Consensus as Science and the Moral Case Against Intervention

According to subscribers of man-made global warming/climate change theory, if you don’t believe the consensus among the scientific community you’re anti-science. The issue has been settled, they say, and we’d all best get on board. Failing to join with them means you’re not only anti-science, but you’re obviously a misanthrope, since the very future of humanity is at stake.

Recall, there was a consensus on the issue of earth being the center of the universe in the 15^th Century. It was the dissenters who finally showed the truth. And what of the hair-brained notion of the earth being round, and not a flat surface, as virtually everyone believed? Even modern science is not immune to such revision in light of new information. It was only last year that scientists made a discovery that could change everything – regarding the speed of light – they previously held as undisputed fact. True science is not consensus based, but instead involves a healthy amount of skepticism and curiosity.

Contrary opinion notwithstanding, there’s probably no question that humans could contribute to rising temperatures. Millions of cooking fires, furnaces, vehicles, etc., produce heat, so it follows that these could raise surface temperatures. The question then becomes to what extent does this warming cause harm, if at all, and how might we alleviate the problem?

Pigouvian taxes, like all taxes, are always popular among politicians, having been told by their court economists that the taxes will offset the negative externalities associated with fuel consumption. There are numerous problems with this idea. The first of which is that if harm does result from fossil fuel consumption, a tax that is paid directly to the state doesn’t relieve the victims.

We’ve come to accept that those who commit a crime must “repay their debt to society.” This is rubbish. The only debt a criminal owes is toward his victim. Conflating “society” with a single, identifiable victim is nothing more than a form of collectivism which obfuscates the issue further. If pollution from fossil fuels does cause harm in the way we’re told, then individuals should be able to seek redress from polluters who violate property rights.

Another popular solution is a carbon credit scheme where a certain amount of pollution is acceptable, but any amount exceeding the arbitrary limit must be “offset” by paying for a special permit, or credit, to pollute. This will supposedly create a market for carbon credits, which can be traded between firms. Then, we are told, businesses which cause pollution will be incentivized to reduce their emissions, allowing them to sell their credits to polluters who have yet to curtail their damaging behavior. Firms who don’t eliminate pollution will then be forced to pay and this will tend to reduce overall carbon emissions over time.

Again, we’ll assume that one’s energy consumption can be directly linked to the ailments of another. This seems about as moral as allowing individuals to steal up to a certain amount of someone else’s property, but requiring a special permit beyond some limit. Imagine if a similar program was in place to reduce other property crimes. The analogy would go as follows: Thieves would be able to steal up to a certain dollar amount, the details of which would be established by industry insiders. But, if they wanted to make off with more than the maximum allowable limit, they’d be required to buy a special “credit” to do so. This is clearly outlandish.

Either an action harms someone or it doesn’t. Violating someone’s property should never be acceptable. If it can be found that one individual’s consumption creates a negative externality on another, than the offender should compensate the victim. Until such time that it can be concluded that one has harmed the other, the issue should be laid to rest. These disputes should not be between individuals or firms and government bureaucrats; only those with an ownership interest in the outcome have any business being involved.

How to Rally Support for a Foreign Government

Salon reports that Iranians are increasingly becoming more nationalistic; no doubt the result of increasing tensions between their government and others. This is one of the inevitable outcomes of isolating a country through sanctions. State officials, no matter how repressive, simply blame the country’s woes on foreign sources and the people rally behind them. When the sanctions fail to produce the desired results, more sanctions are brought on, and the cycle continues.

If radicalizing a population and ensuring their loyalty to the country is what one wants, imposing trade embargos is a sure bet. As the Iranians interviewed in the story say, they care deeply for their country and their homes. Despite their concerns with their government, many would rather stay. “First of all, I won’t give [Iran] to foreign invaders, but I certainly will not let this regime force me to leave, either,” declared Nazanin, one of the students interviewed.

A prime example of this phenomenon is Cuba. Socialism cannot sustain an economy, due to the problems associated with central planning: no profit/loss or price system, debauched currencies, etc. However, when sanctions make it even more difficult to trade, dictators simply point to the blockade and say: “see, this is why you suffer.” If sanctions did in fact work as they are intended, that is put sufficient pressure on leadership to acquiesce, one wonders why, after sixty years, a Castro still remains in power.

Lines Drawn in the Sand

Kansas’ Secretary of State Kris Kobach was recently featured in a piece from Salon.com on Willard Romney’s immigration platform. “Self-deportation” is the term being used to describe it, as if it connotes voluntary emigration rather than a forced exodus. But this is nothing more than an expensive, Liberty-stealing power grab from big-government.

The method for this draconian exercise in central economic planning is to mandate a national ID card and vast computer database to verify that an individual has permission to work in the U.S. Those without the required government papers will be prohibited from working and, according to the planners, eventually return to their home countries. Kobach claims this to be “a more humane way” rather than “[doing] it at gunpoint.”

This is a farce. Instead of pointing the guns at “illegal” immigrants and telling them to go home, the government just aims them at employers and forces them to put a bunch of people out of work. To suggest that force won’t be applied is, frankly, dishonest. The reality is that individuals and businesses will be required to purchase the E-Verify equipment for all of this, either directly or through taxation, and those not in compliance will be badgered, fined, and eventually shutdown.

