Ted Turner: Modern Day Malthusian

In this editorial for CNN, Ted Turner frets over the world’s growing population. He shows that over the past 70 years, the population has increased three fold, and is on track to exceed 10 billion by 2100. Readers are charged to consider that by century’s end, the global population could swell by 50%, and each will be “competing for the same food, water, space and attention.”

Turner’s numbers suggest that while the population is increasing, the rate at which it is growing has slowed. If it tripled in the last seventy years, but will only grow by half in the coming 90, then such growth is far from unsustainable, as he implies. Even if it is true, that rapid increases are in our future, it would be a wonderful thing, provided that markets were allowed the freedom to accommodate newer generations.

The same dire warnings were sounded more than two hundred years ago. Near the end of the 18^th century, an increasing population was believed by many to be unsustainable. A prominent intellectual of the time, Thomas Malthus, feared that poverty would result from too many children being born. Essentially, his belief, though not original, was that population increases would outstrip productive capacity, and famine would be widespread. Of course his predictions never came to pass.

Murray Rothbard, in An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, vol. 1, Economic Thought Before Adam Smith, shows that historically, it is increases in production that drive increases in population.

This rise in population generally comes in response to falling death rates caused by the better nutrition, sanitation, and medical care attendant on higher living standards. The dramatic declines in death rates lead to accelerated population growth (roughly measured by birth rate minus death rate).

Rothbard refutes Malthus’ thesis by showing that production and population do not operate under separate economic laws. And, he shows that it’s possible for the opposite to be true. That is, that a greater population would allow for more investment. A larger population allows for expansions in the division of labor. In turn, greater production is possible. Labor is much like other resources, and to worry over surpluses in labor is akin to fearing an overabundance in say, fuel, lumber, or food.

Gary Johnson? Libertarian?

Gary Johnson has never polled well compared to Ron Paul. However, he’s still fairly well liked by a number of libertarians, and is still running as a (pseudo) libertarian candidate. A quick glance at his campaign website makes me wonder how any serious libertarian takes him seriously. For anyone who actually supports him, or for those who know very little of his positions, I’ll show why he’s not the principled libertarian some make him out to be.

On foreign policy, Johnson appears to question the U.S. involvement overseas not from moral principals, but strictly on pragmatic grounds. His statement that “given trillion-dollar deficits, America simply cannot afford to be engaged in foreign policy programs that are not clearly protecting U.S. interests” implies that were the U.S. on better economic footing, intervention would be acceptable. This is simply wrong. The U.S. should not be involved in the affairs of nations for two chief reasons.

First, these wars violate the non-aggression principle, which holds that it is always morally wrong to initiate violence against innocent people. No one in Iraq posed a threat to anyone here. Likewise, very few in Afghanistan or Pakistan were of any threat to us; and those that did could have been brought to justice without waging total war. 172,000 civilians have been killed thus far. How might Americans react if a foreign military invaded their country, destroyed much of its infrastructure, and established a government loyal to its imperial rulers? Probably not too kindly, I’d imagine. Second, it is just this sort of meddling that leads to blowback – the unforeseen, unintended consequences of foreign intervention.

Take also his assertion that the U.S. government should “make better use of military alliances.” On the contrary, the U.S. should be divorced from the foreign world politically and militarily. Limiting U.S. involvement to peaceful trade would be far more prudent. Just like direct-action nation-building leads to blowback, so do military alliances. When one nation is given special treatment over another, animosity breeds within the opponents of the favored country.

Johnson also advocates military tribunals. These are nothing more than kangaroo courts designed to circumvent the existing criminal justice system, which itself is far from perfect. Defendants in these proceedings are not given due process. If acting in good faith, the government has done its due diligence, there is no reason that the criminal court system can’t handle these cases. It has worked up to this point; it does not follow that a new set of rules must suddenly be applied.

On civil liberties Johnson once again fails. He indorses one of the federal governments most invasive and draconian organizations – the TSA. He says that it “should take a risk-based approach to airport security,” when in fact, the correct position is that at the very least, the TSA should be disbanded. In a just society, those who commit what in every other context would be sexual assault should be tried as predators and deviants, including those who give such orders.

