MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Leviathan’

Coronacrisis and Leviathan | Mises Institute

Posted by M. C. on March 14, 2020

First, we can expect that government controls on travel and assembly will tighten.

The second likely long-term effect is ideological. Already we’re seeing the meme that the crisis has been caused (or at least exacerbated) by “neoliberalism”—that thanks to pervasive (?) libertarian ideology public health agencies were “hollowed out” and thus unable to respond in force:

Of course, we know that in the US the CDC initially prevented private labs from testing or developing new tests without FDA approval. More generally, public (and private) health in the US, as in most countries, operates within a tangled web of federal, state, and local regulations, subsidies, restrictions, and other controls.

https://mises.org/power-market/coronacrisis-and-leviathan?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=2a2bbe83dc-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-2a2bbe83dc-228343965

Peter G. Klein

In his magisterial Crisis and Leviathan, Robert Higgs shows that the growth of government in the twentieth century can largely be explained by patterns of crisis and response. These crises can be real (World Wars I and II, the Great Depression, stagflation) or imagined (inequality, the various isms). In either case new government programs, agencies, and policies are established, purportedly as temporary responses to the perceived emergency. But, as Higgs shows with rich historical detail, most of the temporary measures become permanent—either explicitly or in a revised form based on the original.

As I summarized Higgs’s thesis in an earlier paper:

Higgs (1987) noted that the expanded role taken on by the state during the New Deal period remained largely in place once the crisis passed, leading to a “ratchet effect” in which government agencies expand to exploit perceived short-term opportunities, but fail to retreat once circumstances change. Higgs (1987) suggests that government officials (regulators, courts, and elected officials), as well as private agents (such as business executives, farmers, and labor unions) developed capabilities in economic and social planning during crisis periods and that, due to indivisibilities and high transaction costs, tend to possess excess capacity in periods between crises. To leverage this capacity, they looked for ways to keep these “temporary” measures in place. Indeed, many New Deal agencies were thinly disguised versions of World War I agencies that had remained dormant throughout the 1920s—the War Industries Board became the National Recovery Administration, the War Finance Corporation became the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, the War Labor Board became the National Labor Relations Board, and so on. In many cases the charters for the New Deal agencies were mostly copied verbatim from World War I predecessors. Higgs’ (1987) ratchet effect illustrates that excess capacity in organizational capabilities isn’t necessary leveraged as soon as it is created, leading to smooth, continuous organizational growth, but may remain dormant until the right economic, legal, or political circumstances arise, leading to sudden, discontinuous jumps in organizational size or scope.

How will leviathan expand—temporarily and then permanently via the ratchet effect—in response to COVID-19? It’s too early to make any definite predictions, but we can make educated guesses based on experience and our knowledge of how governments work.

First, we can expect that government controls on travel and assembly will tighten. Whether via legislative approval, unilateral executive action, or judicial decree, the principle that governments must control movement and gatherings of people to prevent the spread of disease has been clearly established (or reestablished). As we know from Higgs’s work, the additional capabilities in this area acquired by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other agencies will likely be retained and put to use long after the crisis has abated. And further government intervention in the biomedical and healthcare sectors is virtually guaranteed.

The second likely long-term effect is ideological. Already we’re seeing the meme that the crisis has been caused (or at least exacerbated) by “neoliberalism”—that thanks to pervasive (?) libertarian ideology public health agencies were “hollowed out” and thus unable to respond in force:

Of course, we know that in the US the CDC initially prevented private labs from testing or developing new tests without FDA approval. More generally, public (and private) health in the US, as in most countries, operates within a tangled web of federal, state, and local regulations, subsidies, restrictions, and other controls.

It is impossible to know how a free market medical system would handle something like corona. But we will be told that there are no free market enthusiasts during a pandemic (and that, at best, those of us who favor property rights, markets, and prices should embrace “state capacity libertarianism”). The case for markets will have to be made, as Mises would say, ever more boldly.

Be seeing you

 

PPT - RUSSIAN ECONOMY PowerPoint Presentation - ID:1666640

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Blame Leviathan, Not Us – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on January 24, 2020

I don’t know what it is with the TSA and hair, but lengthy locks fascinate these deviants as much as they do free-lance ones. The TSA regularly harasses female passengers by combing through their tresses; Tara’s magnificent plaits must have sounded a siren’s song to them. And so the TSA’s thuggette “pulled them behind my shoulders, laughed & said ‘giddyup!’ as she snapped my braids like reins.”

That’s deeply offensive, as the TSA’s gate-rape always is.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/01/becky-akers/blame-leviathan-not-us/

By

Finally! The Twitterverse is actually chiding a racist who happens to be black!

Eric Adams is not only a black supremacist but a politician, too—and a particularly pointless one at that (pardon the redundancy): he’s president of the Borough of Brooklyn in New York City. Yes, that would be the same City already cursed with more “public servants” than rats per square mile. So what does the “borough president”—and there are five of ‘em, one each for Manhattan, Queens, the Bronx, Brooklyn and Staten Island—find to do in that toxic stew? Not much, as even Pravda—er, the New York Daily News acknowledged: “Useless wastes,” it complained in 2009. “Borough presidents don’t do much except spend tax money.”

And how! Eleven years ago, the Big Apple’s subjects were paying these parasitic “presidents” $150,000 annually while also “provid[ing] them with a car and driver”—both “car” and “driver” should be plural— as well as staffs: “assistants to the president” who earn[ed] between $35,000 and $136,420” in 2014; “administrative managers” at anywhere from $60,000 to $124,353 per year; and “administrative staff analysts” ($49,492 to $109,664). I shudder at how the wages for these sinecures must have escalated over the last decade.

All this for leeches who “were stripped of most of their authority years ago, but whose positions remain nonetheless” in the Marxist insanity that is New York’s government. Still, I suppose pampered but powerless politicians are preferable to pampered but powerful ones.

At any rate, ol’ Eric is Amerika’s answer to Megs and Prince Harry: a worthless, utterly indulged freeloader who ought to be on his knees, thanking the taxpayers who foot his bills.

Instead, he publicly castigates them. On “Monday at the National Action Networks’ MLK Day celebration in Harlem,” he denounced white newcomers to New York City because they “‘are not only high-jacking your [i.e., his audience’s] apartments and displacing your living arrangements, … they displace your conversations and said that things that are important to you are no longer important and they decide what’s important and what’s not important.”

Do I detect a contender here with Pelosi for the title of “Most Inarticulate Tyrant”?

But when he continued, he was clear enough that the Daily News admitted, “Adams’s remarks were striking for his all but explicitly racial tone.” Nope, he was beyond explicit: “‘Go back to Iowa! You go back to Ohio! New York City belongs to the people that [were] here and made New York City what it is,’ Adams, an ex-cop, said to applause. ‘I know I’m a New Yorker. I protected [sic for ‘without even the pretence of a warrant, I stopped and frisked other black men in’] this city. I have a right to put my voice in how this city is run.’”

Oh, the megalomania of Our Rulers! Since when does beating people senseless give cops “a right to put my voice in how a city is run”? And why should a city be “run”? Why can’t residents manage their own lives under the gentle but efficacious “invisible hand” of voluntary association and transactions?

Thank Heaven this vainglorious, prodigal bigot was “[c]alled out for the comments on Twitter…” “[M]any on social media said that his remarks were unnecessarily divisive and uncomfortably close to xenophobic diatribes aimed at new immigrants.” Whoa! For once, Progressives aren’t excusing hate-speech despite the speaker’s black identity and their open season on whites. Do you suppose Hell has frozen over, too?

“‘I guess we should look to relocate the Statue of Liberty,’ read one typical response. ‘Don’t want to give anyone the impression we want anymore [sic] out of towners. Good way to honor the spirit of Martin Luther King.’ … Some questioned whether Iowa was ‘the new dog whistle for white people,’ while others pointed out that New York has long prided itself on being an international city that welcomes newcomers from all over.”

Yet even as the media reports such scoldings, it covers for Eric by interpreting his tirade as a condemnation of “gentrification.” So do his accomplices in official crime: “Mayor de Blasio’s office gave muted criticism of the beep’s remarks. ‘The mayor doesn’t agree with how it was said, but the borough president voiced a very real frustration,” spokeswoman Freddi Goldstein said in a statement. ‘We need to improve affordability in this city to ensure New Yorkers can stay in the city they love…”

That’s so rich it’s nauseating. The reason “affordability” ain’t is the City’s stratospheric taxes on real estate: “The property tax is New York City’s largest source of revenue. It is projected to generate $24 billion in fiscal year 2017, or 44 percent of all City tax revenues and about twice as much as the second largest source, the local personal income tax.”

Indeed. A single building—the Trump Plaza, say, on Manhattan’s posh Upper East Side, with 175 apartments— pays a jaw-dropping $3,857,237 in taxes every year. That means each apartment coughs up an average of $22,041 per annum in addition to a mortgage and its portion of shared expenses (salaries for the doormen and porters, electricity to light the halls, etc.) Yet New York’s political greedballs routinely vilify residents for craving decent housing and the developers and landlords supplying it as the cause of the City’s extortionate prices.

Do inordinate taxes on co-ops, condos, and rentals confine Adams’ audience to lower-priced, dilapidated neighborhoods? Yep. Demagogues can blame white New Yorkers and their alleged racism for hiking rents all they like, but the true culprit is government.

Ditto for a contretemps last week at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, when Tara Houska, a “Native American traveler” with “her hair in long braids,” suffered an assault from the Thieves and Sexual Assailants. Ms. Houska is “an attorney and indigenous rights activist”—that’s “American Indian racist” in plain English—and thus more sophisticated and glib than ex-cop Adams; ergo, her charging Whitey with the TSA’s depravity has earned plaudits rather than reprimands.

It seems when Tara was “Going through @TSA … the agent said she needed to pat down my braids.”

I don’t know what it is with the TSA and hair, but lengthy locks fascinate these deviants as much as they do free-lance ones. The TSA regularly harasses female passengers by combing through their tresses; Tara’s magnificent plaits must have sounded a siren’s song to them. And so the TSA’s thuggette “pulled them behind my shoulders, laughed & said ‘giddyup!’ as she snapped my braids like reins.”

That’s deeply offensive, as the TSA’s gate-rape always is. But Tara’s reaction was equally objectionable. Like many black women who’ve endured this outrage, she imputes it not to the TSA’s systemic evil but to the “blonde” groper’s bias (“This kind of racism is not something that is new to our people,” Houska [said]…“This is just one small incident but it’s reflective of a larger culture”). “My hair is part of my spirit,” she huffed. “I am a Native woman. I am angry, humiliated. Your ‘fun’ hurt.”

Pssst, Tara: most women, Native or not, prize their hair, nor do they appreciate strangers’ rummaging through it. You are neither special nor alone in that sentiment.

But Tara’s not a smug “activist” for nothing. She decreed this a “#TeachingMoment” in which she can lecture us—as if we rather than the TSA abused her (thank me, dear reader, for mercifully condensing her harangue): “All these little microaggressions add up, and we should be treating each other with respect across the board.” Worse, like most of the TSA’s prey, she was waaaaay too willing to grant the agency’s right to search her in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment; Tara’s quarrel—a losing one—lies with how the TSA’s degenerates chose to conduct that search: “It’s TSA and so it’s invasive no matter what — it’s their job to sometimes pat you down and it’s part of safety and I get that,… That said, it was dehumanizing and just really disrespectful. It was kind of humiliating, to be honest, as a person but also as an indigenous person.”

Absolutely it was. But put the blame squarely where it belongs: on the anti-Constitutional TSA. This white girl has tired of Leviathan’s atrocities being laid at her door.

Be seeing you

TSA

The Alternative to “Facial” Recognition

Careful, he might be carrying!

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Working Around Leviathan – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on January 18, 2020

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/01/lew-rockwell/working-around-leviathan/

Here is what strikes me as a profound political paradox. The US government is larger, more consolidated, more powerful, and more intrusive than it has ever been in its history —indeed our sweet land of liberty is now host to the most powerful leviathan state that has ever existed.

Never before has a government in human history owned more weapons of mass destruction, looted as much wealth from a country, or assumed unto itself the power to regulate the minutiae of daily life as much as this one. By comparison to the overgrown behemoth in Washington, with its printing press to crank out money for the world and its annual $2.2 trillion dollars in largesse to toss at adoring crowds, even communist states were powerless paupers.

At the same time — and here is the paradox — the United States is overall the wealthiest society in the history of the world. The World Bank lists Luxembourg, Switzerland, and Norway as competitive in this regard, but the statistics don’t take into account the challenges to mass wealth that exist in the US relative to small, homogenous states such as its closest competitors. In the United States, more people from more classes and geographic regions have access to more goods and services at prices they can afford, and possess the disposable income and access to credit to put them to use, than any other time in history. Truly we live in the age of extreme abundance.

What is the relationship between the rise of big government and the rise of American prosperity? It seems that people on the right and left are quick to confuse correlation with causation. They believe that the US is wealthy because the government is big and expansive. This error is probably the most common of all errors in political economy. It is just assumed that buildings are safe because of building codes, that stock markets are not dens of thieves because of the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission), that the elderly don’t starve and die because of Social Security, and so on, all the way to concluding that we should credit big government for American wealth.

Cause and Effect Commission

Now, this is where economic logic comes into play. You have to understand something about the way cause and effect operates in human affairs to understand that big government does not bring about prosperity. Government is not productive. It has no wealth of its own. All it acquires it must take from the private sector. You might believe that it is necessary and you might believe it does great good, but we must grant that it does not have the ability to produce wealth in the way the market does.

Lasting prosperity can only come about through human effort in the framework of a market economy that allows people to cooperate to their mutual advantage, innovate and invest in an environment of freedom, retain earnings as private property, and save generation to generation without fear of having estates looted through taxation and inflation. This is the source of wealth. This is the means by which a rising population is fed, clothed, and housed. This is the method by which even the poorest country can become rich.

Now, does this system as described characterize the United States? Yes and no. This is, after all, the country that recently jailed Martha Stewart, the world’s most successful woman entrepreneur, for the crime of having not disclosed to the inquisitors every last detail about the circumstances surrounding her choice to sell a stock before its bottom dropped out.

Some of our most successful magazines celebrate entrepreneurship, but recently enacted laws, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, empowered the federal government to oversee the books of every publicly listed company and even manage their methods and operations in every detail. Some have compared this act to FDR’s National Industrial Recovery Act.

This is a country with cradle-to-grave security promises that just recently added a benefit of low-price prescriptions for seniors that is going to cost hundreds of billions over time. This is a country that, when faced with a problem of airport security, created a whole new federal bureaucracy to gum up the workings of every airport in the country.

These are incredibly bad policies, enterprise killers in every way. Why, then, does enterprise continue to thrive? The answer is complex. In many ways we continue to live off the borrowed capital of previous generations. Some economic sectors benefit too greatly from an artificial injection of created credit, making prosperity seem more real than it is in sectors such as housing and perhaps stocks. There is a bitter irony at work here too in that the larger the economy is, the more there is to tax, and so government grows as an aftereffect of economic growth.

People Resist Control Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

What is worse than the FDA? The Senate creating S 3187 an FDA Bill.

Posted by M. C. on May 28, 2012

The Senate passed 96-1 bill S 3187 authorizing $6.4B in FDA user fees over five years. The bill seeks to prevent shortages and spur new drug development. How, one may ask, does added legislation and user fees spur development? I don’t know either. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Healthcare Cost | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »