Here’s my latest column in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. And below are the opening paragraphs:
In this sweet land of liberty it is surprising how readily we modern
Americans let others rule us. I’m not talking about Americans letting
some foreign government rule us. That won’t happen anytime soon.
There’s no risk that, say, we will quietly surrender to an invading
army sent from the likes of Moscow or Beijing.
I’m talking about being ruled by homegrown politicians and petty
tyrants who butt their noses into the sizes of our toilets, the amount
of salt we consume and countless other provinces of our daily lives.
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 27 comments }
I'm not talking about Americans letting some foreign government rule us.
A government that concerns itself with the size of my toilet and my dietary habits is pretty foreign to me.
Why should I care where they were born or where their invasion began?
Yes , I absolutely agree we need to be able to eat as much salt as we want. My wife just came back from the grocery store with a box of New Zealand Sea Salt for our ham. So our salt rights while seriously under threat are still not inviolate. However, I am quit sure the government right now, as we blog, is taking my dollars, yours too, to fund a private mercenary army headed by a right wing religious fanatic who coincidentally is a major donor to the presidents party.
Again I am astounded at what passes for priorities here. That army funded by your money and mine has almost certainly been used in violation of international law and effected more then just the serum sodium levels and liberties of the children they've killed in cold blood.
I want my liberties protected from my governments over reach but at the present I'm more concerned with the violation of other liberties done in my name with my dollars.
The idea of "salts rights" is certainly a concern because when one liberty vanishes often more egregious violations follow in a step wise fashion. I'm only pointing out that IMO we are well further down the line then concerns with salt…. way further down the line.
Muirgeo, you are the master of conflation.
Enjoy your ham while the American salt miners get thrown out of their good jobs.
This is small part an unfortunate consequence of your own advocacy of a cafeteria republic. After all what's the harm in a little expansion of illegal powers when there are so many saying we should ignore some of the Constitutional obligations to our citizens? Good thing I saved a little salt from my monthly ration for rubbing in those open wounds.
It just seem incongruous to on one hand say that the Constitutional imperative of secure national sovereignty should be ignored and then complain that other laws set forth in that same document are being ignored.
Ok. I'll bite. It seems that Don is advocating that the only rules we should enforce are:
(1) Don't hurt somebody else
(2) Don't steal their stuff
(I'm curious: why not?)
But, would you add
(3) Don't trespass across their land?
If you agree with #3, then the next question is whether an airplane can fly over their land — classically, land ownership means that you own a cone stretching from the center of the earth out into the heavens.
[C]lassically, land ownership means that you own a cone stretching from the center of the earth out into the heavens.
No, no it does not.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com
Looks like Don isn't alone. Ownage will ensue.
"… the children they've killed in cold blood." – Muirduck (HT Vidyohs)
Probably the most disgusting thing Muirduck has ever posted on this site.
Oh, and the use of force in Iraq was approved by Congress and signed by President George W Bush (Public Law 107-243), thereby making it legal under US law. To my knowledge, the United States has never ratified any treaty that subjugates its national security to "international law" – whatever that is.
Robert S. Porter –
Excellent point, sir. The force of your argument has won me over. I assume you went to college on a debate scholarship? If not, then, your true gift was certainly unappreciated. Or, maybe not.
I point you to U.S. v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 at 260 (1946): "It is ancient doctrine that at common law ownership of the land extended to the periphery of the universe. Cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum." The Latin, translated, means approximately "to whoever owns the soil, his is also that which is above it."
Of course, if you have sole and despotic dominion over your land, you can keep airplanes from flying over it and if the last bald eagle in existence happens to fly over, you're well within your rights to shoot it. Nothing to keep you from pointing a high-powered laser at any satellites flying directly overhead, either.
Wow, it didn't take very long this time to go from freedom from petty tyranny to backing the killing of children (great comment Wes) to a version of "all your air space are belong to us."
I wonder where it will go next?
My meager suggestion is to stay on topic.
Yea, Don, I don't care for the nanny state either, but you article seems to conflate telling people how much salt they can have versus forcing companies to disclose how much salt they're packing in their food. I appreciate that we have a liberty interest in avoiding bureaucratic B.S. (e.g., disclosure clutter, inefficient costs to business, etc.), but comparing that to actually constraining our diets gives the nanny-state mavens an excuse to brush off this particular example, and continue lobbying Congressperson Buttinsky.
A government consisting of people who aren't me makes that government foreign.
Self governing means each governs himself in accordance with natural law.
From those two basics people should involve themselves strictly through negotiation and contract.
M. Hodak –
My airspace point was that the absolutist "no government intrusion" view is completely impractical. Nearly everybody believes in some government intrusion, in some taking of our rights beyond just "don't hurt your neighbor." The only point of disagreement is in how far the government should go.
I'm not a libertarian because I can't jibe the libertarian absolutist "strong property rights, do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anybody else" view of the world with practical reality. That minimal set of rules is insufficient to run any society.
Its still a completely absurd point. Common law that existed before we had things like airplanes obviously is a bit lacking today, just as modern electromagnetic bandwidth property rights can't be based off of 19th century law either.
You position is based on the premise that someone needs to "run" society. Why does someone need to run society, who benefits from this management, and why would the most desirable manager not be chosen voluntarily?
Flash Gordon: "there doesn't seem to be enough of those who will stand up to them and tell them to mind their own business."
We do succeed from time to time. Here in Flower Mound, TX, we fought a political faction that controlled local government and wanted to micromanage our local economy. One example: they refused to approve a zoning change that would allow a shopping center developer to add a much-needed supermarket. Why? Because they wanted the developer to guarantee the supermarket would be a Whole Foods Market and not a Kroger or Safeway. So we stood up at meetings and in the voting booth. We now have a new Signature Kroger on the site – and a new business-friendly mayor and a new business-friendly Town Council as well.
The (Political) Science of Salt
G –
Sorry, I was not trying to imply that there would be any central person running. Maybe I should have said "no society can run on such an insufficient set of rules."
However, your basic point — that as things change, the rules need to change [to achieve a public good] is sound. Airspace and E/M radiation is just an example of that. I'm just suggesting that there's no inherent reason to stop at airspace and E/M radiation. Do you allow environmental regulation? What about information requirements (food warnings, securities registration, real estate disclsoure)? Noise ordinances? Zoning? Trademark law? Copyright and Patent law?
Please note that I agree with the general tone of Don's article — I disapprove of the nanny state. I'm just pointing out that there's no workable fundamental principle that dictates why it shouldn't exist.
Shouldn't one have to show some damages due the aircraft flying in his air space before he can demand compensation?
Floccina –
Normally, when people trespass, you can get an injunction ordering them to stay off. Then, if they want to cross, they have to buy your permission.
John Dewey: Glad to hear of your success. I think it is the rare exception.
Chris,
Where libertarians differ from the various forms of state-supporters is not whether or not those things should exist (except for maybe IP, in some cases), but how they should provided (voluntarily or forcefully).
I for one strongly disagree with security registration and all the rest of SEC functions. The individual stock exchanges should be the ones crafting their own regulation and rules in order to attract both investors and firms. Only they have the incentives and the feedback to make the best decisions.
Well, "should exist" from who's point of view? The guy accidentally eating too much salt? The general argument is that because information is a public good, it will be under-provided and so (nanny) regulation is necissary to keep people from making bad decisions. But we also know that government can't make good decisions on what to regulate or how, due to the economic calculation problem. Thats a pretty good reason why it shouldn't exist, along with all the other problems related to expecting government to make decisions which benefit someone other than a politician or bureaucrat.
More convincingly to me, the public good argument provides no reason why the state should do anything except provide the necissary information (e.g., food labels) and not forcefully regulate anything.
Not that I'm saying private provisions of public goods is perfect either – its not. But if we put enough effort into getting that to work as we do fighting over who gets to control 36% of the nation's GDP, I think we'd have the problem licked by now.
Good on the folks of Flower Mound! Good on you, John Dewey.
"We do succeed from time to time. Here in Flower Mound, TX, we fought a political faction that controlled local government and wanted to micromanage our local economy……
and a new business-friendly mayor and a new business-friendly Town Council as well."
Posted by: John Dewey | Dec 17, 2007 12:02:39 PM
G –
How do you provide voluntary environmental protections? (Let's ignore global warming) I'm aware of granting property rights in the form of tradeable credits, but I don't think that's a complete solution.
The best justification, I think, for the public good argument is that the cognitive abilities of individuals is limited, partiall because they have built-in biases which prevent them from making rational decisions. That, I think, is a necessary, but insufficient condition — it may still be that the benefit gained by overriding their irrational choices does not outweigh the harm to their liberty. But, at some point, it's conceivable that the harm would outweigh their liberty interest. You can make a decent argument for this with some drugs — because of their addictive natures and the potential for death, it may be necessary to override a users' (addictive) impulses and prevent them from drugging up.
Chris,
Well, as I'm sure you know, libertarians see environmental harm to others' property as being an act of aggression, so response in kind is considered defensive. Of course there are huge gray areas there with water and air pollution, but those problems faced are really the same as the ones faced by a social democracy trying to protect the environment, IMO.
But the cognitive abilities of whatever means of decision-making government uses is also limited. i.e. the prohibition of first alcohol, and now marijuana.
I also don't understand how comparing other's utility (say, the utility a individual gains from not having access to heroine vs. the utility gained from liberty) is possible in many cases (sometimes we can obviously make some decent guesses).
I'm not saying libertarianism has all the answers, but in light of the economic calculation problem, the violence caused by enforced prohibitions and the irrationality of government actions in general, I think working towards more voluntary solutions is a better goal to have.
G –
This has been an excellent discussion. Thank you.
No Salt for Freedom!
Sounds like a rallying cry against the marching regulators to me.
"I'm talking about being ruled by homegrown politicians and petty tyrants who butt their noses into the sizes of our toilets, the amount of salt we consume, the sex of our spouses, and countless other provinces of our daily lives."