On the economy, Johnson supports price controls by the Federal Reserve. I don’t know any other way to interpret this statement: “Restrict Federal Reserve policy to maintaining price stability.” Just as Ron Paul has long been advocating, the true libertarian position on the fed is to eliminate it, not try to tinker on the margins. An institution such as the fed is blight on a free society. The problem isn’t the fed’s role, or who is in charge, the problem is that anyone is given this kind of power. Only someone living in a fantasy world could accept the premise that any group should be given the power to play god with the global economy and not rig the game for their own benefit.

So This Is What It’s Come To

Recently I had the pleasure of renewing my permission slip to drive from the State of Kansas. I took the morning off from work and headed to the DMV. I checked in at the front desk, and to my complete surprise, was told that I had more than enough documentation. Anticipating an ordeal, I brought two forms of photo ID, proof of insurance and something to prove my residency.

I wasn’t alone, either. After getting in line I watched as the five or six people behind me checked in. They each presented their “papers,” only to be told they had more than enough documents. One man attempted a joke with the clerk about it being the first time the DMV’s ever told him he had more than enough paper.

It struck me then how we’ve been conditioned to expect the run around at each interaction with government. People have grown accustomed to being required to present so many forms and documents and certificates to get anything accomplished. Rather than risk losing our place in line we instinctively over-prepare.

Did You Know That…

…Social Security checks can’t be garnished by private firms? I didn’t know this until recently, but according to the Social Security Administration’s website, only the federal government may place a garnishment on Social Security income. Explicitly prohibited from such actions are mortgagors, vehicle lenders, and credit card companies, who may not request orders for garnishment to collect unpaid balances. It states further, that any company that attempts to do so is in violation of federal statutes.

So it would seem that lenders have little or no recourse against retirees in default who live on Social Security alone. Of course there’s nothing preventing a lender from repossessing or foreclosing on a secured lien. But unsecured debt, which is already risky enough for lenders, is that much more vulnerable to default.

It seems then, that someone could charge quite a bit on a credit card and walk away with a bunch of free stuff. This does come at a price: the tarnished credit report. Jeffrey Tucker published an essay on the credit report earlier in the week, explaining the virtues of the “permanent record.” So it’s not as if there aren’t consequences to what amounts to theft, but such intervention by the state hinders trade and justice nonetheless. No doubt lenders have accounted for this risk and built its mitigation into the price of borrowing, a price that credit-worthy borrowers share.

Herman Cain’s Faithful

More than with other candidates, Herman Cain supporters seem to know very little about the guy or his positions. This video demonstrates very well the level of ignorance regarding Cain on the part of those who would vote for him. He’s become quite popular with Tea Partiers, who appear to know nothing of his time as chairman of the Kansas City Fed, his endorsement of Mitt Romney in 2008, or his support for TARP. All these issues, particularly the latter two, are especially important to the Tea Party. Opposition to TARP practically serves as a litmus test for this crowd.

This afternoon I heard a gentlemen call into a local talk radio show expressing his support for Cain, saying that it was his consistent stance on the issues and lack of flip-flopping that attracted him. He wasn’t joking either, he meant it. The hosts were quick to point out Cain’s recent back and forth on two issues.

The first was the hypothetical prisoner exchange question on Wolf Blitzer’s show. Cain said he would make the trade of AQ prisoners at Guantanamo Bay for a captive U.S. soldier. He switched during the debate, clarifying with Anderson Cooper afterwards that he misspoke. His second bout with cognitive dissonance occurred during an interview with John Stossel where he came out both for and against abortion.

How someone is willing to vote for a guy and not pay enough attention to learn these kinds of things is beyond me. Equally unsettling, is that when the folks in the first video learned the truth, they found all manner of ways to rationalize his positions, and convince themselves they were doing right to stick with him. I would be remiss not to mention Cain’s ridiculous campaign ad, which of course, Cain fans are trying to rationalize as well.