Author Archive
Free Market Capitalism vs. Cronyism in Russia
Russian philosopher Leonid Nikonov explains the differences between socialism, cronyism, and free market capitalism. Nikonov is a contributor to The Morality of Capitalism, a new book that is being distributed worldwide by the Atlas Network and the Students for Liberty. (You can download the introduction to the book here.) Students can obtain copies of the book here; all others can obtain copies here.)
The Morality of Business Enterprise
John Mackey, co-founder and co-CEO of a substantial wealth-creating business enterprise, explains the moral significance of business. A longer interview with Mackey, along with other thinkers, can be found in The Morality of Capitalism, available here. (The book is being distributed by the Atlas Network and Students for Liberty.)
John Hospers, R.I.P.
My old philosophy professor has died. He was the only person I’ve ever met who both received a vote in the electoral college for president of the United States and published leading textbooks in ethics and aesthetics. I am fairly confident that he was the only person of whom that will ever be said.
When I enrolled at the University of Southern California in 1973 to study philosophy, John was chairman of the department. I already knew about him, however, as I had read his book Libertarianism: A Political Philosophy for Tomorrow and had heard him debate against socialism the year before, alongside the late R. A. Childs, Jr. That was when John was the first presidential candidate of the brand new Libertarian Party. (He and his running mate, the first woman ever to receive an electoral vote, Tonie Nathan, were on the ballot in only 2 states that year.) It wasn’t a very vigorous campaign, but it helped thousands of people to say, “You know, I don’t fit in with either the left or the right; they’re both abusive of liberty.” Besides that electoral vote the Hospers campaign helped to launch a long-term political alignment that is very much with us today, as people increasingly see issues in terms of personal liberty and responsibility, rather than as a battle between two different flavors of statism.
John was a gentleman, thoughtful, and kind. I remember meetings and seminars with him in his office, when he was always engaged, challenging, and willing to reexamine his own views when challenged in turn. He was a scholar and a thinker.
John Hospers was born on June 9, 1918, so he had just reached his 93rd birthday. He had a long life full of interesting experiences and left the world a better place than it would be had he not been here. He will be missed, but his legacy will continue on. He helped to nurture a movement for liberty that broke away from the absurd left/right spectrum. That alone is a worthy monument.
Broken Windows All Over
It reminds us of the need to repeat, and repeat, and repeat the same messages. Tornadoes, diseases, and wars are not good for “the economy.” They may be good for hardware stores, doctors, and military contractors, but not for the rest of us. Still, the New York Times couldn’t help but tell us on the front page that “Reconstruction Lifts Economy After Disasters.”
Frederic Bastiat exploded the fallacy long ago. Here’s a modern (and shorter) retelling:
Libertarians and the Arab Spring
The astonishing changes sweeping the Arab world hold great promise for liberty and peace, but those goals are much less likely to be realized without the active input of libertarians. Arab libertarians are organized in a number of networks, one of which held a series of programs recently in Cairo on building the institutions of liberty and development in a post-revolutionary society. The director of the Arabic “Forum of Liberty” (Minbaralhurriyya.org), Dr. Nouh El Harmouzi (also a university professor of economics in Morocco) spoke at the massive rally on Tahrir Square April 8 with a clear message for Egyptians (in Arabic, with English subtitles):
Also speaking at the rally (on democracy and the rule of law) and in other programs in Cairo was Gurcharan Das, the former CEO of Procter and Gamble India, author of the best-selling books India Unbound and The Difficulty of Being Good, and chairman of India’s Centre for Civil Society.
Those who wish to contribute to the spread of liberty in the Middle East and North Africa can find more information here.
Bastiat on the Japanese Tsunami
Nathan Gardels at the Huffington Post writes (emphasis added):
No one — least of all someone like myself who has experienced the existential terror of California’s regular tremors and knows the big one is coming here next — would minimize the grief, suffering and disruption caused by Japan’s massive earthquake and tsunami.
But if one can look past the devastation, there is a silver lining. The need to rebuild a large swath of Japan will create huge opportunities for domestic economic growth, particularly in energy-efficient technologies, while also stimulating global demand and hastening the integration of East Asia.
But as French political economist Frédéric Bastiat noted, destruction isn’t stimulative because it cannot create wealth:
Libertarians in Kyrgyzstan Spearhead Peace Campaign, Help Victims of Violence: You Can Help, Too
CAFMI Director Mirsulzhan Namazaliev at 2009 Cato University
Kyrgyz libertarians are leading a series of coordinated voluntary efforts to provide emergency aid to the victims of the vicious attacks of the last few days in their country and to promote peace throughout the nation and the region. I’ve been in regular touch with our friends there, and on Tuesday evening I talked to Central Asian Free Market Institute (CAFMI) Director Mirsulzhan Namazaliev by Skype, as he was interrupted by a stream of volunteers working late into the night in the CAFMI offices. He made their resolution clear:
“We are helping those who are suffering, but we are doing more. For me personally this is not only a fight for life. It is a fight for freedom. We don’t want to be ruled by any authoritarian Central Asian or Russian regimes that would exploit this awful violence. The violence we are suffering is a provocation designed to generate chaos and to overturn the chance for a constitutional regime. We will not stand for it. We want peace, we want freedom, and we want a lawful government.”
How to Explain Free Trade in Less Than Three Minutes
The professionally ignorant (and I’m thinking here of Lou Dobbs, among others) never “get it” about trade. They think it’s some complex swindle, in which we deny ourselves “jobs,” or that it should be about being “fair” or “balanced.” They don’t see how free trade creates prosperity and peace. I was inspired by the outstanding trade economist Doug Irwin of Dartmouth to explain what goes on when people trade. The challenge was to explain international trade in under 3 minutes. So here’s the result in 2:57: The Great Prosperity Machine.
Share it with your favorite protectionist, or with professors and teachers. (There’s more information at AtlasNetwork.org/BastiatLegacy.)
Realizing Freedom
Last month, I talked with Reason senior editor Michael C. Moynihan on Reason.tv about my book Realizing Freedom: Libertarian Theory, History, and Practice.
Victim in Egyptian Jail… Letters Will Help
From the FreeKareem.org website:
You can write to the Egyptian Ambassador to help his case. Please be polite and respectful.
More information available at www.FreeKareem.org. I wrote about the case in 2007 here and here.
G. A. Cohen
I was contacted by several people about the death of G. A. Cohen, to whose ideas I devoted a chapter of my book Realizing Freedom. (The chapter, originally published in Critical Review, is also available in a PDF form here.)
I’ll just make two points about Cohen here, as I believe it generally best (there are exceptions) not to speak ill of the dead. In a meeting in his office when he reviewed an early draft of the essay above, he admitted that I had found a serious flaw, but demanded to know (and “demanded” is the right word) what my point was: “Are you attacking the argument, or the conclusion?!” I said I did not understand the question. He answered, “Well, the conclusion does not follow from the argument, so which are you attacking?” I was rather flabbergasted, and replied that the conclusion of an argument is a part of the argument, not some separate thing. But that was not how he saw things, and it showed in his entire career.
There are arguments, and there are conclusions. You attach yourself to a conclusion, and then you look for arguments that lead to it. That’s why he was an “analytical Marxist,” i.e., someone who agreed with what he took to be Marx’s conclusions, but who thought that the arguments by which Marx reached them were erroneous or fallacious, so his job was to come up with new arguments. If those didn’t work, you kept the conclusion and looked for other arguments. (In this case, however, despite acknowledging to me that his argument failed to reach the conclusion, he never acknowledged it publicly, but took some pains to lobby journals not to publish my critique, as was confided to me by editors of those journals.)
To get a sense of what kind of man he was, think a bit on this defense of the Soviet Union:
The Soviet Union needed to be there as a defective model so that, with one eye on it, we could construct a better one. It created a non-capitalist mental space in which to think about socialism.*
Millions had to die so that Cohen and his rich friends could enjoy “a non-capitalist mental space in which to think about socialism.” Words almost fail me. But not entirely. He should have spent his life begging forgiveness from all of the people who suffered from his pro-Soviet (he spent a good bit of his youth as a Soviet propagandist, which was essentially a family enterprise) and pro-Communist activities. He was no different than any old National Socialist who might have regretted that National Socialism wasn’t nationally socialist enough, but who enjoyed the “mental space” it created to construct fantasies of an ideal life.
I will merely point out that his attacks on charity and assistance to others is consistent, not only with his political philosophy, but with his personality and life.
*From p. 250 of his 1995 book Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), in which he strings together the “argument” that does not lead to the “conclusion” that property rights are unjustified.
Spinning…When a President who Seeks Dictatorial Powers in an Illegal Move Is Removed by the Congress and by the Supreme Court, Is it a “Military Coup”?
The media discussion of events in Honduras is remarkably confused. Here’s CNN:
The president of the U.N. General Assembly scheduled a noon session Monday to discuss the situation in Honduras, following a military-led coup that ousted the sitting president.
and
Micheletti, the head of Congress, became president after lawmakers voted by a show of hands to strip Zelaya of his powers, with a resolution stating that Zelaya “provoked confrontations and divisions” within the country.
….
The coup came on the same day that he had vowed to follow through with a nonbinding referendum that the Honduran Supreme Court had ruled illegal.
Imagine that George Bush, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan or some other American president had decided to overturn the Constitution so that he could stay in power beyond the constitutionally limited time. To do that, he orders a nationwide referendum that is not constitutionally authorized and blatantly illegal. The Federal Election Commission rules that it is illegal. The Supreme Court rules that it is illegal. The Congress votes to strip the president of his powers and, as members of Congress are not that good at overcoming the president’s personally loyal and handpicked bodyguards, they send police and military to arrest the president. Now, which party is guilty of leading a coup?
This is another example of populist, dictatorial, anti-democratic thought parading as “democratic.” I discuss the issue in my recent lecture on enduring democracy in New Delhi.
Cato on Facebook
Cato on Twitter
Cato on Google+
Cato on YouTube