This is a tragedy for human Liberty. Employees and employers who enter voluntarily into contracts violate no one else’s rights and therefore should be left alone. Immigration laws only came about as a result of protectionist economic planning meant to curry favor with politically connected labor groups.

Tighter controls are still being sold as a method to reduce unemployment, an argument I refuted here, but of course it’s billed as national security issue as well. That more effort is put into securing the borders of the Af/Pak region or of North and South Korea is largely ignored in the discussion. I’m certainly no advocate of deploying troops to the borders (after all, how welcoming is a police state?) but at least refocusing efforts here, rather than everywhere else makes some sense.

That’s why in last night’s debate I was glad to hear Ron Paul say that he’d like to see more effort put into processing immigrants’ applications. I want no part of an expanding government, but if the choice was between having more bureaucrats to allow greater numbers of people to enter the country or more bureaucrats with guns keeping people out I think it’s an easy decision from a perspective of freedom.

Ultimately, one must recogniz that borders are nothing more than arbitrary lines drawn in the sand, or map, and are merely the constructs of governments. They do not represent spontaneous order or derive voluntarily from the market. Although it’s true that legal boundaries can be established under voluntary contracts in a free society, the present order is not such a society. Borders are most often drawn under coercion, either as a result of conquest or purchased with stolen money.

Voices of r3VOLution!

This week Political Spectrum Publishing announced their latest book, Voices of Revolution: Americans Speak Out for Ron Paul, is now available at lulu.com, and will be available at Amazon.com shortly. The book features a number of essays written by Ron Paul supporters, including three by yours truly, arguing the case for voting Paul in 2012. Early profits will cover the cost to provide potential allies in the news media (television and radio) with copies of the book; all other proceeds will support the RevolutionSuperPAC.

Slick Rick or the Trouble with Pandering

(updated below)

Rick Santorum has gone out of his way to sever any connection between his platform and the Libertarian influences that were, at one point, central to the Old Right. A laissez faire approach to the market and a refusal to intervene abroad were once highly regarded as a means of ensuring personal liberty. On the subject of freedom, Santorum has said: “I fight very strongly against Libertarian influence within the republican party and the conservative movement.” In another statement he says something to the effect that historically, freedom doesn’t work and society cannot function without a strong paternal government.

In light of his insistence that people are naturally uncivilized and require feudal overlords to control them, the latest controversy over birth control should come as no surprise. Of course someone like Santorum, who holds such an obvious disdain for individual rights, would seek to control the populace in every minute detail. He tries to couch his authoritarian position as some sort of outsider’s take on politics – his quip that other candidates don’t want to talk about contraception is an obvious attempt – but it’s all about exercising control.

During an interview he stated that: “…many in the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay, because it’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be” (emphasis added). If this were only a personal statement explaining his choice not to use birth control, there’s nothing particularly controversial here. But this isn’t a personal statement; it’s a normative statement.

And, as if his Liberty-rejecting ideology weren’t bad enough on its own merits, he’s a hypocrite to boot. Just this past week Santorum was on TV boasting of his votes in support of Title X, which provides federal funding to organizations, including Planned Parenthood, for contraception. He told Greta Van Susteren: “The bottom line in my position is very clear. I’ve had a consistent record on this of supporting women’s right to have contraception. I’ve supported funding for it.”

So if he believes that contraception is “not okay” and runs “counter to how things are supposed to be,” how does he reconcile that with his votes for funding Planned Parenthood? More importantly, how do voters reconcile these two disparate positions? How does a person who is looking for a principled conservative rationalize such obvious attempts at pandering to two separate groups?

For the conservatives out there who somehow still haven’t seen the reality of his political philosophy, there is nothing conservative about it. There is nothing truly conservative about a candidate who wants to direct social policy as president. Especially since the progressive era of the early 20th Century, it has been the Left who has advocated for centrally planned social control.

“Conservative values,” “traditional values,” or “traditional conservative values” are not served by granting the federal government (or any government) dominion over them. That is surely the fastest way to destroy them and ensure perpetual conflict between interest groups. By making birth control a federal issue, or even a state or local issue, it places the issue in the hands of mindless bureaucrats and corrupt politicians (a redundancy, I know).

They have a record of ruining everything they touch – from schools, to healthcare – because they have no real incentive to improve or preserve these things. In fact, the more problems that persist with whatever issue they’re put in control of, the greater the authority and funding they’ll be given. Failure leads to expansion in this backwards world. If this weren’t the case, ask why schools never seem to quit asking for, and receiving, more money. Same with the healthcare/insurance lobby: the last three administrations have either attempted or been successful at passing sweeping new programs that inject more government into the industry. And on top of all of this, no improvement can be seen; it only gets worse.

Santorum talks about protecting religious institutions from having to violate their moral conscience or belief system through the forced provision of birth control. He said on the matter: “I can’t imagine any other organization with its roots as poisonous as the roots of Planned Parenthood getting federal funding of any kind….” But all his time in the Senate time voted in favor of a measure, repeatedly, that provided funding to an organization he described as “horrific.” As Charles Pearson noted: “I’ve given up trying to understand these people….”

Update: Perhaps this is why Santorum found it so easy to help fund Planned Parenthood all those years? “I was basically pro-choice all my life, until I ran for congress.” h/t Lew Rockwell’s Political Theatre.