analysis

So much for freedom of association, private property and self ownership

Global smoking ban in force

How about a time frame for liberty?

"Nepalese king gives time frame for democracy"

To protect the purity of socialism

From today's WSJ:

Cuba has ordered its tourism workers not to accept tips from foreigners, an effort to defend socialism that threatens to slash earnings of employees whose work provides Cuba's main source of hard currency.

The order, obtained by Reuters late Wednesday, to reject tips and gifts and limit other contact with foreigners was cast as a way to protect the purity of socialist values. But some Cubans said the order was a throwback to Soviet-style control that existed before Cuba opened up to tourism and foreign investment in the early 1990s.

The rules, which took effect last week, also may further undermine the quality of service at Cuban hotels, where tourists frequently complain about cockroaches and bland food -- and don't return, said the head of a U.S.-Cuba trade group.

I guess this is only fitting

"The family and friends of cult US writer Hunter S Thompson plan to honour his wish for his ashes to be fired out of a cannon." BBC News

Time to abort the Libertarian Party?

Randy Barnett thinks so:

In hindsight, I think that the creation of the Libertarian Party has been very detrimental to the political influence of libertarians. Some voters (not many lately) and, more importantly, those libertarians who are interested in engaging in political activism (which does not include me) have been drained from both political parties, rendering both parties less libertarian at the margin.

Put another way, in proportional voting parliamentary systems, there are many political parties and governments are often formed by organizing a coalition in which they must cater to smaller parties, especially when holding a only slim parliamentary majority. In a winner-take-all first-past-the-post electoral system--like we have in elections for both Congress and the presidency--the major parties are each themselves coalitions of political interests. To win an election, they need to gather a coalition of voters to get over 50% of the vote, so the marginal voters become important to them. Of course, they cannot make efforts to reach marginal voters that completely alienate their "base" (which is one the problems facing Democrats at the moment).

While some libertarian political activists are certainly Republicans and Democrats, the existence of the Libertarian Party ensures that there are fewer activists and fewer voters in each major party coalition than would otherwise exist. Therefore, each party's coalition becomes less libertarian. I do not mean to exaggerate the extent of this effect. But even a handful of political activists in local and state party organizations can make a big difference. Whatever one thinks of the initial creation of the Libertarian Party, its continued existence seems to be a mistake for libertarians.

While I agree that the LP has been bad for libertarianism, I disagree with Barnett's thesis. I have no problem with political activism, yet I don't see libertarianism gaining strength by becoming yet another voting bloc within the Republican and Democratic parties. Both parties are devoid of a philosophy (unless you consider ruling one), and allaying with them will do little but corrupt. As long as we're looked at like aliens at dinner parties, libertarianism will languish in the political basement. 

Protecting the Environoment

Courtesy of Kevin Schmiesing at the Acton Institute:

"The principle of stewardship and the related imperative that the goods of the earth are intended for the good of all require that human beings treat natural resources not merely as objects to be exploited for short-term pleasure, but as gifts that are to be used responsibly, with a view to their preservation for future generations.

The good intentions of Kyoto matched this imperative, to conserve the planet’s resources so that our descendants were not saddled with an environment irrevocably degraded. Where Kyoto failed was in projecting blanket restrictions, without sufficient regard for the freedom of individual nations—and individual persons—to express what might be differing evaluations about the tradeoff between economic development and environmental protection.

For China and India, for example, countries striving to meet the spiraling demands of burgeoning populations, the immediate needs of development outweigh the desire for stricter environmental controls. Most Europeans and Americans would not tolerate the levels of pollution present in developing nations—but at a parallel point in the development of European and American nations, citizens of those countries did tolerate those levels...

Once people are no longer scrambling to provide for their next meal, they begin to give thought to “quality of life” issues such as dirty air and deforestation.

When the trade-offs between economic development and environmental protection are made by international assemblies of non-elected officials; when it is not clear that those trade-offs take into account adequately the needs of persons over an abstract commitment to the environment; and when the standards enacted are not flexible enough to allow smaller political entities to adapt them to local needs—then the project is bound to fail."

For the entire article, click here.

Tired of Google News?

10X10, the pictorial way to take your news.

Robin Hood in Reverse

George Mason law professor Ilya Somin argues that federal and state courts should prohibit eminent domain when used to encourage economic development.

Celebrating America's Failure

Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto makes an interesting point during a World Bank forum: America's business failures (bankruptcies) are an indication of how strong the economy is. Each successful and not-so successful business undertaking conveys vast amounts of knowledge to current and future entrepreneurs. Competition is the means by which entrepreneurial experiments are conducted, with successful experiments begetting profits.   

For more on this, see Hayek's The Use of Knowledge in Society and Competition as a Discovery Procedure.   

Property Rights and AIDS

In today's New York Times, a tragic story on mis-defined property rights. According to custom in many African nations, the death of the male head-of-household requires the transfer of all the family's property to his side of the family. Thus, wives and children are often left with nothing or are at the mercy of the husband's family. According to the Times:

The tradition is rooted in the notion that men are the breadwinners and the property of a married couple represents the fruits of the man's labor. Women may tend the goats and plant the corn, but throughout the region's rural communities they are still regarded as one step up from minors, unable to make an economic contribution to the household.

When the husband dies the widow is left essentially to start over, much like a young girl, presumably to search for another husband. Since the children typically remain with the mother, her losses are also theirs.

This seems a gross violation of the woman's stake in the household's assets. While the technocrats at the IMF, World Bank, and UN argue about which targeted aid scheme to implement, the fundamental importance of properly defined property rights seems to go unnoticed.