exploitation of minorities. The problem, of course, is that it has pulled us too far in the other direction, to the point that the majority is exploited though a plethora of government programs that redistribute wealth. The Constitution is supposed to protect us from both extremes, but the parts that limit the government are usually ignored. This is the logical outcome of allowing any latitude in the interpretation of the Constitution. The state makes decisions that increase the power and authority of the state. The three-branch system helps restrain this, but the President will nominate and the Senate will confirm judges who will deliver rulings that are advantageous to the Executive and Legislative branches. In-fighting slows the process down, but the direction of the drift remains the same, toward statism. The only way to stop or reverse this trend is for the population to use every election to insist that the Constitution be strictly upheld.

Ron Paul Can't Win

Democracy, If We Like the People Who Are Elected

I have been writing a lot about politics lately, but I do intend to address other topics, just not right now. My apparent obsession is probably the result of my recent obsession with public radio. Thanks to the internet, I can listen to a continuous mix of NPR, PRI, APM, and the BBC. New Hampshire Public Radio is one of my favorite feeds. The recent events in Gaza and the resulting political shakeup have gotten a lot of coverage.

In case you are unfamiliar with these events, I will attempt to provide a brief summary based on various Wikipedia articles: The Palestinian National Authority governs two area, Gaza and the West Bank, which are separated by Israel. The two largest political organizations in the Palestinian National Authority are Fatah and Hamas. Fatah is the more secular, moderate organization; Hamas is Islamist and radical. Both have armed branches; Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel and is considered a terrorist organization by Israel, the US, and the EU. President of the PNA, Mahmoud Abbas (a.k.a. Abu Mazen), is a member of Fatah. In the last elections, in January 2006, Hamas won 74 of 132 seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council with the highest percentage of the popular vote (44.45%). In response, Israel and the Quartet (US, EU, Russia, and UN) instituted economic sanctions against the PNA, including Israel withholding tax revenue. During 12-14 June 2007, Hamas seized control of Gaza. In response, President Abbas dissolved the Hamas-led government. The United States and Israel have shown support for Abbas and have resumed aid to the PNA.

Days later, on 19 June, Israel's prime minister Ehud Olmert met with President Bush. Their joint press event focused on the situation in Palestine. Bush made several comments concerning democracy. This is part of one of his responses:

It's interesting that extremists attack democracies around the Middle East, whether it be the Iraq democracy, the Lebanese democracy, or a potential Palestinian democracy. And what that should say clearly to people all around the world is that we are involved with an ideological conflict that is a monumental conflict. And those of us that believe in liberty and human rights and human decency need to be bound together in common cause to fight off these extremists, and to defeat them.

You can only defeat them so much militarily. We have to also defeat them with a better idea. It's a better idea that's being practiced by our friend, Israel. It's called democracy. And that's the fundamental challenge facing this century: Will we have the courage and the resolve necessary to help democracy defeat this ideology. And I will tell the Prime Minister, once again, I'm deeply committed to this cause, whether it be in Iraq, or Lebanon, or the Palestinian Territory, or anywhere else in the Middle East, and around the world.

In response to another question, Bush said the following:

First of all, we recognize the President of all the Palestinian people, and that's President Abu Mazen. He was elected; he's the President. Secondly, we recognize that it was Hamas that attacked the unity government. They made a choice of violence. It was their decision that has caused there to be this current situation in the Middle East, about which we'll be spending some time discussing.

Matt, what you're seeing now in this part of the 21st century is going to be played out over time. This is an ideological struggle. We're looking at the difference between a group of people that want to represent the Palestinians who believe in peace, that want a better way for their people, that believe in democracy -- they need help to build the institutions necessary for democracy to flourish, and they need help to build security forces so that they can end up enforcing what most of the people want, which is to live in peace -- and that's versus a group of radicals and extremists who are willing to use violence, unspeakable violence sometimes, to achieve a political objective.

In the first response, Bush talks of the need "to fight off the extremists," but extremists are represented in a democracy, too. He seems to working from the idea that in the Middle East there are a few small groups of people who want to establish Islamist states, but the vast majority of people want to be free and want others to be free. Earlier, he refers to "the moderate people, the ordinary Palestinians." The trouble is that the data does not support this view. Almost half of Palestinians voted for a party that wants to destroy Israel and institute Islamic law. To a significant extent, Palestine is a land of extremists.

In the first paragraph of the second response, Bush says something very telling. He says, "First of all, we recognize the President of all the Palestinian people, and that's President Abu Mazen. He was elected; he's the President. " This is all literally true, but the implication that the President is more legitimate than the Hamas-led government is false. He could just as accurately have said, "First of all, we recognize the Parliament of all the Palestinian people, and that's the Hamas-led Parliament. They were elected; They're the Parliament." This suggests that Bush only recognizes governments and parts of governments that he likes. This is a very troubling policy for a man who claims to be spreading democracy to hold. More troubling domestically is the suggestion that Bush considers heads of state to be more important and better representations of the people than legislative bodies. This may explain Bush's extensive use of signing statements, but that is another topic all together.

In the next paragraph, Bush refers to "a group of people that want to represent the Palestinians who believe in peace" as the good guys. Democracy doesn't only represent those who believe in peace. If democracy only represented those who believe in never using violence, then Bush wouldn't be in office. In fact, almost everyone around the world believes in both peace and violence. The disagreement is over when and how to use violence and what kinds of peace are acceptable. Hamas wants peace too; they just want to destroy Israel first.

A couple of times Bush mentions democracy as opposed to another ideology. He never clearly states what this is, but from the context it appears that he is talking about extremism. Extremism is not itself an ideology, however. Islamism (activist or political Islam) is an ideology. I assume that Bush knows that Islamism is the ideology he is opposing but couldn't say anything like "We will eliminate Islamic fundamentalism." The problem is that democracy is not the opposite of extremism or Islamism nor does it oppose them. Democracy by itself allows both to flourish and provides representation to both.

I am not saying I support Hamas. I do not. I am not even saying there is no hope for a peaceable Palestinian state. I just think that we need to be honest about what we want other governments to look like. Bush's goal is not democracy in the Middle East. He wants a Middle East that won't attack Israel or the United States and won't build nukes, which is a fine goal, but it is not democracy. The best way to get a Middle East that won't attack us is probably to leave them alone, as Ron Paul suggests. The existence of Israel and our alliance with them may be a problem for this, however, since the very existence of Israel is an affront to many Islamists. I am not sure it would even be possible to sufficiently cut ties with Israel to convince Islamists that we are not supporting Israel. Ron Paul has spoken of avoiding entangling alliances, but I don't know what he would do with our existing alliances.

On a lighter note, I have a couple of suggestions for what we could call what Bush is actually trying to spread, since it is not actually democracy:

• Philiarchy: Government by those we like
• Inferiocracy: Government by those who recognize that they have to do what better nations like the United States say to do

Please comment if you can think of any more appropriate terms or if you think I have been unfair to Bush in any way. I want to avoid attacking straw men or taking cheap shots at anyone.

The Bizarre Idea of Nationhood

Yesterday I was thinking about something closely related to what Daniel talked about in "...liberty and justice for all." Most notions about foreign policy depend on the concept of the sovereignty of independent nations. To an extent, the United States has pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable under such a view. First, we did so through fairly covert means such as installing friendly dictators during the Cold War. More recently, the actions have become more overt (Afghanistan and Iraq), but they are now pursued under the cover of rhetoric about fighting terrorism and spreading democracy. Whether or not this rhetoric is true and these wars are just is not my concern here. The point is that in spite of what our actions might indicate, we still claim that we believe in national sovereignty. This was the primary justification for the first war with Iraq. Iraq invaded another sovereign nation, Kuwait, and the U.S.-led coalition rushed to Kuwait's aid. This idea of sovereignty is also behind much of what our beloved Ron Paul says about foreign policy.

The idea is generally that every nation, regardless of its form of government or military strength, has the right to rule itself and control everything that happens inside its own borders. We attacked Iraq because it invaded Kuwaiti territory. If instead Kuwaiti military forces moved into Iraqi territory, and Iraq then obliterated them, we probably would have left Iraq alone. Clearly, territorial boundaries are terribly important to the idea of a nation and national sovereignty. It seems that the United Nations wants nations to get along and stay out of each other's territory. Starting a war to gain more land is considered unacceptable behavior.

