Libertarian fantasies: Life without the Constitution

You can have your own theories but you can't have your own facts.

Charles Koch doesn't seem to agree with this maxim. He wants to have his own theories and back them up with his own facts as well. In 2012, Koch stated that only countries with economic freedom can create widespread prosperity. He says the poorest people in the most-free societies are 10 times better off than the poorest in the least free.

This is probably true, but there's no way to prove that the poor are better off because of economic freedom. The most-free economic societies, as determined by a subjective formula, are also among the richest, including Hong Kong, Singapore and Australia. The poorest countries are countries truly devoid of economic assets of any kind: North Korea, Zimbabwe, Eritrea, Cuba. The poor in the most wealthy countries are undoubtedly better off than those in the poorest. For one thing, the richest countries have a social safety net that cares for the poor.

Koch also fails to note that the Heritage Foundation, which makes up this list of most-free countries annually, has received support from Koch of up to $500,000 a year. So Koch is able to buy a think tank to support his controversial views. He hasn't received a good return on his investment, however, since the theory of most-free economies proved nothing at a cost of over a million dollars.

Koch claims that the U. S. government, by its subsidies, has forced the cost of energy up. Energy from wind energy, he says (without attribution), has been pushed up 5 times. The U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA), on the other hand, estimates the cost of wind-generated energy from new plants at approximately the same as energy from new coal plants. EIA's estimate includes subsidies for wind and the cost of building the power plants.

Koch is just flat wrong about what he calls “cronyism”, which is where the government picks winners in the economic marketplace. He's wrong because many of the most important U.S. industries were started by “cronyism”. The railroads were started by government subsidies in the decades after the Civil War. The demand the railroads created for steel and coal boosted those industries as well. WWI gave great impetus to the airline industry, which went from the fragile biplanes built by the Wright Brothers to planes that could fly higher, faster, and with greater maneuverability. These planes were financed by the government.

The jet engine, rocket-propelled flight, and advanced telemetry came out of WWII, along with the electronic computer, which was developed by the government to help target powerful, longer ranged cannon shells. During the Cold War, the U.S. developed guided missiles and miniaturized guidance systems that put a man on the moon. These miniaturized systems were refined into silicon chips that made America the world leader in computers and electronic technology for decades. The internet was designed by government projects to keep communications open during a nuclear attack. In fact, one could easily argue that the problem with American technology after the development of the world-wide web was that the government was not spending enough money on research and development of the kind that Koch calls crony capitalism.

Koch ignores the pollution caused by coal, here as elsewhere. He apparently believes that air pollution, not to mention greenhouse gas production, should not be considered as a factor in choosing between wind or fossil fuels. The fact that Koch Industries buys petroleum coke, a particularly dirty fuel, and sells it to China, proves that China's air pollution problems are less important to Koch than company profits. Koch insists in the same post that trouble begins when “companies take their eyes off the needs and wants of consumers”. Koch Industries hasn't considered the “needs and wants” of Chinese consumers when it sells dirty fuel to them, or the health of residents of Detroit and Windsor, Ontario, when Koch Industries dumps a heap of petroleum coke 40 feet high on a city block beside the Detroit River.

Koch's agenda is astonishing. He wants to abolish the federal government.

Subsidies and mandates are just two of the privileges that government can bestow on politically connected friends. Others include grants, loans, tax credits, favorable regulations, bailouts, loan guarantees, targeted tax breaks and no-bid contracts. Government can also grant monopoly status, barriers to entry and protection from foreign competition.¹

Two of the powers Koch mentions (tax credits, targeted tax breaks) rely directly on the government's ability to tax, granted by Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution. One of the main reason the Constitution was ratified in the first place was that the central government under the Articles of Confederation had no power to tax. Without the power to tax, the federal government will be powerless to do anything. Even a standing army would be out of the question. All the powers would devolve to the states.

The sovereign states would have much more power, of course, if they chose to use it. Those states which choose to follow the libertarian principles of Koch will likely have very weak governments. Government services would be minimal. Social safety nets would be nonexistent. These states would most likely be the southern and mountain states that currently vote reliably Republican.

The other states would continue to have strong governments with social services. They would be wealthier, because they would not have their federal taxes redistributed to the poorer states, as they do now.

Koch would also repeal the commerce clause of the Constitution, which permits the government regulation of business. This clause was used to prevent private businesses from discriminating against minorities. Repeal of the commerce clause would end civil rights in this country, or rather, in the new countries that would be organized from the former red states.

Koch would not oppose such a move, even though it would mean the return of segregation and Jim Crow laws. Koch gives tens of millions of dollars to his various charities, he has seldom, if ever, given a dime to a charity that benefits minorities or supports civil rights. His views on this subject are clear.

Koch ends his post on “corporate cronyism” by announcing that

If America re-establishes the proper role of business in society, all kinds of benefits will accrue. Our economy will rebound. Our liberties will be restored. And when President Obama tells an entrepreneur “You didn’t build that,” everyone will know better.

If Koch's plan to suppress the taxation and commerce clauses of the Constitution were successful, only giant corporations could afford to conduct business in America because they are the only ones that could afford to build the roads, pipelines, and electrical lines that would be necessary to build anything. We are indeed fortunate that Koch's array of fake grassroots organizations with their phony statistics and well-paid shills has not yet succeeded. Do not believe this man. He wishes us all ill.

1Charles Koch, Corporate Cronyism Harms America, Wall Street Journal, Sept. 9, 2012, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443847404577629841476562610.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop.

ALEC and NRA: How Trayvon Martin's killer got away with murder

ALEC

A group of conservatives founded the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 1973. They intended ALEC to be a study group for advancing conservative ideas on the state level. The original founders included Henry Hyde, Paul Weyrich, and Lou Barnett. Henry Hyde was a practical politician who was elected to the House in 1968. Weyrich became a leader of the religious right and founded the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank. Weyrich gained the backing of Joseph Coors for the organizations he founded, including the Free Congress Association. Barnett had participated in the unsuccessful presidential campaign of Ronald Reagan. He later started the Conservative Political Action Committee.

The founders shared an anti-federalist philosophy that was in line with then-president Nixon, who had decided on a southern strategy to bring southern Democrats into the Republican party. One key tenet of the southerners was a strong commitment to states' rights. Jesse Helms, who had just been elected to the Senate from North Carolina as a Republican, was an early member of the group. Helms was an overt racist and former Democrat. The composition of ALEC mirrored what would later become the Republican coalition. ALEC was at first nonpartisan but became solidly Republican as the white southern Democrats deserted their party.

In 1980 President Reagan formed a National Task Force on Federalism to seek ways to return power to the states. ALEC members took lead roles in the Task Force, and ALEC soon created task forces of its own to study issues and propose legislative solutions. In 1983 ALEC responded to Reagan's report on education by making recommendations to “improve” the educational system. Later statistical analysis (the Sandia report) showed that the educational system wasn't declining at all, but improving. The Sandia report was ignored by conservatives, who didn't want facts to get in the way of their theories—neither the first nor the last time this happened.

In 1986 ALEC started internal task forces of its own. By 1987 the Civil Justice Task Force was formed in response to the nation's “frivolous” litigation explosion. This explosion was an invention of the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) and other front groups for the asbestos and tobacco industries. The litigation against these companies, far from being frivolous, was a result of decades of deceit and arrogance on the part of the executives of these companies, who concealed from their customers the deadly nature of the products they were selling. This “frivolous” litigation explosion is an example of an invented problem (litigation crisis) whose solution (lower awards, more hurdles and extended delays) coincided exactly with what the corporations needed to solve their own crisis, one which they had caused: an enormous number of product liability cases waiting to be filed.

In 1988, ALEC made the fateful step of inviting direct participation of the corporate sponsors who had until then remained in the background. The wording of positions and model legislation was thenceforward decided, not by the state legislatures who formed the membership, but by the corporations who provided the money for lobbying activities. It can be argued that ALEC was “captured” at that time, that is, it was secretly taken over by the very companies its model legislation was supposed to regulate.

NRA

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is much older than ALEC, having been formed after the civil war by former Union soldiers. The original purpose of the NRA was to promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis. In keeping with its purpose, NRA spent over 100 years without becoming actively involved in politics.

In their 1975 elections, NRA was taken over by a group of conservatives who envisioned a much more active role for the organization. NRA and ALEC soon began collaborating on legislative ideas. ALEC formed a study group that eventually became the Public Safety and Elections Task Force. ALEC stated that this group was dedicated to producing model bills to reduce crime and violence in our cities and neighborhoods. NRA had a permanent seat on this task force.

Among the model bills developed jointly by NRA and ALEC are those that change the definition of self defense, so-called “stand your ground” laws. These laws came into sharp focus when jurors at the Trayvon Martin murder trial acquitted the killer because they had no other alternative under the new definition of self-defense written into Florida law at the suggestion of ALEC.

NRA may support such laws because their corporate sponsors want to sell more guns. This motive is indefensible morally because it makes profits more important than human lives. This is actually what defines an “outlaw corporation”. People have a low opinion of tobacco companies, not because the business of selling tobacco is despised, but because tobacco kills its users. Tobacco companies were not held liable in court for the deaths of smokers until it was proven that the executives knew their product was deadly and ignored that fact. The same is true of asbestos mining companies.

Gun manufacturers are similarly “outlaws” because their products kill. The public will always look down on people who make a profit from killing.

Stand-your-ground laws are an example of laws that solve a problem that didn't exist. Self-defense laws have been well-accepted for centuries, dating back to English law. Stand-your-ground, or castle doctrine laws, elevate the personal prerogative above the societal one. Under castle doctrine, the most important element is personal honor, so a person has a right to use deadly force if he believes an attacker intends to kill him. Using this premise, it would be dishonorable to retreat before such an attacker.

This conception of personal rights is part of libertarian theory. The Libertarian Party platform asserts:

“We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense.”¹

This assertion shows that libertarian thought is just not practical in our society. Civil society cannot exist if you are allowed to kill someone because you don't like his face. Stand-your-ground laws make violence justifiable if the perpetrator believed his life was in danger. If the perpetrator claims that he believed his life was in danger, it is extremely difficult to prove otherwise in court because only he knows the contents of his mind.

The traditional definition of self-defense deals only with actions. It considers what the defendant did, not what he thought. It requires him to avoid violence whenever possible. A person's actions are easier to prove than his thoughts and make a preferable basis on which to draw a reasonable conclusion. If a person tries to avoid violence, he should not be blamed if he is forced by circumstance to use it.

Under traditional laws governing self-defense Trayvon Martin was murdered, because he was not the aggressor. His assailant did not try to avoid violence, he sought it out. Trayvon, on the other hand, did try to escape from his pursuer. We don't need the services of a mind-reader to prove those facts.

1Libertarian Party Platform §1., http://www.lp.org/platform

George Will doesn't understand Science

George Will has no business criticizing scientific theories. He is an intelligent man, even brilliant at times, but his training and inclinations are religious and philosophical, not scientific. He has two major flaws that disqualify him from commenting on science.

First, Will brings to any subject a raft of opinions and prejudices. He formulates his ideas based on rigid philosophies, primarily conservatism and libertarianism. This sort of thinking is anathema to science. A scientist must be ready to modify her views based on new information.

For example, Will wrote convincingly that the filibuster was a good thing when Republicans used it against Clinton in 1992. But he condemned the filibuster when the Democrats used it in 2003. In this instance, as in many others, Will formed his conclusion first, then used his writing skills to argue for the position he already supported, namely that conservatism is good and liberalism is bad.

Second, Will resorts to cheap rhetorical tricks in his arguments. Will cited an Arctic Climate Research Center report in 2006 that stated that global sea ice levels were equal to those of 1979. He chose not to cite the next sentence from that report, which stated that Northern Hemisphere sea ice levels were one million square kilometers lower than 1979. He also failed to investigate further by contacting the Center and asking for clarification. The Center categorically denied the story.

This illustrates the rhetorical trick of cherry picking, where an author uses data that supports his position and ignores data that does not. This is a critical error is scientific argument, where data that fail to support a theory are precisely the ones which must be explained. All the data must be accounted for.

Will famously proclaimed the cause of record-breaking temperatures was summer, not global warming. He continued his argument by claiming that summers had always been hot, even when he was a child. This is an example of a straw man argument. No reputable scientist claimed that the temperatures were caused by global warming, but Will proposed that they had, then attacked their non-existent claims.

Will treats scientific theories as if they are political policies and attacks them as such. He attacks global warming because he considers it a progressive policy and because he, as a conservative, has a duty to attack all things progressive. Whether progressives or conservatives accept global warming is irrelevant to whether the theory is true or false.

Critics of scientific theories must approach their topic with an understanding of science and abandon political bias.