Positive Liberty

It’s been 21 days since I posted to the blog. A new computer install and a road trip/speaking gig on behalf of DownsizeDC.org have consumed my time of late. I also started, but haven’t yet completed longer blog posts on the homeschooling issue (the big debate that was raging here three weeks ago). But I promised I’d keep you posted on Bob Barr’s lawsuit to keep McCain and Obama off the ballot because they filed late.

And I predicted that Texas judges would say, “Don’t worry Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain: You two are exceptions to our ‘late-filing, no ballot access, no exceptions‘ rule.”

I mean, it’s not like McCain and Obama are from minority political parties, right? Ballot access laws are for Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Greens, or even the Female Circumcision Party.

Well, the expected happened. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that Obama and McCain are allowed on the ballot — and wait till you see their explanation!

Here’s more of the story as reported at NolanChart.com… Continue Reading »

When I need expert economics advice (and who doesn’t, these days?), I turn to Arnold Kling. Here’s what he has to say about the bailout:

Think of the mortgage securities market as a poker game being played on a ship. The game is grinding to a halt, because so many players have lost most of their chips. So they come out on deck and shout, “Emergency! Emergency! The ship is about to sink! Everybody needs to give the ship’s Bursar authority to play poker, using money from the ship’s vault!”

It’s not clear that the ship is sinking, or how reviving the poker game would help if it is.

Is he right?

Reader Alan Scott asks a good question:

If this is a bill that must be passed to prevent worse tragedy later, then I’m a bit curious as to the libertarian take as to what the bill ought to look like.

I’m honestly not sure what the answer is. Obviously any bailout bill is anti-libertarian, so it’s a question of what type of bill is least offensive to the libertarian perspective. I’d like to hear what our readers and my co-bloggers think, because collectively we’re a lot smarter than I am by myself.

I’ll just start with this and hope it gets the ball rolling:

• Government should not have an ownership stake in the affected firms.

I actually think there’s a fairly good argument for such an ownership stake, but it seems to me to be the greatest possible level of government involvement in firms short of outright nationalization, so surely it ought to be off limits in the libertarian bailout bill.

House Republicans voted down the bailout plan. And that’s the first time in a long time I’ve approved of anything they’ve done. And to be fair, they had help from a lot of Democrats.

I’m relieved, kind of. Given Henry Paulson’s bid for a totally discretionary budget of $700 billion, including the authority to pay above market rates for the securities he buys, I’m glad to see this bill go down. If we’re going to bail out failing businesses, and I think it’s certain that we’re still going to do so, we should do it without further enhancing the already excessive power of the executive branch.

It’s also good for Wall Street to realize that they can’t just hold out their hands and automatically get a bailout. The vast majority of the executives in these companies and the traders that shuffle their stocks around are free-market advocates, wanting government’s hands off, but only until those hands can directly benefit them. Then they’re more than happy to have government stick its hands in other people’s pockets.

And at the least, I’m happy Congress has to spend more time revising it. Our system was set up to pas legislation slowly, and bad things happen when we move too quickly, especially with such complicated legislation (case in point, the USA PATRIOT Act). I have little faith that there’s even one member of Congress who actually understands the plan, so slowing down is a way to get a better grip on what they’re doing.

But as I said, we’re going to have this bailout sooner or later. And here’s why I’m only sort of relieved that it didn’t pass yet: I’m trying to figure out what’s likely to lead to more government intervention in free markets, the big bailout or the public response if there really is a catastrophic economic meltdown?

I don’t know the answer, but keep in mind that the Depression led to 40 years of tightly regulated industries (until the late ’70s and ’80s, when Carter and Reagan began the deregulation that’s allowed the economy to grow so strongly since then). If the bailout prevents a re-regulated future, then it’s probably the cheaper price to pay.

And that’s a bitter pill for us free-marketeers.

[Addendumm: I've just agreed to write a policy brief on the bailout, so I guess I need it to happen. It also means I have to try to figure out exactly what happened and what it all means. Wish me luck.]

Timothy Sandefur explains that the name “Cato” from the Cato Institute is taken from the historical figure of antiquity and is not an acronym:

The Institute is named after Cato’s Letters, a series of classical liberal papers written by Trenchard and Gordon, who used the pseudonym Cato in honor of Cato the Younger, the stalwart defender of republican Rome. Cato, along with Pompey, fought against Caesar in the Roman Civil War. When it became clear that Caesar would be victorious, Cato retired to his rooms and stabbed himself in the gut with a dagger. The wound was not fatal, and a surgeon was called to sew him up, but when the surgeon left and the family let him alone to rest, Cato tore open the stitches and ripped out his intestines with his hands rather than live in a Rome governed by Caesar’s dictatorship.

He became a symbol of republican virtue for the American patriots. Joseph Addison wrote a play about him, which became George Washington’s favorite play, and a line from it was quoted by Nathan Hale when he was executed by the redcoats as a Patriot spy: “I regret that I have but one life to give for my country.”

Of course, when I wrote the biography of George Washington for Cato’s Encyclopedia of Libertarianism I stressed just how that play profoundly influenced Washington’s Stoic sense of honor.

But this also speaks of another interesting dynamic: While I don’t know of Nathan Hale’s religion, and while I personally have concluded Washington was not an orthodox Trinitarian Christian, Patrick Henry I do believe clearly was an orthodox Trinitarian Christian. And, he too was profoundly influenced by Addison’s play. Indeed, Henry’s famous “give me liberty or give me death” line was practically taken from this pagan source.

Some sympathetic to a “Christian America” reading of history have noted that even the supposed “Deists” like Jefferson and Franklin were influenced by a “Christian worldview.” And no doubt that’s true. However, the converse is also true: Even the “Christians” like Patrick Henry were influenced by a non-Christian Enlightenment and a noble pagan (Greco-Roman) worldview. Indeed the notion of give me political liberty or give me death has nothing to do with the Bible or the orthodox Christian religion. And Cato, the figure from pagan antiquity, committed suicide as a matter of principle, a blatantly UNCHRISTIAN act.

Outstanding debate between a Mormon and an orthodox Christian at First Things. As my readers know I think Mormonism is a good analogy to the religious creed of America’s key Founders [Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and others]. All of them, including Jefferson and Franklin, were more likely to identify as “Christians” in some sense than “Deists” (although they may not have viewed these concepts as mutually exclusive; a popular definition of Deism at the time of the Founding was simple belief in one God, meaning all God believers were “Deists,” not a very meaningful definition; hence Jefferson could speak of the “Deism” of the Jews). Mormons too consider themselves “Christian.” Yet Mormon belief is inconsistent with enough orthodoxy that orthodox Christians claim “this isn’t Christianity.” Ditto with the religious beliefs of America’s key Founders. In short, if Mormons can’t pass the “Christian” test, then neither could (or likely could) Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and many other Founding Fathers.

Is it or is it not the most repulsive alcoholic beverage ever supposed to be “good”?

To me, it tastes like drinking Vicks VapoRub.

Tomorrow is the big day for the Pulpit Initiative, promoted by Ralph Stanley the Alliance Defense Fund in which some evangelical pastors are going to endorse a political candidate from the pulpit to challenge the IRS’s rule that tax-exempt organizations must remain politically neutral. My brother (who writes the most eclectically interesting blog you’ve never yet read), explains their error succinctly.

Stanley seems to believe that the First Amendment mandates tax-exemption for churches. It does no such thing.* The IRS rules are entirely religion-neutral, because they cover any organization which has been granted tax-exemption for performing a public service. Any pastor is free to say anything he wants from the pulpit - he just has to choose between being neutral and having to pay taxes. Every other organization in America has to make exactly the same choice.

Not only are these particular pastors appallingly arrogant in assuming they have the spiritual authority to tell their congregation how to vote, they wholly ignore Jesus’ statement that his kingdom was not of this world. Their lust for temporal power reveals the shallowness of their spirituality.

I took a break from catching up on Battlestar Galactica (which I only recently found out is a great series) to watch the last 20 minutes of the presidential “debate,” feeling dirty as I did so. Fortunately this part was about foreign policy, a president’s real job, so it was almost worth watching. What I took away from it is the conviction that McCain is more of a dolt than I had thought. Continue Reading »

Television networks will all, of course, cover tonight’s presidential debate, due to begin in less than an hour. Programming gurus have long known, however, that what you air before or after a show can serious affect your ratings. With that in mind, here’s tonight’s pre-debate line-up:

PBS (at least here in Dallas) is airing CEO. Okay, that’s pretty obvious. What bigger CEO could there be than president?

ABC is running 20/20. Investigative reporting? Well, what passes for it on TV, anyway. (And actually I’m a fan of John Stossel’s work.)

CBS has The Mentalist (which, as far as I can tell, is just Psych warmed over). The Mental Case would be a better title for the debates, but I’ll let you decide who deserves that label.

Speaking of mentalism, it seems NBC put some thought behind its programming — it’s running America’s Toughest Jobs.. Pretty good hook, huh?

But the hands-down winner tonight is FOX, which is airing Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader?

Thoreau, but not that one, nominated for Secretary of the Treasury.

Leo Strauss, but not that one, nominated for Cartoonist-in-Chief.

Henry Kissinger — yes, that one — who is at least awesome in relative terms. I never realized that the guy who wanted to nuke North Vietnam was insufficiently hawkish. Wow, I feel like a fossil.

John Washburn:

Under the proposed bailout legislation (according to Henry Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury), the U.S. Treasury or agents thereof could acquire Microsoft for one U.S. dollar, with no legal recourse for Microsoft or even its shareholders.