The problem with all of this is that throughout history, national boundaries have been in constant flux. One empire after another conquered and ruled the Middle East. Since the fall of the Roman Empire, European borders have shifted many times, and parts of Europe such as Italy and Germany had no central government for much of their history. (I am sure that Daniel can provide details and corrections as necessary concerning the history of national territories.) The current national boundaries that the UN tries to preserve are relatively new and completely artificial.

Just because one nation now controls a particular piece of land, there is no objective reason to believe that it has an absolute right to that land. The ethic group(s) that live there and the government ruling there probably gained their current position by force. If military might determines who gets to live in and rule a particular place, then any nation that can conquer a territory should be allowed to. The conquering nation has as much right to be there as the conquered. Often when people set out to draw up new national boundaries (after major wars, for example), they do so based on where ethnic groups live, but no people group is truly indigenous. Any definition of a people group and any determination of what groups deserve their own nations are also artificial.

It seems that the UN has decided that peace is better than war so the best thing to do in most cases is to maintain the status quo. This may be the best policy, since one of the most radical attempts to change ownership of territory in modern times, Zionism, has led to Israel being in almost constant conflict since it was established. (I am not making any value judgement concerning Israel's statehood. I am only pointing out the result of drastic changes in territorial lines.) If war is sometimes just, then there could be situations in which a war to gain territory could also be justified, if the existing allotment of territory is sufficiently unjust. Therefore, there are times in which the status quo should be changed.

All this is really to say that the idea of a government having sovereignty over a particular piece of land is a rather strange idea. The relationship between a government and a nation is also a strange thing. The same nation can have a series of radically different governments, but it is still viewed as the same nation. However, a government is the thing that binds a group of people and an area of land together to make a nation. Without a government, there is no one to determine who is a citizen or legal resident and where the borders lie.

It seems that the only ways to rationally explain nationhood is that either it is a totally artificial construct held together by force or it was instituted by God. The first possibility is one in which might makes right and there can be no moral judgements about the actions of any state. This may be an accurate model of history, but it is not one that many people would like. The United States could police the world as we saw fit, but we would be in the same moral position as Nazi Germany as they sought to conquer the world. It would also mean that states are no different from any other organization. Al Qaeda, Microsoft, the United States, the UN, the NRA, Enron, and the Boy Scouts of America would only differ in degree and style of influence. Two warring nations would be the same as two feuding families murdering each other.

If nations and governments do fit into unique categories, those categories have to be created by God. If God did not establish nations and governments, then there can be no moral obligation for a citizen to obey the government, even if that government is a democracy because even a democracy is artificial and coerces the minority by force. Of course, God does legitimize governments. He commands us to obey (and pray for) those in authority and to pay our taxes. He says he has established all authority. The Bible does not say much about territorial issues or what makes a nation, however. The general idea is how to live in whatever situation one finds oneself, and there is not much about how to behave in a situation where one has a voice in government, or what the role of government ought to be. I have tried to develop a Biblical political philosophy, but I have not completed it. If I ever finish it, it will be included in To Attempt. Of course the Bible does directly discuss certain issues of government in the Old Testament as they relate to the theocratic monarchy, but it is unwise to use such examples as guides for any government that does not have God directly speaking to guide it. This is not a definite implication of Romans 13:1; but it seems if God has established authorities, and those under them are to obey them, then other authorities should not interfere with their ability to govern by attacking them or invading their territory. Perhaps the Bible does endorse a general policy of noninterventionism and maintaining the status quo.

I suppose the application of all of this is to keep God's commands to obey authority in mind, to remember that He is the source of government, and to realize the foolishness of all the humanist rhetoric that is spouted concerning nationhood. Without God's establishment of government, there would be no earthly authority, only anarchy. In a materialistic world, nationhood is bizarre; with God, it's really pretty simple.

...liberty and justice for all.

Ben highlighted how many cords of life intersect, inform, and influence each other. My first post at Cerberus is not quite religious, although the conclusions are hopefully from an increasing application of Scripture to my worldview, namely the distinction between Creator and creature, and the idea that all human beings are crafted in our Creator's image.

Last night, Republican nomination hopeful Ron Paul appeared on The Colbert Report, unlike several other candidates warned to stay away from the program. Stephen Colbert, who does his best to satirize and emulate Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly (whom Colbert affectionately calls "Papa Bear"), grilled the Texas congressman with the same battery of questions raised against anyone questioning Bush II's "War on Terror." Colbert insisted that traditional American freedoms should only be defended when Americans were free from terrorist threats. "I don't want to be free and dead!" Colbert argued.

Congressman Paul countered, "I want to be alive and free, and I think we can do that," and earned roaring applause from the audience.

Benjamin Franklin warned that "those who surrender their freedom for security deserve neither." I first encountered this statement in high school, before the September 11 attacks. After the War on Terror was underway, and the hideous PATRIOT Act was passed, not many dared to question whether the Bush regime had impaired American freedoms to protect them.

What Ron Paul hopes to do as a President is lead citizens into national security by taking seriously these crucial freedoms. He does not draw that imaginary circle around Americans and suggest that the truths of the Declaration of Independence apply to only citizens of the U.S., but to all other human beings. At the core of his platform, and of the libertarian philosophy of government, is the idea that peace is best preserved by using our rights such as free speech and self-determination and by respecting those same exact rights of other nations and and other peoples.

The United States, particularly in the Middle East, is guilty of abusing these sovereign principles of other nations. Paul recognizes that the interventionist policies of the last half-century have put our nation in a dangerous situation. At the center of most of these policies is a twisted self-interest that denies the same rights to others which we seek to protect for ourselves. The solution to these problems is not more of the same, but a return to the classic ideals of our founding fathers who recognized these truths.

In the early 1950s, Iran nationalized the various oil corporations in the country. Naturally, Great Britain and the United States were opposed, and in 1953 through a pair of coups, one failed and one successful, installed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as the Iranian monarch, the Shah. The official rhetoric for the coups was not economic, however, and Eisenhower continued Truman's ideas of "containment." The new Shah would be a safeguard against communism in that region. To ensure democracy, Pahlavi establish single-party rule and established government tests for any Muslim scholars hoping to become mullahs. The United States also collaborated with Pahlavi to aid him in developing nuclear weapons, thus expanding the anti-communist arsenal.

When the Iranian Revolution occurred in 1979-80, which was understandably hostile towards the former Shah and ousted him, Pahlavi fled to several countries. President Jimmy Carter ignored the Iranian demands for justice by providing him brief asylum and medical aid. In a completely unjustifiable, but understandable, move, Iranians took American hostages. The tortured Americans had their own freedoms violated by a nation which had endured nearly three decades of quisling governments denying rights of self-determination.

When Ronald Reagan became President in the 1980s, he did not change the fundamental tune of American foreign policy in the Middle East, but instead turned to a new ally, Saddam Hussein. The Reagan administration encouraged Iraq to go to war against Iran, which it did with help from the United States, including arms and the ability to manufacture more potent, unorthodox weapons. In 1989, Iraqi nuclear engineers were allowed to tour advanced weapons production sites.

It should be noted that most of the genocide committed by Saddam Hussein was committed during the presidencies of both Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, or the twelve years from 1980 to 1992. The crime for which Hussein was executed, the gassing of 154 Kurds, occurred in 1982. In 1982, the Reagan administration dropped Iraq from the list of terrorist-sponsoring states so that American finances could work their magic. Sean Hannity, when he cross-examined Ron Paul about his negative comments about the Iraq war, at the same time suggested that the war was fought to bring a genocidal maniac to justice, that this maniac worked alone, and that he certainly worked against the interests of the United States government.

Only when Saddam invaded Kuwait and international pressure escalated did the United States turn against their former ally.

After September 11th, the United States invaded Iraq for reasons that are numerous and misleading, and all of which probably reveal that the current War in Iraq is unjust. That will be discussed perhaps later, perhaps not.

The past decades of political theater and statecraft have left one nation in shambles and our own nation disillusioned. In such times it is almost impossible to look towards an honest and hopeful future. But in such cases we should remember some of our favorite truths of the past. It is best for the safety of the United States and the liberty of its people that elected officials mind our nation's business and not meddle in the affairs of vastly different cultures and political situations. As you think about candidates for the 2008 Presidential race, see whether opportunist candidates would continue these bizarre foreign policies of intervention or the wisdom of peace.