Feeds:
Posts
Comments

At the Daily Beast, Keli Goff has a piece on “Why Blacks Aren’t Libertarians.” In fact, however, she may be a libertarian; at least, nothing in this piece shows why she cannot be. However, she definitely rejects a kind of dogmatic, absolutist libertarianism that she has encountered – and reasonably so, in my view. Here is the rub:

I presented the caller with the same hypothetical I do to so many of my self-professed libertarian friends: I’m injured in a plane or car crash. There is one hospital located in the town in which the crash has taken place. Do you believe the hospital has a right to refuse to treat me on the basis of race, and that the government has no moral or legal imperative to require the hospital to treat me?

One can make a convincing argument that a florist refusing to provide flowers to a same-sex wedding, or an upscale restaurant not welcoming African Americans, aren’t really major civil rights issues. (Frankly, in this day and age, if a restaurant refused to serve me I might use the power of the Internet to help put it out of business, but I wouldn’t see the point in suing someone to serve me when there are plenty of other dining options.) But when it comes to issues like government-mandated access to health care and education for all Americans, there is more at stake.

I would say that the hospital has a legally enforceable duty to accept anyone at imminent risk of death or injury. This is the “safe harbor” exception to the right to exclude that constitutes part of the bundle of private property rights. The safe harbor exception holds that in cases of dire emergency, you lose the right to exclude others from access to your property.

There are at least two important categories of cases here. One consists of cases in which there is no time to obtain consent: my wife is suffering a heart attack, and to save her I have to break into a locked building and take out its defibrillator. We should be able to assume consent in many cases when it is costly to obtain an answer from the property owner, and the foreseeable costs to the property owner are nil (e.g., I will compensate for any damage I cause).

Another category consists of cases in which original appropriation ends up leading to a monopoly, which if exploited could cause severe harm. One such example is Bill Bradford’s old chestnut: you fall out of an apartment window and on the way down grab a flagpole; the owner of the flagpole leans out and demands, “Let go!” Obviously, you have no obligation to let go. Robert Nozick gave an example of appropriating an oasis in the middle of the desert and demanding all the worldly goods of those who pass by in dire thirst.

So it seems clear to me that the hospital example fits into the latter category. If you’re in a life-or-death situation, you must be given access to the hospital. Now, that doesn’t mean you could conscript (enslave) a person to perform surgery on you – the right to exclude from one’s own body admits of no exceptions. And in extremely rare cases, a free society might therefore result in people’s avoidable deaths from lack of care – but of course that sort of thing happens now, all too often.

Now, I don’t know what Ms. Goff means by “government-mandated access to health care and education for all Americans,” but if she means large bureaucracies that provide these services at immense taxpayer cost on an ongoing basis, then she is indeed not a libertarian, as libertarians would not support that agenda. But neither does such an expansive government role in those industries follow from the emergency exception to the right to exclude just explored.

And there’s real money behind it, with more (hopefully) to come:

As for its goal, here is how Day put it in his news release:

“Crushing debt, unfunded entitlements, the government takeover of healthcare, overregulation, the decaying of our public schools, and massive government intrusion into our private lives are a direct assault on our liberty and individual rights.

“What if we could prove that liberty works? What if we could transform the Republican Party into a party of liberty that embraces the millennial generation? What if we could break the cycle of failed Republican candidates who support the expansion of the welfare state and position the country for a Goldwater/Reagan Republican in 2016?”

The PAC first wants to elect “the first pro-liberty, millennial governor (Andrew Hemingway)” and “win a pro-liberty majority for the Republicans in our 424 person state Legislature.”

Day is chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire, which has endorsed 12 GOP candidates for the state Senate, including five who are taking on sitting GOP Senators in primaries. Hemingway is former chair of the RLCNH.

Stark360 proposes “a statewide, data-driven grassroots campaign that will endure beyond 2014 and address a fundamental structural weakness of the Republican Party,” and then “position New Hampshire to elect a Liberty Republican candidate in our crucial 2016 first-in-the-nation primary.”

“New Hampshire is the single best investment to demonstrate and spread liberty throughout the rest of the country through New Hampshire’s critical first-in-the-nation primary status,” said Philips.

“The people of New Hampshire inherently embrace liberty” and in the state, “elected officials are accountable,” he and Day said.

Quoting former Gov. John H. Sununu that, “Iowa picks corn; New Hampshire picks Presidents,” Day said that in recent primaries the state has actually picked “losing presidential candidates.”

“A small, elite group of the New Hampshire Republican establishment, corrupted by D.C. interest groups, has disenfranchised New Hampshire voters, alienated the youth vote, and manipulated party rules for personal advantage. In particular, the treatment of Ron Paul in New Hampshire and the egregious manipulation of the rules aimed at harming Ron Paul delegates in the 2012 Presidential race, needs to end now. Our data-driven grassroots infrastructure will restore the Republican Party back to the liberty loving citizens of New Hampshire and serve as a model for the rest of the nation,” Day said in a statement.