I’m afraid he’s right. So is…

Jack Cafferty

This time from the White Horse Inn. These orthodox Christians of the evangelical bent are well informed on the American Founding. They entitle the program “American Deism” and term Founders like Jefferson and J. Adams “Deists.” I might disagree with them terming these Founders “Deists,” but they recognize the “Christian-Deism” (as David L. Holmes terms it) of the key Founders confuses modern evangelical Christians in a way that the non-Christian Deism of Thomas Paine does not. The hard Deists like Paine wanted little if anything to do with Christianity and Jesus, so you tend not to see them saying nice things about the Christian Religion. Men like Washington, J. Adams and yes, Jefferson and Franklin, on the other hand appreciated Christianity for its moral teachings only and either bitterly rejected orthodox Trinitarian doctrines (like Jefferson and Adams did) or otherwise totally ignored them (like Washington and Madison did). So when we see these key Founders saying nice things about the Christian religion, it’s always in the context of the morality that it engenders and never about the need for Christ as a personal savior or as One who makes a blood Atonement. Many evangelicals therefore mistakenly conclude these Founders were real orthodox Christians when they weren’t. And figures like David Barton, Peter Marshall, the late D. James Kennedy, William Federer, and Worldview Weekend are primarily to blame for the confusion.

The program also notes, rightly so, that building a “cult” around the supposed Christianity of these Founding Fathers isn’t good for the purity of the orthodox evangelical religion.

Finally the program mentions the phenomenon of moralistically therapeutic Deism which surveys show is the dominant religion among the younger folks in Christian Churches. MTD is not all that different than the theistic rationalism of America’s key Founders, except the modern version doesn’t have the thought out philosophical underpinnings that Jefferson and Adams attached to it. This is important to note because many conclude that the “Deism” of the Founding disappeared when it never really did. It’s alive and well in the nominal Christianity of the 80% of Americans who define themselves as “Christian.”

As of this writing, John McCain is still balking at participating in the first presidential debate. The only way he could avoid the debate without being politically wounded is if he spends the time–and the rest of the weekend–in negotiations on the financial bailout, then successfully spins the story to present Obama as caring more about winning the election than about Joe Sixpack’s economic plight. Republicans are good at that sort of thing.

But what’s the point of these debates anyway? Once upon a time it must seemed like a good idea to get the two candidates together to face questions, so the public could observe them and make an informed choice. But as it works out, the debates aren’t that informative, and the whole setup and framing of the debates undermines the potential for them to be informative. Continue Reading »

In a reply to a reader on a prior post, I suggested that the bailout could potentially cost less than $700 because the government would re-sell the securities it buys, earning back at least some of what it spends. (Of course it’s also been in the back of my mind that it could cost more than $700 billion, because governments aren’t particularly good at business.) But just how little could it cost? Or could it even net a profit for the government? Continue Reading »

Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, and Rice knew that detainees were being tortured in secret CIA prisons as of early 2002. They did nothing to stop it, and remember, when the news broke in the media, they pretended they didn’t know about it:

Top White House officials were told in early 2002 about harsh measures used by the CIA to extract information from suspected al-Qaeda terrorists in the agency’s secret prisons, according to an account given to congressional investigators by the office of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

The details of the controversial program were discussed in multiple meetings inside the White House over a two-year period, triggering concerns among several officials who worried that the agency’s methods might be illegal or violate anti-torture treaties, according to separate statements signed by Rice and her top legal adviser. . . .

The written accounts specifically name former attorney general John D. Ashcroft and former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld as participants in the discussions, according to copies of the statements released by committee officials in advance of a hearing scheduled for today. The committee’s questionnaire did not specifically ask whether President Bush or Vice President Cheney attended the meetings.

In her responses, compiled in a seven-page memo, Rice indicated that she asked Ashcroft to “personally review the legal guidance” of Bush administration lawyers who had declared the CIA’s program to be legal.

Rice and Bellinger both said they recalled related discussions inside the White House of an obscure Army survival training program that subjected military trainees to waterboarding — a technique that simulates drowning — and other harsh tactics to prepare them for conditions they might face if captured. The survival program, known as Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape, or SERE, was the inspiration for several of the interrogation methods later used at both CIA and Defense Department detention camps.

Rice said she remembered meetings at which the SERE methods were discussed but said she was assured that the tactics “had been deemed not to cause significant physical or psychological harm.”

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) has been investigating the origins of the decision to use harsh interrogation tactics on high-level detainees held by the Pentagon and CIA. Many congressional Democrats and some Republicans have equated some of the techniques to torture. Levin has linked the decision to use SERE methods to the abuse that occurred at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison.

“These discussions took place at the highest levels of the White House,” Levin said in an interview. The documents belie administration claims that abuse of detainees was “the work of a few bad apples,” he said.

Levin noted that the SERE methods themselves — which included not only waterboarding but also exposure to temperature extremes, forced nudity and sensory deprivation — were designed by Chinese communists to extract confessions from captured U.S. servicemen.

“The validity of the confessions they didn’t care about; they just wanted the confessions so they could put them on TV,” Levin said.

It never was about a few bad apples.