Libertarians and Religion

Kevin Vallier has an essay posted at Cato Unbound, entitled “A Genuinely Liberal Approach to Religion in Politics.”  The topic is of interest to me only to the extent that religion is often used as a tool for promoting nationalism (which is a religion unto itself in any case) and war-mongering (which writers such as Laurence Vance have covered quite well).

Vallier begins his assessment:

…I begin by contrasting my approach with three more familiar alternatives: I term these the libertarian, religious conservative and secular progressive views about religion in politics.

The topic as introduced by Vallier interests me little, except for his statements regarding libertarian views on the topic and his introduction of Murray Rothbard’s views (or as Vallier complains, lack of views) on the topic.

Given the venue, I begin by assessing the libertarian approach, or more accurately, what I see as libertarians’ lack of an approach to religion in politics.

In terms of a lack of libertarian views on this topic, this should be of no surprise. Libertarian theory is concerned with one question – when is the use of force justified?  Many concepts around the security of property and life fall out naturally from a thoughtful consideration of this question, but this question is the root.

Therefore, libertarians as libertarians will have little to say on this topic.  Vallier demonstrates, at least partially, one reason for why this is so:

…the more general attitude is that religion in politics is uninteresting because democratic politics should be dramatically weakened or abolished…

It is one reason, but a very secondary reason.  It is true that libertarians as libertarians consider that “democratic politics [more accurately, monopoly government] should be dramatically weakened or abolished….”  However, the primary reason that libertarians are uninterested in this question is because libertarian theory is only concerned with the question of the proper use of force – from this, the position on “democratic politics” is a natural result.

Vallier, starting down the wrong path, cannot help but compound his mistakes. The general attitude of libertarians, he claims, is that…

It’s Déjà vu All Over Again

I feel as if I just wrote this post…earlier today.  But like a four-pound fruitcake, it has returned – only wrapped in different paper.

I just posted regarding Mauldin’s views of central bank policies.  Now, like the discomfort associated with a bad meal, I must suffer through the tasting of it once again.  This time it’s Mark A. Calabria at Cato.  You know, that Cato:

The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — a think tank – dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace. Its scholars and analysts conduct independent, nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues.

Wait, there’s more:

The mission of the Cato Institute is to originate, disseminate, and increase understanding of public policies based on the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace. Our vision is to create free, open, and civil societies founded on libertarian principles.

So what does Mr. Calabria have to say?

To help the economy, the Federal Reserve should begin raising rates immediately and bring its preferred policy rate, the federal funds, to a more neutral stance.

Once again, I can do no better than Eliza:

Words, words, words

I'm so sick of words

I get words all day through

First from him now from you

Is that all you blighters can do?

First from Mauldin, now from Cato.  Is that all you blighters can do?

Everyone has a central plan, one that they can call their very own.

It was a housing boom and bust that contributed primarily to the recession and financial crisis.

No it was central planning in money and credit, combined with government incentives to increase homeownership.

Ultimately, interest rates should be determined by the interaction of savers and investors, not driven by the arbitrary whims of government officials in Washington.

And how might you remove those arbitrary whims?  Just what do you suggest Mr. Cato?  Anything to say about the whimsical central planning of money from Washington?

That’s what I thought.

So much for limited government and free markets.

Cato Calls to End the Fed…

…objectives of targeting inflation and unemployment.  Fooled you, didn’t I?

I know it isn’t big news around libertarian circles that the Cato Institute is not libertarian, but every once in a while it is worth a concrete reminder.  In a commentary penned by Gerald P. O'Driscoll Jr., he asks: 100 Years Later, Was the Federal Reserve a Good Idea?

Now a clue to the answer may be found in Gerald’s professional background:

Gerald P. O’Driscoll is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, and was formerly a vice president at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

I understand we all had to come from somewhere; while we all might have been born libertarian, the years of abuse and brainwashing in the indoctrination centers known as schools specifically, and in the brain-numbing bombardment by the mainstream media generally have taken a toll on many.  For most who find themselves in the libertarian camp, the journey was circuitous, unfortunately taking some for rides that, in hindsight, strayed from the good sense that God gave us at birth.

So maybe Gerald has returned to the wisdom that even a child possesses.  Maybe.

With the Fed in its centennial year, Janet Yellen facing confirmation hearings in the Senate, and questions swirling over whether the Fed will enact “tapering,” many monetary scholars are asking: Was the Fed a good idea?

Certainly, a clear and direct “no” won’t do – what kind of commentary would that be?  Over before it begins.  So Gerald highlights some of the bungles – attempting to establish his cred with the free-market community, I guess:

Not since the Great Inflation of the early 1980s has the Fed been so controversial. Its causal role in the housing boom and bust remains contentious. Other factors aside, the Fed was a poor overseer of the safety and soundness of the financial system. At best, the central bank was a passive bystander during the boom and early stages of the housing bust; it couldn’t even accept that we were in the midst of nationwide housing downturn.

…a look at the Fed’s unenviable performance over the past one hundred years shows how clearly it’s needed. On its watch, America endured the Great Depression, the Great Inflation and the Great Recession. Even excluding the Great Depression, real output has been no more stable than in the pre-Fed era.

In fact, the years of monetary stability under the Fed have been comparatively few.

Superficial as it is, is this not enough evidence to convict?

Certainly, the Fed has made many mistakes, but the current era of big government precludes any near-term possibility of abolishing it, as some would hope.

I guess not.

However, it can be improved. At a minimum, the Fed needs to be much more rule-bound. Targeting nominal GDP (the dollar value of all goods and services produced in the United States, not adjusted for inflation) would be one such rule.

I think I am going to be sick.

With Friends Like These…

I have been told that I make the perfect the enemy of the good.  This is in the context of my commentary and critique of what I view as less-than-libertarian positions by those who claim to stand for liberty, freedom, free markets, and property rights.

I probably spend more time critiquing these so-called friends of liberty than I do critiquing the obvious enemies of liberty.  The enemies are easy targets, and there is little to gain here – individuals who drink from this bathwater are coming nowhere near the sites I visit, including this blog.

But the so-called friends…. I find it important to deal with these.  These are the ones who provide a false view of freedom.  These are the ones who find common ground with the theft and murder of the state.  These are the ones most dangerous to developing a well-grounded education and understanding as basis for a free society.  And these are the ones who pretend to offer answers to those asking questions about liberty and freedom.  These are the false prophets.

Examples of my posts on these subjects can be found here, here, here, and here.

I do not claim to be a saint on such subjects myself.  I have learned much about my own views on these, and have modified these when I concluded my views fell short.  I am still, and always, learning.

So, why the mumbling preamble?  This latest news of the NSA, PRISM, etc., has brought some of these so-called friends out of the woodwork.  One such example is this commentary by Roger Pilon and Richard A. Epstein of the Cato Institute, entitled “NSA Surveillance in Perspective,”  (h/t LRC).

As I am sure many readers of this blog know, the Cato Institute represents itself as one of the premier think-tanks when it comes to subjects of individual liberty and free markets.  From the “About” page at the Institute’s site:

The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — a think tank – dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace. Its scholars and analysts conduct independent, nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues.

Founded in 1977, Cato owes its name to Cato’s Letters, a series of essays published in 18th- century England that presented a vision of society free from excessive government power. Those essays inspired the architects of the American Revolution. And the simple, timeless principles of that revolution — individual liberty, limited government, and free markets – turn out to be even more powerful in today’s world of global markets and unprecedented access to information than Jefferson or Madison could have imagined. Social and economic freedom is not just the best policy for a free people, it is the indispensable framework for the future.

So, what does this think tank “dedicated to the principles of individual liberty” and “limited government,” with its name taken from “a series of essays…that presented a vision of society free from excessive government power” in this time of “unprecedented access to information” have to say about the NSA surveillance?

Legally, the president is on secure footing under the Patriot Act, which Congress passed shortly after 9/11 and has since reauthorized by large bipartisan majorities. As he stressed, the program has enjoyed the continued support of all three branches of the federal government.

The same can be said of every major government program: the federal income tax, the establishment of the Federal Reserve, the funding of the worldwide military empire, Social Security, Medicare, federal funding of education, etc.  Legally, every federal program is on secure footing because every federal program has been declared legal by the federal government. 

Therefore, literally nothing the federal government does can be challenged based on this justification.  So, what exactly is the point of an Institute like Cato?

Alexander McCobin at The Daily Bell

I have posted the following at The Daily Bell today.  Quoted (indented) items are all Mr. McCobin’s:

[Debate] teaches critical thinking, writing skills, speaking ability, a broad understanding of current and philosophical issues and a love for ideas….[After attending McCobin’s private debate camps] Students would write to us, "I learned more in one week at this debate camp than in all of my years at school."

Many schools don't have debate programs at all….

Do you think there might be a connection here?  Is it by design, or merely an accident that a) schools don’t teach critical thinking, and b) virtually every school gets a majority if not the entirety of its funding from the state?  More on this later….

Perhaps creating dummies is the objective.

[While at Cato] the leading thinkers developing libertarian public policy…

“…libertarian public policy…” This seems quite the contradiction in terms and objectives. 

This is the most libertarian generation that has ever existed….

For us old guys, that would be nice to believe.  However, it is rather a bold statement when considering the sweep of recorded and unrecorded history.  More on this later….

[Regarding the possibility that the world is headed toward a depression] Given the growing commitment of my generation to fixing the problems given to us by older generations, I remain optimistic that we can correct things before they get to that point.

We face a future of either an inflationary depression or a deflationary depression (arguably, we are in a depression already).  To the extent there is an ounce of truth in Austrian economics, this is unavoidable.  Things will certainly get to that point before they get any better (or worse).

It's contradictory to argue that the government is both generally incompetent and inefficient and then argue it's capable of pulling off the greatest cover-up in history. I also think that if you assume the enemies of liberty are doing evil intentionally your misrepresentation of them will lead you to improper solutions. We have to understand that the enemies of liberty do so with good intentions and require responses with good intentions.

This one statement is enough to dismiss Alexander as a critical thinker.  First, he confuses “government” with those above government pulling the strings (as suggested in DB’s question).  But even looking at those in “government” – I will avoid the non- U.S. enemies of freedom – the pickings are way too easy.  Let’s stick to just the U.S. based enemies of just the last decade – do they really have good intentions: Hillary Clinton, Tim Geithner, Dick Cheney, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Rumsfeld.

The authors of the Patriot Act, NDAA, FATCA.  Lying the people into war.  Authorization of murder by drone.  Killing Americans without trial or jury.  Those building the spy center in Utah.  Initiating several wars throughout the Middle East and Central Asia.  Central banking.  Public funding of education.

His affiliations with Cato and Reason speak volumes of his positions.  See Walter Block here:

His view on war and the military is one big (and un-asked) question.  This comment (when writing elsewhere about some of the differences of opinion amongst libertarians) gives a hint:

While many libertarians opposed the invasion of Iraq, Randy Barnett wrote a strong, libertarian defense of pre-emptive intervention.

That he remains open to a discussion on this issue is…troubling, to say the least.

The other troubling issue is no mention of central banking (nor do I find any via a quick search of outside resources).

No comment on central banking; seems that the war in Iraq (and presumably other overseas adventures) are at least questions properly open to debate (certainly consistent with a Randian view); can’t link public funding of education and the lack of critical thinking in students; and sees no evil intent in those who implement these and other policies.

If this represents the greatest libertarian generation in history, you can have it.

What Would Friedman do, according to CATO?

Of course, we needed no further proof. It is well known that CATO represents the beltway libertarian view - the libertarian view that is acceptable in polite company. In other words, the view that excludes Lew Rockwell, the Mises Institute, and anyone associated with either.

However, we were handed further evidence in spades, courtesy of the following editorial:

"What Would Milton Friedman Say about Fed Policy Under Bernanke?"

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12502

This is a gem. For those of you who thought that libertarians believed in...liberty, well CATO has another idea. Let's look at some of the highlights:

"However, Friedman's views may not be well understood even by those who would claim him as their intellectual fountainhead — which could be problematic for policy-making."

Right off the bat, CATO is supporting "policy making", not so subtle code for government intervention, meaning market intervention by force and coercion. Isn't this a little wide of the libertarian mark?

"...the Fed should aim to stabilize inflation expectations."

Now wait a minute. Even much of the mainstream is beginning to recognize that the FED IS the CAUSE of inflation and inflation expectations. CATO appears not to even advanced this far from the command and control policies that have brought the world economy to the brink. The FED as the cause of inflation should aim to stabilize expectations? It has been said enough: since the creation of the FED almost 100 years ago, the dollar has lost well over 95% of its value. In the 100 years prior to this, the value has been almost completely stable.

"...the Fed should try to minimize swings in nominal income."

A Soviet Commissar couldn't have said it better.

"Similarly, were Friedman alive today, he would balk at the notion that the Fed is out of ammunition. He would remind us that in the early-to-mid-1930s, when the economic environment was far worse and short-term interest rates were near the zero bound, monetary policy easily generated a recovery. Therefore, the Fed could do likewise today.

"Friedman would likely make the case today for more aggressive monetary action. It is time for "Helicopter Ben" to earn his nickname."

The acceptable libertarian think tank is advocating for an even more aggressive FED policy than the one seen over the last two years. On the one hand, stunning. On the other hand, expected. This is, after all, CATO.

If one thing the last two years has proven, anything espoused by Chicago School monetarists (including Friedman) as regarding centrally planning the money supply is a failure. Nowhere was it ever expected that in one month a central bank would more than double its 95 year old balance sheet. If someone wrote a dissertation on the reasons why such beneficial actions would need to be taken one day, please let me know. If these desperate actions haven't convinced you of the fallacy of centrally planned money, then nothing will.

But of course, such central planning has been discredited - both in the Soviet Union, and now in the halls of the Federal Reserve. However, we shouldn't expect to read the obituary in the mainstream press. And of course, we will not read about it from CATO.

Some professors associated with GMU have come out against the FED (this was discussed heatedly at The Daily Bell more than once over the last month or two), and advocate free-market money and banking. GMU and associated institutions are supported by the Koch brothers, the same people that support CATO. It would be refreshing to read a strongly worded rebuttal to this editorial from one of the scholars.