Gross debt hit 101 percent of GDP at the end of 2013, the highest since the immediate postwar years. And despite the improved outlook for the next few years, the Congressional Budget Office has consistently argued that, in the long term, debt will continue to grow relative to GDP, leaving elected officials with the difficult tasks of raising taxes and cutting benefits. Noting that both of these options are things that elected officials are loathe to contemplate, some suggest that a third option is far more likely: the Fed will use expansionary monetary policy to produce inflation as a means of lowering the real debt over time. In an interesting new analysis, Ricardo Reis, Jens Hilscher, and Alon Raviv (VoxEU) conclude that there is really no way to inflate our way to fiscal stability:

One way or another, budget constraints will always hold. This is true as much for a household or a firm as it is for the central bank or the government as a whole. If the US government is to pay its debt, then it must either raise fiscal surpluses or hope for higher economic growth; the former is painful and the latter is hard to depend on. It is therefore tempting to yield to the mystique of central banking and believe in a seemingly feasible and reliable alternative: expansionary monetary policy and higher inflation.Crunching through the numbers we find that this alternative is not really there.

Bottom line: there is no easy way out of debt. If the analysis is correct, this only leaves us with difficult choices—precisely the kinds of choices that we seem incapable of making.

UK Labour MP and former Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling and Scottish First Minister and Scottish National Party MSP Alex Salmond last night debated independence for Scotland as part of the campaign leading up to a referendum on September 18. While the “Yes” camp remains slightly behind in the polls, they have been catching over the past several months, and it is likely that the vote itself will be close.

Watch the debate here. It features many themes common to debates over secession in the Western world: risk and uncertainty, self-determination, ideological distinctiveness of the secessionist region, and economic costs and benefits of independence. It’s a sparkling and entertaining debate; Mike Smithson of politicalbetting.com called it “by far the best TV debate there’s been in the UK.”

Thomas Edsall:

Covering Baltimore politics some 45 years ago, I was struck by how newly empowered ethnic groups used political power to acquire economic power, often dodging city laws and rules to benefit favored constituencies with city contracts, engineering and architectural awards, bond counsel, and so forth. These deals made headlines. But there was a degree of ambiguity to this so-called corrupt activity – it might even be called “good” corruption, which it famously was by George Washington Plunkitt, the turn of the century Tammany Hall enthusiast who coined the phrase “honest graft.” Politicians representing ascendant ethnic constituencies skirted legal and regulatory systems purposely designed by powerful entrenched interests to block emerging competitors.

Johnson, Ruger, Sorens, and Yamarik:

We use data on corruption convictions and economic growth between 1975 and 2007 across the U.S. states to test this hypothesis. Although no state approaches the level of government intervention found in many developing countries, we still find evidence for the “weak” form of the grease-the-wheels hypothesis. While corruption is never good for growth, its harmful effects are smaller instates with more regulation.

Note: I still think the earmark ban is a good thing.

Jason Sorens:

Via Eric Crampton:

Originally posted on orgtheory.net:

A recent article in the Journal of Economic Perspectives reports a recent attempt to curb grade inflation. High GPA departments at Wellesley College were required to cap high grades. The abstract:

Average grades in colleges and universities have risen markedly since the 1960s. Critics express concern that grade inflation erodes incentives for students to learn; gives students, employers, and graduate schools poor information on absolute and relative abilities; and reflects the quid pro quo of grades for better student evaluations of professors. This paper evaluates an anti-grade-inflation policy that capped most course averages at a B+. The cap was biding for high-grading departments (in the humanities and social sciences) and was not binding for low-grading departments (in economics and sciences), facilitating a difference-in-differences analysis. Professors complied with the policy by reducing compression at the top of the grade distribution. It had little effect on receipt of top honors, but affected…

View original 148 more words

Marin Cogan has an interesting piece entitled “Gay and Pro-Gun” (National Journal) on the growing support for the gun rights in the GLBT community. As you might guess, GLBT gun advocates have a difficult time finding a home in either of the two parties. For some, this leads to a political conversion:

Locating candidates to support within the two-party system, when one side champions gay marriage and the other gun rights, is hard. [Marc] Whittemore used to run ObamaLA, an organization he said had 2,500 volunteers at one point. But once he started paying closer attention to Ron Paul, he underwent a political conversion and quit the group.

Much of the article focuses on Pink Pistols, a national organization “dedicated to the legal, safe, and responsible use of firearms for self-defense of the sexual-minority community.” In the words of Pink Pistols’ Gwen Patton:

“Rather than saying, ‘We’re here, we’re queer, we’re in your face,’ our thing is, ‘We’re queer, yeah, that’s fine, look at the ways we’re similar rather than that one way we’re different. But if you absolutely can’t bring yourself to do that, we’re going to ask you very forcefully not to try to harm us.’ “

If you want to learn more about Pink Pistols, read the Pink Pistols Utility Manual by Patton.

“Pink Pistols” was named after an article by that name written by Jonathan Rauch in Salon (for a more recent piece by Rauch, see “The Right Kind of Gun Rights” at Reason and watch an interview at the Atlantic). The article also briefly discusses Tom Palmer (Cato) who has also been an advocate of gun ownership, drawing on his own experience of using a weapon to deter an antigay mob. Palmer was involved in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which struck down the D.C. handgun ban and was lead plaintiff in Palmer v. District of Columbia (2014), which ruled that the prohibition on carrying handguns outside the home was unconstitutional. For more on Palmer’s Second Amendment advocacy see David Weigel, “Meet the Libertarians Who Keep Beating D.C.’s Gun Laws in Court” (at Slate) and the embedded video.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,015 other followers

%d bloggers like this: