Hip Hop: A Free-Market History by Brandon Maxwell

/in , , , /by

Hip hop is not just music. It’s a culture. It includes dance, apparel, perfumes, jewelry, cinema, radio, television, books, magazines, and even beverages. That is, there are very few trades that hip hop hasn’t touched. And while hip hop’s lifeblood may be the complex grouping of rhythms, beats, vocals, tones, and lyrics, it was abetted at every stage by the free market.

Twenty-four million people around the world listen to hip hop each day. A half-million people see hip hop live in concert each month. And 28 million people purchase hip hop in stores each year. It is a $10 billion industry and growing. And yet its story resembles one familiar to Freeman readers: Leonard Read’s description of the vast complexity that goes into making a simple pencil.

Pass the Mic

Hip hop did not become a commercial and cultural powerhouse overnight. The free market acted as a catalyst. The market’s processes—competition, refinement, and augmentation—shaped the genre and the culture over time. They complemented the recording, mixing, and mastering process and aided hip hop in discovering new listeners. And, as is the way of the market, it helped listeners discover hip hop.

Hip hop’s free market venture first began 35 years ago in the northernmost borough of New York City with a handful of bored, mostly lower-income kids. They improvised lyrics over funk and soul music generated by DJs at block parties. As simple as it may seem to point out, none of this would have been possible without a variety of tools devised and made available through commercial means.

As spoken-word artists matured, New York City witnessed the advent of “emcees” (noun) bidding to “emcee” (verb) over personalized beats. With this development emcees needed additional tools, like samplers, synthesizers, and drum machines accompanied by tape players and record needles. “Rap” as a subgenre was born.

Likewise, emcees began to compete with each other. They contended not just for esteem, but for listeners in and around the neighborhood and city. This early competition elevated certain performers and improved the product overall, eventually allowing a select few to become famous. Throughout this process, as they competed with each other, emcees and DJs had to keep their customers satisfied. The audience could refuse to show up, walk out, heckle, or maybe even come up onstage and perform better themselves.

And consider the bedrock of hip hop: the beat. Going through old records—some forgotten, others much-beloved—artists found beats and breakdowns, extracted them, and turned them into the basis for an entirely new industry. To put it another way: They made gasoline out of oil refinery “waste.” And they made it possible for one person, or a handful, to put together music that would have required an expensive array of musicians just a few years before—and might not have been conceivable without the availability of new instruments like samplers and drum machines.

More Tools, More People

But these were far from the only tools hip hop purveyors and enthusiasts would need. On the contrary, hip hoppers would still have to have millions more tools, arbitrageurs, and entrepreneurs to carry them on their journey from block party boredom to billboard dominance. The process involved the collaboration of millions of people around the world and across time, very few of whom had any idea that they were, in fact, involved in the same endeavor—and no single one of whom could have created this force on his own.

Consider the millions of television sets and radios and the hundreds of radio stations it took to propel hip hop beyond its Bronx origins. Ponder the millions of power lines and hundreds of radio waves it took to transmit hip hop to those television sets and radios. And contemplate the number of television and radio station employees it took to ensure everything was transmitted properly. All of this is to say nothing of the level of productivity necessary to give millions of people both leisure time and disposable income to use on filling that time.

East Coast, West Coast, Dirty South

As hip hop spread across the United States, new emcees emerged, each meticulously tailoring variations on the music for a different audience. The result of these subtle adaptations was that hip hop gave rise to diverse qualities and styles, with each style suiting a different demographic or geographic location. That is, while hip hop could be heard in different cities across The United States, its sound in New York City, which found inspiration in energetic artists such as James Brown, did not often mirror its sound in Los Angeles, which found inspiration in the laid back funky basslines of Zapp and Roger. Its sound in Los Angeles was considerably different from the sound that emerged in the Deep South, which experimented outside of the usual 4/4 time signature. And its sound in the Deep South could be contrasted with the Midwest sound, which used faster tempos.

But in order for each different geographic location and demographic to continue to access hip hop over the decades, yet more tools were required. These tools consisted of millions of record players, tape players, CD players, mp3 players, and computers—not to mention millions of pairs of headphones, ear buds, and ¼-inch jacks, each meticulously designed to be used in conjunction with one another. It would require thousands of retailers across the world to transport and carry these accouterments. Thousands of companies would have to promote, advertise, and vend records, tapes, CDs, and mp3s. And as each new innovation appeared, it opened up new creative possibilities for entrepreneurs alert to the opportunity and for artists seeking new modes of self-expression. (And made it even easier for one person to play both entrepreneur and artist simultaneously.)

Production Value

Before arriving at this juncture, hip hop had to first achieve a polished and professional sound. This meant people had to design and build recording studios, which in turn meant the involvement of construction companies, masons, engineers, and architects. Construction workers use numerous power tools, thousands of nuts and bolts, hundreds of pounds of concrete, and dozens of beams for structural support—all of which had to be transported to a location. Once constructed, these recording studios would then be outfitted with mixing boards, microphones, monitors, preamps, limiters, compressors, and sound insulation—each item manufactured by a different company excelling in a distinct area of sound and recording (with components coming from all over the world).

In addition, a great number of people would be needed to assist in the actual recording process, with each individual wielding a select set of skills—e.g., producers and often separate engineers for sound, recording, mixing, and mastering.

And what about people who want to record from the comfort of their own homes? Can the free market help?

The evolution of the digital audio workstation (DAW) alone is a testament to the free market and Adam Smith’s division of labor. Dozens of individuals and companies have had to carefully work together in order to conceive a way to allow individuals the freedom to record from the comfort of their own homes.

The first precursor to Pro-Tools (the software most used in modern digital recording) was conceived in California by two college undergraduates. The result was a worldwide revolution in recording and an affordable way for millions of aspiring emcees to create quality music without commissioning the use of otherwise expensive mixing boards, effects processors, and analog tape machines.

Markets vs. Magistrates

Could hip hop as we know it today have been possible in a country devoid of a free market economy? Could any one man or government have rightfully determined and differentiated the kind of hip hop the West Coast wanted to hear from the kind of hip hop the East Coast wanted to hear? Could any one legislator or body of legislators have predicted the way hip hop would evolve—including the countless variations, textures, and styles? Could anyone have known beforehand that there was this unsatisfied—even undiscovered—hunger for a new kind of music, let alone offshoots in fashion and other industries?

Liberation

A free market does not inhibit, it liberates. A free market has no prejudices or preferences as to who benefits or who doesn’t. The market, rather, is a system that people animate with their creativity and service. The quality of the product rests solely on the shoulders of the entrepreneur—nobody else. And yet it is driven by communities.

The free market affords individuals and companies a platform to advance mutual interests. And in return, it offers consumers a variety of choices, options, and avenues, which sustainably advance yet more mutual interests.

It is because of these mutual interests that hip hop has become a household name. It’s even easier to access than water in some countries. And yet, it remains only one facet, one story, in an invisible agglomeration of individuals and businesses voluntarily collaborating across every hour of every day.

ABOUT BRANDON MAXWELL

Brandon Loran Maxwell  is a freelance journalist, playwright, and regular contributor to Street Motivation Magazine, Los Angeles’s largest independent hip hop and urban publication.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock.

The Dream Tax?

/in , , , , /by

If most politicians and bureaucrats were asked to describe their perfect tax, it would have the following characteristics:

  • Raise a lot of money;
  • Be easy to assess and can be collected automatically;
  • Be hidden in the price of goods;
  • Appears to only tax the very wealthy;
  • Be easily manipulated to favor the groups who contribute the most to the politicians but would not be easily seen by the public;
  • Not require tax returns.

The present income tax is sold as punishing the “rich.” However, the income tax has the liability that people see how much their wages, not some rich person’s wages, are reduced and too many tax returns must be filed. It is also necessary to have it collected by the Internal Revenue Service– a very troubled institution that is universally disliked and feared.

Many politicians would like to increase the income tax rates but are concerned that this will create more upset voters, and the most important thing for a politician is to keep his or her job.

Some say that a good tax is the value added tax (“VAT”). This is a tax that is added at each step of the production of a good. The value added tax does meet many of the politician’s requirements listed above. It can raise a lot of money. It is included in the price of goods and will lead to increased prices but the price increases, like the increased gasoline prices, can be blamed on greedy companies.

Because it is added on at each step of the production cycle, it is possible to decrease the tax rates for favored producers and increase the tax rates for less favored producers, and this could be hidden from the public. Finally, the VAT would not require any individuals to file tax returns.

However, the fact that the VAT caused price increases related to consumer purchases would be easy for the meddlesome people using the internet to expose, and people would see that the increase in the costs of all their goods was really, to a large degree, attributable to the VAT. This would create upset from the public who were initially told that the increase was due to greedy manufacturers and retailers and there might even be an attempt to unseat the politicians.

No, what the politicians want is a tax that can meet all of the above characteristics and many of them believe that they have found the perfect tax. The tax is called the financial transaction tax (“FTT”). The FTT could be levied each time stocks and bonds were traded, on derivative contracts, on options, on puts, on forward contracts, on stock swaps, on each credit card or check payment or other money transfer.

Placing a small tax on financial transactions is not new. In 1694, Britain actually collected a tax on stock purchases. In the United States, much of the financing for the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has come from “Section 31” fees. The SEC site explains, “When you sell a stock, you may have noticed that a small transaction fee, often just a few pennies, appears on your confirmation slip. Although some broker-dealers have described this charge as an ‘SEC Fee,’ the SEC does not actually impose this fee on individual investors. (https://www.sec.gov/answers/sec31.htm) Many other countries have seen the FTT as a way to obtain more funds for government or to fund specific purposes.

Some proponents of the FTT predict that by taxing the entire spectrum of financial transactions at a rate as low as ten basis points can bring in as much as $300 billion in tax revenues. (A basis point is one hundredth of one percent or equal to one cent of every $100.)

Proponents maintain that an FTT would eliminate much of the expenses of collecting revenue for the government because it would all be done automatically through the present electronic systems through which the financial transactions are processed. They say that a person with a $60,000 401(k) plan would see their return on investment reduced by approximately $60 per year.

Of course, what is ignored is the source of the $300 billion of tax revenue. Some of the bureaucrats seem to believe that these taxes come out of money that would have been spent on expensive yachts or mansions. The truth is that this tax, like all taxes, will be paid from higher prices to consumers, lower payments to labor or lower payments to capital. When possible, additional taxes are passed on to the consumer. If the prices cannot be raised enough, then either payments to labor or to capital must make up the difference. Often the additional tax costs are split between price increases, wage cuts, wage freezes or hiring freezes or lower returns to investors and business owners.

This means that consumers are going to pay these “hidden” taxes either in higher prices, lower wages for our neighbors or ourselves, or reduced company profits which will affect our investment accounts and the ability to expand and hire more workers.

On the other hand, one of the problems with the FTT is that some of the financial transactions can be completed in other non-tax locations. The result is that many economists argue that the actual tax revenue will be much less than predicted. This means that the FTT rate will need to be increased and this will mean that more of these transactions will either not happen with the present frequency or will be moved into non-tax areas.

Since it is important to keep the FTT tax revenue up, the natural thing will be to increase the FTT rate on transactions that can be controlled—like money transfers either through checks or credit card transactions or bank deposits. This results in, like most tax increases, the real burden falling more directly on each of us. But at least it is just a line item on our bank and credit card statements and for most of us is not a large number—not like withholding for income taxes and FICA taxes.

This will still be much less visible than the VAT or the income tax and the politicians and bureaucrats love this. After all, most of the politicians and bureaucrats believe strongly that they know better what is good for people because people cannot be trusted to make the right decisions on their own.

It is this paternalistic viewpoint that explains why so many of the politicians and bureaucrats oppose all tax cuts and particularly a tax like the retail sales tax. The retail sales tax is very visible and shows all consumers the real cost of government. It also gives people all of their earnings and allows people to decide, not politicians and bureaucrats, decide what is important and how to spend their money.

Many people want to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment. They believe that it will be great to eliminate the income tax. However, they should be aware that unless the public demands a tax like the FairTax®, a national retail sales tax, the taxes that replace the income tax will be hidden, will attempt to reward conduct that the lobbyists, politicians and bureaucrats believe is best and be subject to loopholes inserted by lobbyists working with politicians and bureaucrats.

RELATED STORY: One Tax To Rule Them All

The View from the Bottom

/in , , , , , /by

It tells you everything you need to know about the utter contempt those in the White House and the circles of power that the announcement of 0.01% economic growth thus far this year was blamed on—wait for it—the weather! Specifically, a cold winter.

AA - Blame the Weather

If you have been paying any attention of late, the weather and the climate have become the reason foreverything in general and for tornadoes, floods and forest fires, in particular. The fact that these natural events have always been subject to whatever the weather is or the larger climate trends seems to have escaped the notice of too many people. If winter automatically drives down the economy to a point of invisibility, that is news to me.

I’m surprised some economist hasn’t blamed winter for the major decline in home ownership. It has hit its lowest level since the mid-1990s according to the Census Bureau. As the Wall Street Journal reported, “despite two years of recovery in the housing market there are still fewer homeowners than there were before the recession.”  Oh? The recession is over? You could have fooled me.

It is no surprise, however, that China is poised to pass the United States as the world’s leading economic power this year. The U.S. has been the global leader since 1872 when it replaced the United Kingdom and now “most economists previously thought China would pull ahead in 2019 according to the Financial Times.

Bear in mind that the U.S. has survived financial crises in the past, but the 2008 meltdown has persisted since around January 20, 2009 when a new President was sworn into office. It didn’t take him long to receive a Nobel Peace Prize that year and to preside over the first reduction in the nation’s top ranked credit rating in 2011.

Could the economic decline have something to do with the insane increase of federal government regulation? As John Merline asked in Investor’s Business Daily, “After years of rapid growth during the Obama administration, the cost of federal regulations is now bigger than the entire economics of all but nine countries in the world.” He was reporting on the annual report. “Ten Thousands Commandments”, issued by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Compiled by Clyde Wayne Crews, this year’s report found that the “regulation tax” imposed on the economy now tops $1.86 trillion. “By comparison, Canada’s entire GDP is $1.82 trillion and India’s is $1.84 trillion.”

“The problem, Crews notes, is that the combined cost of this ‘tax’ never shows up anywhere in the federal budget—or any other official report—even though it is now bigger than individual and corporate income taxes combined.” The CEI report noted that federal regulatory costs average $14,974 per household “which is more than the typical household spends on just about anything else.”

So you don’t have to have an economics degree to figure out what is wrong. “Last year,” Merline reported, “regulators issued 3,659 rules. That’s equal to one new rule every 2 l/2 hours of every day7 or nearly two federal rules issued every business hour.” Why is this happening? Because the 2013 Federal Registered contains 79,311 pages, the fourth highest ever and the top two all-time totals were both under President Obama. Big government? No, TOO BIG Big Government.

A new poll surveying young Americans’ political attitudes was released at the end of April by Harvard University’s Institute of Politics. As indoctrinated as those 18 to 29 have been in our public schools, they are not brain-dead. The survey found that the millennials have less trust in government than ever before in the President, Congress, the Supreme Court, the military, and federal government as a whole. There is a comparable lack of confidence in Wall Street and the United Nations. Unfortunately, less than one-in-four (25%) of Americans under 30 said they would definitely vote in the forthcoming midterm elections, a decrease since last autumn, though more Republican millennials will vote than Democrats.

It’s not just the youth who are unhappy. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll taken in late April revealed “a marked change from past decades” as “nearly half of those surveyed wanted the U.S. to be less active on the global state, with fewer than one-fifth call for more active engagement—and anti-interventionist current that sweeps across party lines.”

This is hardly a surprise as one looks back on the years since 9/11 in which engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq turned out to be failures. In this regard Obama has his finger on the pulse of Americans who are weary of military interventions, but it is equally true he has used this to impose vast reductions on the U.S. military. If they are needed, there will be far less of them and the arsenal they will need.

The poll showed that approval of Obama’s handling of foreign policy has sunk to the lowest level of his presidency with 38% approval. His overall job performance now pulls in 47% or so. Both are below half the population of likely voters. The poll also demonstrated how disenchanted they are with the economy “that many believe is stacked against them.” The views expressed correlated with income and education, rather than party affiliation.

The state of the economy reflects the factors noted; too much regulation, Obamacare’s attack on one sixth of the economy, replete with dozens of taxes within it, as well as the serious disruption of the healthcare system.  What it has also done is cause many businesses to put a cap on how many they employ, a dagger in the heart of those coming out of college with few real prospects, those seeking employment after having been laid off due to Obamacare and other factors—some 90 million still.

If the nation does survive Obama, historians will express wonder that he was reelected and that his approval ratings weren’t considerably lower. He is still being defended by the mainstream media, so that might account for the latter, but recent revelations about the Benghazi cover-up may have an impact.

The people I talk with are “hanging on”, struggling to get by on what money comes in. They are not happy and I suspect they reflect a general unhappiness from the millennials to the senior set.

They are observing the nation and the world from the bottom of the barrel.

We’re Americans. We don’t like being number two.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Angie Schwendemann. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.

“The U.S. Is Alone” And Why It Hurts

/in , , , /by

“The tax rate of 35 percent is impossible to provide an incentive to the large corporations, that have $1.7 trillion offshore, to put their money back in the United States.” – Frederick W. Smith

In March of 2011, Pfizer Pharmaceutical CEO Ian Read told The Wall Street Journal, “There should be a tax rate that allows us to compete… in the global marketplace.”

Later that year, H.R. 25, “The FairTax Act” co-author and economist Dan Mastromarco testified before the Joint Economic Committee that America’s corporations were paying “a national statutory marginal [tax] rate of 35 percent, which masks the fact that the return on capital is taxed repeatedly. These rates impose efficiency costs of as much as $728 billion.”

Mastromarco added, “The U.S. is alone in applying its punishing rates – the highest in the OECD and 50 percent higher than the average OECD rate of 23 percent — to domestic and foreign earnings alike.”

Congress failed to heed these and other warnings and as a result, a flood of companies has continued move their production and headquarters operations outside the United States.

In fact, after 165 years, America’s pharmaceutical giant Pfizer is merging with British competitor AstraZeneca and moving their headquarters offshore to avoid our punitive, corrupt and totally politicized income tax system; a tax system that Congress continues to protect with the fervor of a mother bear standing guard over her cubs. A system Pfizer itself helped create with an army of the best loophole lobbyists their earnings could buy.

Adding insult to injury, this week Financial Times made national news with their headline story, “China poised to pass US as world’s largest economic super power this year.”

And yet, Congress continues blindly advocating politically polarizing, pro-income tax economic policies that are driving this nation and her people straight into the economic ditch.

There is a tough love solution to this problem that eliminates the primary enabler of Washington’s lust for power, greed and control. That solution – the FairTax® Plan.

The FairTax eliminates all forms of taxation on income, funds the federal government from a national sales tax on new goods and services only, and provides eligible taxpayers with 12 monthly, Prebate checks to purchase essential goods and services tax-free.

This provision provides a significant windfall for low-income families who will take home the full spending power of their entire paycheck. The FairTax also disbands, defunds and eliminates  the IRS in its entirety.

Just as importantly, the FairTax will negate corporate America’s need to move offshore in order to avoid America’s punitive tax code.

It is past time that corporate executives turn their focus away from the special interests, loophole gravy train of the past and present, and towards the economic boon they can enjoy when the FairTax is enacted.

This is where you have a tremendous opportunity to make a major difference for the FairTax campaign.

You are corporate America’s customers – you buy their products and services. And unlike our Congress that only seems to respond to special interests and large donors, corporations do listen to the lifeblood of revenue – the customer.

Think about your favorite products and or services and make a list of your five most favorite, publicly traded corporations. Go to the company’s website investor page and you will find the name and mailing address for their executives and board of directors.

Take a few moments and write some good, old-fashioned snail mail notes. Share why you support the FairTax and why they should too. Send them a copy of Dan Mastromarco’s white paper, “The FairTax: The Key to Restoring America’s International Competitiveness,” which you can download on the right hand side of this newsletter under “Featured Document”. The mere fact that you send a note through the mail will get their attention.

And let us know if you get a response. If possible, send us a copy of your outgoing note. You can send this to info@fairtax.org or AFFT, PO Box 27487, Houston, TX 77227-7487.

It is indeed painful to read today’s business headlines. America is hungry. She needs jobs, she needs her corporations brought home and she needs our getting the FairTax enacted.

Proud Little Englander: Words from Victorian England continue to haunt advocates of freedom and peace by B.K. Marcus

/in , , , /by

A battle of words from Victorian England continues to haunt advocates of freedom and peace in the 21st century.

British Sky Broadcasting’s An Idiot Abroad is the latest attempt by Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant, the creators of the BBC’s The Office, to find humor in humiliating and ridiculing their friend Karl Pilkington—this time by sending him around the world to “experience” other cultures.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/fLYsKe2o0g0[/youtube]

Merchant explains: “He is a typical Little Englander and he doesn’t like going out of his comfort zone.”

In the context, it’s clear what he means, but I had never heard the term Little Englander used that way. The word comes down to us from the history of classical liberalism, where the British hawks called the anti-interventionist opponents of the British Empire “Little Englanders” to distinguish them from the true patriots of Great Britain.

The 20th-century equivalent smear, used both in the United Kingdom and the United States, is “isolationist”—implying that the opponents of an expansive interventionist foreign policy are trying to shut out the rest of the world, bury our heads in the sand, and attempt to wish away the impositions of an ever more global culture. By implication, it is the interventionists who are cosmopolitan and internationalist.

Merchant’s use of the Little Englander epithet is a tiny, throwaway line, not at all the emphasis of the show—although it does get repeated in every episode of the first season, since it’s part of the opening.

So why should we care? Isn’t this just another example of how language changes over time with shifts in political and historical context?

Not quite. A quick Internet search suggests that while both meanings are current, the primary definition is still anti-imperialist, followed by the “colloquial” usage that means xenophobic.

Two recent examples of the term’s use in British magazines illustrate this semantic divergence.

The Economist

In “Great Britain or Little England?” The Economist magazine frets that “Britain is on the way to becoming more solvent but also more insular,” opining that “the trick for Britain in the future will be to combine a smaller, more efficient state with a more open attitude to the rest of the world.”

Apparently, a “more open attitude” would take the form not of voluntary exchange between free individuals across international borders, but rather of precisely the sort of governmental intervention that classical liberals disparaged as “foreign entanglement.”

One irony is that The Economist is itself a descendent of the original Little Englanders. The magazine traces its lineage back to the Anti–Corn Law League, the early free-trade manifestation of the Manchester School.

The classical-liberal Manchester School is remembered most for its opposition to protectionism, which was rightly perceived in the 19th century as a way to tax the poor to benefit the landed aristocracy. The Economist has not remained a liberal publication in this historically libertarian sense, but it has generally honored its free-trade roots. Has it lost track of the other side of the Manchester coin—opposition to war, imperialism, and foreign entanglements?

Spiked

In contrast to The Economist‘s conflation of anti-interventionism and xenophobia, Spiked magazine ran a piece last fall by Patrick West called “A ‘Little Englander’ and proud.”

Unlike Merchant or The Economist, our Spiked author does address the history: “The term ‘Little Englander’ was coined in the late-nineteenth century, an imperialist slur directed at members of the Liberal Party who were opposed to the Second Boer War (1899–1902).”

And the article’s subtitle highlights the irony of the a historical colloquialism: “Ignore the jibes of the pro-intervention crew: it’s the Little Englanders and ‘isolationists’ who are the true internationalists.”

What Was Lost?

So what are we to make of this irony, these opposed connotations of nationalist bigotry on the one hand and peaceful internationalism on the other, wrapped up in a single term?

For one thing, the contrast is no accident—no more than it is an accident that the term liberal can mean left- or right-wing, pro- or anti-market, an advocate of hard capitalism or soft socialism, depending on the context and the speaker.

At the time of the Manchester School, when the slur Little Englander was being coined, the term liberalunambiguously meant a reformer who wanted to dismantle the conservative status quo. Liberals were unequivocally in favor of individual freedom, open borders, free trade, and international capitalism in its anti-Mercantilist and anti-Marxist sense. They opposed big government, high taxes, tariffs, political privileges, and all but the most limited and purely defensive war.

It was this final value—a principled preference for peace over war—that led the interventionists to coin the term Little Englander. Liberalism, as a term and as an ideology, was too popular for the conservatives and socialists to attack it directly. Socialists therefore connived to appropriate the term through redefinition. Conservatives, in contrast, attacked the liberals’ patriotism with the dichotomy of Great Britain and Little England.

There is a division within libertarianism over the question of vocabulary and the importance of semantic positioning. While some debate the definition of, for example, capitalism or patriotism, others argue that it is folly to get stuck in struggles over terminology. Explain what you mean, the latter contend, and don’t worry over the words.

I understand why the semantic quibbling can seem both endless and pointless, but the lesson I take from the linguistic history of our movement, broadly defined, is that the words do matter. The slurs work, and their effects can still be felt over a century later, when the specific debates have long been forgotten.

So what was lost in the imperialists’ semantic victory with the term Little Englander? Why should we care if an entertainer uses it to signal his friend’s parochialism? What does it mean for the future of freedom when we have reached the point where even The Economist, without any apparent irony, uses a term of derision that was originally aimed at its founders—and uses it in keeping with the worldview of the political interventionists the magazine was founded to oppose?

What was lost was the connection in the public mind between the philosophy of freedom and a policy of peace. To be pro-capitalism and anti-poverty strikes our contemporaries as perverse. A philosophy that is pro-market and anti-war creates cognitive dissonance in today’s mainstream, and yet these values were assumed to go together at the height of our movement’s popularity and effectiveness. In letting our opponents, both on the left and the right, redefine the terms of the debate, we have allowed ourselves to descend to the position where we constantly have to explain what we don’t mean.

This is not to say that we should let ourselves be derailed by terminological disputes. But neither should we let go of our history—or the language of that history.

The principled advocates of liberty can even reclaim, I hope, some of the terms used against us—anarchism, capitalism, isolationism, among others. That these terms can cause misunderstanding is not sufficient reason to abandon them. Everything about our philosophy can cause misunderstanding among the uninitiated.

I look forward to the day when we can join Spiked in proclaiming ourselves proud Little Englanders (whether we have any personal connection to England or not) and be understood to stand for cosmopolitan open-mindedness, individual liberty, and a policy of peace.

ABOUT B.K. MARCUS

B.K. Marcus is senior editor at Liberty.me and a publishing consultant at InvisibleOrder.com.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock.

Obamacare and minimum wage push connected?

/in , , , , /by

The US Department of Labor map (above) shows minimum wage laws in the various States as of January 1, 2014. Where Federal and state law have different minimum wage rates, the higher standard applies. Minimum wage and overtime premium pay standards are applicable to non-supervisory non-farm private sector employment under state and federal laws.

  • Green States with minimum wage rates higher than the Federal
  • Yellow States with no minimum wage law
  • Blue States with minimum wage rates the same as the Federal
  • Red States with minimum wage rates lower than the Federal
  • Brown American Samoa has special minimum wage rates

We know many people are now being hired to work less than 30 hours a week so employers don’t have to provide Obamacare. Think that move has anything to do with the push by Democrats to dramatically increase the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10?

Well, if you do the math you will find someone working at the minimum wage of $7.25 for 40 hours grosses $290.00 a week. Someone working 29 hours a week at $10.10 an hour would gross $292.90 per week!

Not bad, work 25% less and make the same amount of money. For entry level workers this must sound like a dream come true.

How do you think the Democrats arrived at $10.10 an hour, by coincidence?

When I grew up minimum wage jobs were filled primarily by high school and college kids, , until illegal aliens took them.

Illegal aliens are excited to have a job paying $7.25 an HOUR since a worker at the Ford plant back in Mexico (thanks to Nafta) makes $7.50 per DAY.

Obama administration chooses environmentalists over unions on Keystone XL and fracking

/in , , , , /by

While some environmental groups applauded the latest delay of the Keystone XL pipeline, unions whose members would be building it ripped the administration. Sean McGarvey, President of North America’s Building Trades Unions, AFL-CIO, called it “a cold, hard slap in the face for hard working Americans who are literally waiting for President Obama’s approval and the tens of thousands of jobs it will generate.”

Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA) general president Terry O’Sullivan was more colorful, saying, “It’s clear the administration needs to grow a set of antlers, or perhaps take a lesson from Popeye and eat some spinach.”

The Keystone XL pipeline isn’t the only energy issue dividing anti-energy environmental groups and unions who want jobs for their members. Over the weekend, the Associated Press reported that development of shale energy using hydraulic fracturing had strong union support in Pennsylvania:

“The shale became a lifesaver and a lifeline for a lot of working families,” said Dennis Martire, the mid-Atlantic regional manager for the Laborers’ International Union, or LIUNA, which represents workers in numerous construction trades.

Martire said that as huge quantities of natural gas were extracted from the vast shale reserves over the last five years, union work on large pipeline jobs in Pennsylvania and West Virginia has increased significantly. In 2008, LIUNA members worked about 400,000 hours on such jobs; by 2012, that had risen to 5.7 million hours.

In contrast, environmental groups like the Natural Resource Defense Council who patted the administration on the back for the Keystone XL delay, strongly oppose hydraulic fracturing.

In his Keystone XL statement, McGarvey head of the building trades union asked a good question:

Why does President Obama continue to side with radicals instead of the middle class that, twice, put him office, and supports this project by a significant majority?

Out of work American union members would like to know.

[H/T Lachlan Markay at the Washington Free Beacon.]

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo of a rig drilling for natural gas at a hydraulic fracturing site in Pennsylvania is courtesy of photographer Ty Wright/Bloomberg.

The 2014 state of wind energy: Desperately seeking subsidies by Marita Noon

/in , , , , , , , /by

With the growing story coming out of Ukraine, the ongoing search for the missing Malaysian jet, the intensifying Nevada cattle battle, and the new announcement about the additional Keystone pipeline delay, little attention is being paid to the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind energy—or any of the other 50 lapsed tax breaks the Senate Finance Committee approved earlier this month. But, despite the low news profile, the gears of government continue to grind up taxpayer dollars.

The Expiring Provisions Improvement Reform and Efficiency Act (EXPIRE) did not originally include the PT; however, prior to the committee markup hearing on April 3, Senators Charles Grassley (R-IA), Michael Bennet (D-CO), and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) pushed for an amendment to add a 2-year PTC extension. The tax extender package passed out of committee and has been sent to the Senate floor for debate. There, its future is uncertain.

“If the bill becomes law,” reports the Energy Collective, “it will allow wind energy developers to qualify for tax credits if they begin construction by the end of 2015.” The American Wind Energy Association’s (AWEA) website calls on Congress to: “act quickly to retroactively extend the PTC.”

The PTC is often the deciding factor in determining whether or not to build a wind farm. According to Bloomberg, wind power advocates fear: “Without the restoration of the subsidies, worth $23 per megawatt hour to turbine owners, the industry might not recover, and the U.S. may lose ground in its race to reduce dependence on fossil fuels driving global warming.” \

NRELThe National Renewable Energy Laboratory released a report earlier this month affirming the importance of the subsidies to the wind industry. It showed that the PTC has been critical to the development of the U.S. wind power industry. The report also found: PTC “extension options that would ramp down by the end of 2022 appear to be insufficient to support recent levels of deployment.… Extending the production tax credit at its historical level could provide the best opportunity to sustain strong U.S. wind energy installation and domestic manufacturing.”

The PTC was originally part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. It has expired many times— most recently at the close of 2013. The last-minute 2012 extension, as a part of the American Tax Relief Act, included an eligibility criteria adjustment that allows projects that began construction in 2013, and maintain construction through as long as 2016, to qualify for the 10-year tax credit designed to establish a production incentive. Previously, projects would have had to be producing electricity at the time the PTC expired to qualify.

Thomas Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, which represents the interests of oil, coal, and natural gas companies, called the 2013 expiration of the wind PTC “a victory for taxpayers.” He explained: “The notion that the wind industry is an infant that needs the PTC to get on its feet is simply not true. The PTC has overstayed its welcome and any attempt to extend it would do a great disservice to the American people.”

As recently as 2006-2007, “the wind PTC had no natural enemies,” states a new report on the PTC’s future. “The Declining Appetite for the Wind PTC” report points to the assumption that “all extenders are extended eventually, and that enacting the extension is purely a matter of routine, in which gridlock on unrelated topics is the only source of uncertainty and delay.” The report then concludes: “That has been a correct view in past years.”

The report predicts that the PTC will follow “the same political trajectory as the ethanol mandate and the ethanol blenders’ tax credit before it.” The mandate remains—albeit in a slightly weakened state—and the tax credit is gone: “Ethanol no longer needed the blenders’ tax credit because it had the strong support of a mandate (an implicit subsidy) behind it.”

The PTC once enjoyed support from some in the utility industry that needed it to bolster wind power development to meet the mandates. Today, utilities have met their state mandates—or come close enough, the report points out: “their state utility commissioners will not allow them to build more.” It is important to realize that the commissioners are appointed or elected to protect the ratepayers and insure that the rates charged by the utilities are fair and as low as possible. Because of the increased cost of wind energy over conventional sources, commissioners won’t allow any more than is necessary to meet the mandates passed by the legislatures.

The abundance of natural gas and subsequent low price has also hurt wind energy’s predicted price parity. South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard (R), in Bloomberg, said: “If gas prices weren’t so cheap, then wind might be able to compete on its own.” David Crane, chief executive officer of NRG Energy Inc.—which builds both gas and renewable power plants—agrees: “Cheap gas has definitely made it harder to compete.” With the subsidy, companies were able to propose wind projects “below the price of gas.” Without the PTC, Stephen Munro, an analyst at New Energy Finance, confirms: “we don’t expect wind to be at cost parity with gas.”

The changing conditions combined with “wide agreement that the majority of extenders are special interest handouts, the pet political projects of a few influential members of Congress,” mean that “the wind PTC is not a sure bet for extension.” Bloomberg declares: “Wind power in the U.S. is on a respirator.” Mike Krancer, who previously served as secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, in an article in Roll Call, states: “Washington’s usual handout to keep the turbines spinning may be harder to win this time around.”

Despite the claim of “Loud support for the PTC” from North American Windpower (NAW), the report predicts “political resistance.” NAW points to letters from 144 members of Congress urging colleagues to “act quickly to revive the incentives.” Twenty-six Senate members signed the letter to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR), and 118 House members signed a similar letter to Speaker John Boehner (R-OH). However, of the 118, only six were Republicans—which, even if the PTC extension makes it out of the Senate, points to the difficulty of getting it extended in the Republican-controlled House.

Bloomberg cites AWEA as saying: “the Republican-led House of Representatives may not support efforts to extend the tax credits before the November campelection.” This supports the view stated in the report. House Ways & Means Committee Chairman David Camp (R-MI) held his first hearing on tax extenders on April 8. He only wants two of the 55 tax breaks continued: small business depreciation and the R & D tax credit. The report states: “Camp says that he will probably hold hearings on which extenders should be permanent through the spring and into the summer. He hasn’t said when he would do an extenders proposal himself, but our guess is that he will wait until after the fall elections. …We think the PTC is most endangered if Republicans win a Senate majority in the fall.”

So, even if the PTC survives the current Senate’s floor debate (Senator Pat Toomey [R-PA] offered an amendment that would have entirely done away with the PTC), it is only the “first step in a long journey” and, according to David Burton, a partner at law firm Akin Gump Hauer and Feld, is “unlikely on its own to create enough confidence to spur investment in the development of new projects.” Plus, the House will likely hold up its resurrection.

Not to mention the growing opposition to wind energy due to the slaughter of birds and bats—including the protected bald and golden eagles. Or, growing fears about health impacts, maintenance costs, and abandoned turbines.

All of these factors have likely led Jeffrey Immelt, chief executive officer of General Electric Co.—the biggest U.S. turbine supplier—to recently state: “We’re planning for a world that’s unsubsidized. Renewables have to find a way to get to the grid unsubsidized.”

Perhaps this time, the PTC is really dead, leaving smaller manufacturers desperately seeking subsidies.

About the Author: Marita Noon

Marita NoonThe author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy.

Literature and the Economics of Liberty: Spontaneous Order in Culture by Troy Camplin

/in , , , /by

Literary Theory: An Anthology (ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan) is one of the foremost anthologies of literary theory. Among its sections is one titled “Political Criticism: From Marxism to Cultural Materialism.” With the exception of Hegel, all the authors are Marxists. This is the entirety of economic analysis in literature: Marxism. At least, it was.

Now there is Literature and the Economics of Liberty: Spontaneous Order in Culture, which introduces Austrian economics to literary criticism. This anthology’s stated purpose—to “explore the possibility that forms of economic thinking sympathetic to capitalism may be able to illuminate our understanding of literature in new ways”—is not entirely without precedent, but Cantor and Cox’s book is distinct in its focus on one tradition of economic thought: Austrian economics.

In a pursuit as individualistic as writing, it may seem surprising that this is the first attempt to apply Austrian economics, with its methodological individualism, to literary production, while such anti-individualistic worldviews as Marxism have dominated. But if we understand that socialism is a top-down approach to economic organization, perhaps this is not so surprising. Authors engage in top-down organization whenever they write—so the application of this process to social processes seems, to many of them, logical. Even many experts in sociology or economics do not make the proper distinctions between top-down organizations and bottom-up orders, so why expect writers to do so?

The anthology authors’ use of methodological individualism does not mean they view the artist as an isolated genius. Their approach rather places writers in their historical-cultural contexts. Writers are influenced by the world they live in. There is feedback, which informs the writer and influences future works. The Austrian approach to economics views the individual as a social being, and so too the artist. It emphasizes the subjectivity of value, which Cantor observes should make it more attractive than the objective theory of Marxism, since literature is particularly focused on subjective experiences. Spontaneous-order theory helps us develop a better idea of how literary artists create works of art. From it we can develop a sociology of artistic production superior to what is possible through Marxist-informed theories.

Cantor devotes his introductory essay to “showing how . . . Hayek’s idea of spontaneous order can help to resolve one of the central dilemmas of literary theory, the conflict between the New Criticism and Deconstruction.” According to Cantor, New Criticism, one of the earliest literary theories developed in the twentieth century, argues that everything the author puts in his work is intentional and that the finished work is therefore “perfect.” In opposition to New Criticism, Cantor tells us, Deconstruction insists on the incoherence of literature and points out where authors have failed, left gaps, and conformed to their culture in various ways. That idea led to the corollary of the “death of the author,” that there was no such thing as an author who created exactly what he intended. With spontaneous-order theory, we can reject the idea of the author as being in perfect control of his work while also rejecting the death of the author and the lack of authorial intention to coordinate a large organization to achieve the goals he has set for it, sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing.

While this book brings to light the way literature is produced by viewing literary production as a spontaneous order, it also provides a different approach to understanding the ways economics and economies are portrayed in literature. It investigates the economic views of authors such as Shelley, Wells, and Dickens. Marxist approaches have emphasized how authors have criticized the market economy; celebrations of it are ignored. In one chapter Cantor analyzes Percy Bysshe Shelley’s essay A Philosophical View of Reform, in which he discusses the problems with national debt—which Cantor uses to support the argument that Shelley was, contrary to previous literary scholarship, not a socialist.

In Cantor’s chapter on Thomas Mann’s short story “Disorder and Early Sorrow,” he discusses the problems of Weimar German hyperinflation and how it resulted in a degradation of all values. The Austrian understanding of the effects of monetary policy and the emphasis on subjective-value theory allow us to better understand this story.

Classical liberalism is not just a belief in a certain kind of political economy; it has implications for all of society, including culture, literature, and the fine arts. Literary analysis has been dominated by leftist scholars, but this insightful book gives libertarian scholars, particularly those influenced by Austrian economics, a foot in the door.

ABOUT TROY CAMPLIN

Troy Camplin is an independent scholar and the author of Diaphysics.

EDITORS NOTE: The features photo is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock.

To Read Well, a Noble Exercise: In Defense of Thoreau and Walden by Sarah Skwire

/in , , /by

Gary North’s recent column on Thoreau’s Walden argues that Thoreau is a “literary scam artist” and that the book itself is a “masterpiece of fraud” that has been inflicted on countless students because of its political agenda. Perhaps in solidarity with those students, North’s column consists in large part of quotations from the Wikipedia page on Walden, followed by North’s responses. Throughout, North asserts that the Wikipedia page is a product of the “academic con-job known as literary criticism” and that it is “high-flying literary analysis.”

It would be, in other words, somewhat surprising if I (literary critic and frequent perpetrator of high-flying literary analysis) liked the piece. I don’t. I think North misreads Thoreau in almost every way possible.

North’s major arguments are as follows:

  1. Walden is anti-capitalist and pro-Green.
  2. Walden is a big fake.
  3. Walden is a badly written book that only has its reputation because it fits into the anti-capitalist/pro-Green agenda.

And all of these arguments are wrong.

But North is correct about one thing. He insists that he wants his readers to “read critically. Decide for yourself.” So, let us consider North’s arguments against Thoreau, read Thoreau critically, and then decide for ourselves. After all, Thoreau would want us to do the same.

To read well, that is, to read true books in a true spirit, is a noble exercise, and one that will tax the reader more than any exercise which the customs of the day esteem. It requires a training such as the athletes underwent, the steady intention almost of the whole life to this object. Books must be read as deliberately and reservedly as they were written.

Did Thoreau Hate Markets and Love Greens?

That Google gives me almost three million hits for a search on the terms “Thoreau” and “hipster” suggests, perhaps, some of what prompts North’s vitriol about what he sees as Walden’s anti-capitalist and pro-Green agenda. Thoreau’s image and writings have been used by the anti-market, anti-capitalist, and pro-Green crowd for generations. But Adam Smith’s writings have also been used to argue against markets. Hayek’s work has been accused of supporting fascism. The way that a writer’s work is used is not necessarily an accurate reflection of the work’s contents. For an accurate reflection, we need to, as Thoreau suggests, “read deliberately.”

We can begin, I think, by noting that Thoreau possesses a clear understanding of how markets work. Early on in Walden he recounts the story of a basket-seller he had observed in Concord.

Not long since, a strolling Indian went to sell baskets at the house of a well-known lawyer in my neighborhood. “Do you wish to buy any baskets?” he asked. “No, we do not want any,” was the reply. “What!” exclaimed the Indian as he went out the gate, “do you mean to starve us?” Having seen his industrious white neighbors so well off—that the lawyer had only to weave arguments, and, by some magic, wealth and standing followed—he had said to himself: I will go into business; I will weave baskets; it is a thing which I can do. Thinking that when he had made the baskets he would have done his part, and then it would be the white man’s to buy them. He had not discovered that it was necessary for him to make it worth the other’s while to buy them, or at least make him think that it was so, or to make something else which it would be worth his while to buy.

This is right out of any introductory economics or business textbook. It is not enough to have a product or a skill to sell. Someone must also want to buy it. Thoreau treats his writing the same way, and when he finds that he is not selling enough books to support himself in town through his writing, he moves out to the woods to weave his philosophical baskets and “avoid the necessity of selling them.” There is nothing wrong with the market here, and nothing wrong with being in business. But if you aren’t making a great success of yourself while pursuing your passion, you may need to choose between your passion and material success.

Indeed, much of Walden reminds an attentive reader of the classics of economics that are so important to friends of free markets. For example, there are echoes of Adam Smith’s concerns about possible problems with the division of labor in Thoreau’s question, “Where is this division of labor to end? and what object does it finally serve? No doubt another may also think for me; but it is not therefore desirable that he should do so to the exclusion of my thinking for myself.” And we can hear Adam Smith again, but also Addison and Steele’s Spectator, and Leonard Read’s I, Pencil, in Thoreau’s vision of peaceful commerce and the wonders of worldwide trade.

Commerce is unexpectedly confident and serene, alert, adventurous, and unwearied. It is very natural in its methods withal, far more so than many fantastic enterprises and sentimental experiments, and hence its singular success. I am refreshed and expanded when the freight train rattles past me, and I smell the stores which go dispensing their odors all the way from Long Wharf to Lake Champlain, reminding me of foreign parts, of coral reefs, and Indian oceans, and tropical climes, and the extent of the globe. I feel more like a citizen of the world at the sight of the palm-leaf which will cover so many flaxen New England heads the next summer, the Manilla hemp and cocoanut husks, the old junk, gunny bags, scrap iron, and rusty nails.

And with his praise of the bravery and stalwartness of the men who operate the railroads, Thoreau gives us as good a summation of McCloskey’s bourgeois virtues as one could hope to find.

What recommends commerce to me is its enterprise and bravery. It does not clasp its hands and pray to Jupiter. I see these men every day go about their business with more or less courage and content, doing more even than they suspect, and perchance better employed than they could have consciously devised . . . On this morning of the Great Snow, perchance, which is still raging and chilling men’s blood, I hear the muffled tone of their engine bell from out the fog bank of their chilled breath, which announces that the cars are coming, without long delay, notwithstanding the veto of a New England northeast snow-storm.

If this is anti-capitalism, let us have more of it.

As for the accusation that Walden is “pro-Green,” it is worth keeping in mind Thoreau’s enormous distrust and detestation of government and of political parties. This is, after all, the man who began his most famous essay by saying, “That government is best which governs not at all,” and who notes that government “does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way.” That he is used as a shill for a 21st-century political party would have horrified Thoreau, who said of similar co-optings, “If I had known how to name them, I should have signed off in detail from all the societies which I never signed on to; but I did not know where to find a complete list.”

But, perhaps without appreciating their political action, Thoreau’s convictions about nature and humanity align with Green objectives? Perhaps not. Thoreau loves and respects the natural world, and is a precise and detailed observer of it. That much is certainly true. And he probably does like most animals and trees more than he likes most humans. But while Greens tend to view human society as a carbuncle on the face of nature, Thoreau sees humans and their activities as an integrated part of the natural world that is equally worthy of observation. “As I walked in the woods to see the birds and squirrels, so I walked in the village to see the men and boys.”

And, as Thoreau’s fondness for railroads—honorably limited by his concerns for the poor working conditions of those who construct them—suggests, he is no despiser of modern technology. Indeed, in thinking about building his house, he points out,

Though we are not so degenerate but that we might possibly live in a cave or a wigwam or wear skins today, it certainly is better to accept the advantages, though so dearly bought, which the invention and industry of mankind offer. In such a neighborhood as this, boards and shingles, lime and bricks, are cheaper and more easily obtained than suitable caves, or whole logs, or bark in sufficient quantities, or even well-tempered clay or flat stones. I speak understandingly on this subject, for I have made myself acquainted with it both theoretically and practically. With a little more wit we might use these materials so as to become richer than the richest now are, and make our civilization a blessing.

If this is the Green agenda, I am in favor of it.

Is Walden a Fake?

Having disposed of—or at least brought up some serious challenges to—the notion that Walden is anti-capitalist and pro-Green, it becomes fairly easy to ignore the claim that, because of Thoreau’s personal history, the anti-capitalist and pro-Green message of Walden make it a big fake. As the book has no such message, it cannot be a fake. But spending a little time thinking about Thoreau’s character might not be a bad idea in the face of such accusations.

Everyone knows that Thoreau made pencils. It’s a coincidence that North makes much of, that Leonard Read’s great work in praise of the market, I Pencil, is an examination of precisely that industry. Thoreau, in fact, saved his family’s pencil-making business through a variety of innovative engineering solutions that made “Thoreau pencils” a hotly demanded item that won two awards from the Mechanic Association. Is it a betrayal of that market success that Thoreau, assured of his family’s financial stability, then used the financial freedom gained from his success in the market to go and live as he liked? I cannot think that it is.

Had Thoreau engaged in anti-market propaganda, it might have been. But we have seen that he did not. Had Thoreau encouraged all the other young men in Concord, or New England, or America, to walk away from commerce, it might have been. But Thoreau is explicitly uninterested in telling others how to live.

I would not have any one adopt my mode of living on any account; for, beside that before he has fairly learned it I may have found out another for myself, I desire that there may be as many different persons in the world as possible; but I would have each one be very careful to find out and pursue his own way, and not his father’s or his mother’s or his neighbor’s instead. The youth may build or plant or sail, only let him not be hindered from doing that which he tells me he would like to do.

Thoreau’s desire is to live as he likes, not to tell others that they must live as he likes.

So why, then, with his capacity for engineering and for business, does Thoreau head for the woods? First of all, he does it because he likes it. Second of all, he does it because he has a philosophical project in mind.

It would be some advantage to live a primitive and frontier life, even in the midst of an outward civilization, if only to learn what are the gross necessaries of life and what methods have been taken to obtain them; or even to look over the old day-books of the merchants, to see what it was that men most commonly bought at the stores, what they stored, that is, what are the grossest groceries. For the improvements of the ages have had but little influence on the essential laws of man’s existence: as our skeletons, probably, are not to be distinguished from those of our ancestors.

Thoreau wants to find out what the most basic requirements of human life are and to discover what humans are like when they strip away extraneous things. He also wants to write about it. And he wants to devote as much time to writing and thinking, and as little time to everything else, as he possibly can. So he heads to the woods.

Thoreau’s desire to focus on his writing goes a long way to explain his complicated feelings about solitude. Those who want to poke holes in Thoreau love to point out that his great experiment with solitude involved living only two miles from home, one mile from his nearest neighbor, and rather a lot of company. Thoreau doesn’t try to conceal any of that in Walden. Indeed, his chapter “Solitude” discusses all of these things, as well as his proximity to the railroad. But it’s not physical distance and solitude he is seeking. It is the ability “to be alone the greater part of the time” because “a man thinking or working is always alone, let him be where he is.” He wants to use solitude as an opportunity to focus his thinking and to work on his writing, but also as a tool to enhance his appreciation for company when he has it. “Society is commonly too cheap. We meet at very short intervals, not having had time to acquire any new value for each other.” Thoreau had three chairs in his cabin at Walden for the express purpose of having company. He never intended to be an hermit. Those who fault him because he wasn’t one misunderstand his project.

It is worth noting, as well, that one of the reasons Thoreau wanted to select his own society, then shut the door, is a moral one. He abhorred living in a society that tolerated slavery.

One afternoon, near the end of the first summer, when I went to the village to get a shoe from the cobbler’s, I was seized and put into jail, because, as I have elsewhere related, I did not pay a tax to, or recognize the authority of, the State which buys and sells men, women, and children, like cattle, at the door of its senate-house. I had gone down to the woods for other purposes. But, wherever a man goes, men will pursue and paw him with their dirty institutions, and, if they can, constrain him to belong to their desperate odd-fellow society.

The last moral accusation leveled by those who claim that Walden is a fake and Thoreau is a fraud is that Thoreau left Walden Pond and returned to Concord after a mere 26 months. Again, Thoreau makes no attempt to hide this fact. He mentions the length of his stay at Walden Pond in the first paragraph ofWalden. And he explains in the book’s conclusion that his departure is purposeful. “I left the wood for as good a reason as I went there. Perhaps it seemed to me that I had several more lives to live, and could not spare any more time for that one.” His project was done. He had finished writing A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers, drafted Walden, and was ready to move on to other things. This is not a failed project. It is a completed one.

If this is fakery, we can no longer recognize truth.

Is Walden a Badly Written Book That Only Has Its Reputation Because of Its Politics?

I have quoted extensively from Walden already and am confident that those quotations will serve as a rebuttal to accusations that Thoreau is a bad writer. Literary tastes can vary, and even the greatest of Thoreau’s admirers will agree that sometimes his transcendental raptures can be a bit hard to take. I think Thoreau is a brilliant writer. Not everyone agrees. That’s art for you.

More importantly, though, I think that we must consider the possibility that Walden has its reputation because many who teach it choose to ignore its politics, which are strongly libertarian and even anarchist. Consider, for example, Thoreau’s insistence that “a simple and independent mind does not toil at the bidding of any prince.” There is also his distrust of the “do-gooder busy-body:”

If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life, as from that dry and parching wind of the African deserts called the simoom, which fills the mouth and nose and ears and eyes with dust till you are suffocated, for fear that I should get some of his good done to me—some of its virus mingled with my blood. No—in this case I would rather suffer evil the natural way.

and his distrust of the efficacy of aid in general:

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root, and it may be that he who bestows the largest amount of time and money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve. It is the pious slave-breeder devoting the proceeds of every tenth slave to buy a Sunday’s liberty for the rest.

and his support of practical wisdom and financial responsibility:

Even the poor student studies and is taught only political economy, while that economy of living which is synonymous with philosophy is not even sincerely professed in our colleges. The consequence is, that while he is reading Adam Smith, Ricardo, and Say, he runs his father in debt irretrievably.

and his respect for the individual:

Individuals, like nations, must have suitable broad and natural boundaries, even a considerable neutral ground, between them.

If this is the politics that will give a book a lifespan of 160 years, with no sign of flagging yet, we should be celebrating. If Walden is being so badly taught, both by those who don’t like its politics and by those who should, that no one realizes how important it should be for lovers of liberty, then let us acknowledge that our problem is not Thoreau. It is us.

20121127_sarahskwireABOUT SARAH SKWIRE

Sarah Skwire is a fellow at Liberty Fund, Inc. She is a poet and author of the writing textbook Writing with a Thesis.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock.

US Taxpayers funding cronyism and loans to hostile nations

/in , , , /by

Kelsey Harris and Amy Payne from in their column Where Your Money Goes When This Bank Gets Ahold of It  note, “Recently, we talked about how your hard-earned money helps subsidize loans for people in other countries to buy from American companies. Our new info-graphic has more details on where your money is going.”

ExIm_Infographic_Final_640px

Liberty and Small Government in Tao te Ching by Luke Hankins

/in , /by

“When the Master governs,” wrote Lao Tzu, “the people/are hardly aware that he exists.” This passage, like many in the ancient Chinese wisdom poem Tao te Ching (pronounced dow deh jing), expresses the paradoxical view of passivity as the most effective political power:

If you want to be a great leader,
you must learn to follow the Tao.
Stop trying to control.
Let go of fixed plans and concepts,
and the world will govern itself.
The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have,
the less self-reliant people will be.
Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.

Tao means “way” or “path,” and Tao te Ching means something like “The Book of the Manifestation of the Way” or “The Book of the Virtue of the Way,” though English-language translators usually keep the Chinese title. The exact dates of Lao Tzu’s life and of the original composition of Tao te Ching are the subject of debate and speculation, but it is certain that the text dates to at least four centuries before the birth of Christ.

Tao te Ching is a central text in Taoism, and Taoist political philosophy tends to be more anarchic than Confucianism, the other major Chinese philosophical tradition. Tao te Ching views laissez-faire, small government, and non-intervention as political ideals in keeping with the Tao.

But what is this Tao, this “Way,” in the first place? Tao te Ching seems to argue against even attempting to define it:

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.
The unnamable is the eternally real.
[. . .]
Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.

Paradoxically, then, those who know the Way know that it is the way of unknowing. Lao Tzu writes, “The more you talk of [the Tao], the less you understand.” The Way, then, is a way of humility, of not presuming to understand.

Similarly, the Way of politics is a way of minimal action, of not presuming to be able to control what rightly lies outside of any person’s or government’s control:

When the government is too intrusive,
people lose their spirit.
Act for the people’s benefit.
Trust them; leave them alone.

Following is a selection of additional passages from Tao te Ching that express the ideals of liberty, small government, and non-intervention both eloquently and beautifully—a voice reaching across the millennia. While we should never make the mistake of reducing a complex and ancient philosophical tradition to a few concepts we find appealing, or simply reading selectively from the tradition, let these excerpts serve as a starting point for those who have yet to delve into the riches of Tao te Ching and Taoist philosophy.

If you don’t trust the people,
you make them untrustworthy.
The Master doesn’t talk, he acts.
When his work is done,
the people say, “Amazing:
we did it, all by ourselves!”
[.  . .]
Whoever relies on the Tao in governing men
doesn’t try to force issues
or defeat enemies by force of arms.
For every force there is a counterforce.
Violence, even well intentioned,
always rebounds upon oneself.
[. . .]
Weapons are the tools of fear;
a decent man will avoid them
except in the direst necessity
and, if compelled, will use them
only with the utmost restraint.
Peace is his highest value.
If the peace has been shattered,
how can he be content?
His enemies are not demons,
but human beings like himself.
He doesn’t wish them personal harm.
Nor does he rejoice in victory.
How could he rejoice in victory
and delight in the slaughter of men?
He enters a battle gravely,
with sorrow and with great compassion,
as if he were attending a funeral.
[. . .]
Governing a large country
is like frying a small fish.
You spoil it with too much poking.
[. . .]
If a nation is centered in the Tao,
if it nourishes its own people
and doesn’t meddle in the affairs of others,
it will be a light to all nations in the world.
[. . .]
When they lose their sense of awe,
people turn to religion.
When they no longer trust themselves,
they begin to depend upon authority.
Therefore the Master steps back
so that people won’t be confused.
He teaches without a teaching,
so that people will have nothing to learn.

All quotations from Tao te Ching are reprinted from Stephen Mitchell’s translation, ©1988 by Stephen Mitchell, published by HarperCollins.

ABOUT LUKE HANKINS

Luke Hankins is poetry editor at The Freeman. He is the author of a collection of poems, Weak Devotions, and the editor of Poems of Devotion: An Anthology of Recent Poets (both from Wipf & Stock).

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock.

Sneakerheads: Some teens are trading shoes and learning something in the process by Jason Kelly

/in , , /by

When you think about the ways most teenagers spend their free time, you probably think playing video games, going to the mall, and using Facebook. But if you look more closely, you will discover a lot of kids defying those stereotypes.

These kids are innovators. They take risks. And they aren’t just learning economics from a textbook.

The most recent manifestation of this comes from “sneakerheads”: Teenagers who trade basketball shoes. A recent New York Times article profiles the exploits of these hucksters who buy, sell, and trade limited, collectible sneakers at weekend conventions and over social media:

The teenage traders attending these conventions know the market, reciting resale values, the buzz of a hot trade and the debut dates for new pairs as easily as others can spit out baseball stats.

Some commentators disparage these kids’ activity as crass materialism and faddish speculation. And they’re not alone; their criticisms are not even new. Basketball sneakers have even been blamed for crime waves. But all of this critique misses the point of what sneakerheads are up to. Instead of depreciating the value of the shoes they receive by wearing them around or tucking them away in their closet, they’ve discovered an arbitrage opportunity that allows them to turn a profit. While the less observant scoff, these teenagers pick up market signals and act rationally to their own benefit. Smells like entrepreneurial spirit.

Indeed, they’ve created a marketplace independent from meddling adults and bureaucrats. In their own world, they experiment with different forms of trade and learn valuable lessons throughout the process. They hone their negotiating skills and practice bargaining techniques—because if they don’t, they lose profits.

They’re also learning the mutual benefits of trade. For example, if my favorite player is Lebron, but I received a pair of Michael Jordan shoes for Christmas, I’ll trade my pair to someone who prefers Michael Jordan. Because value is subjective, we’re both better off and, therefore, we are wealthier.

Even more fascinating is that in this world, money is not everything. When offered a staggering $98,000 for his autographed Kanye West sneakers, 18-year-old Jonathan Rodriguez turned it down, saying, “I know I could buy a house with this kind of money. But I’m a huge Kanye West fan. I can just work to get the money.”

Foolish? Maybe. But who are we to say? If Rodriguez values his one-of-a-kind sneaker more than the purchasing power of $98,000, more power to him. The choice is his alone. And who knows if that $98,000 represents the top of the market?

With each transaction, these teens are demonstrating that it doesn’t take a Harvard MBA or an insane programming ability to be entrepreneurial. They’re showing us that economics isn’t limited to the classroom or the boardroom. They’re showing us that looking out the window, as Peter Boettke reminds us, and viewing the world in motion are how we really start to understand the economic way of thinking.

ABOUT JASON KELLY

Jason Kelly is a graduate of Hillsdale College and the Web and Social Media Associate at FEE.

Beyond Nationalism and Territorialism (1851) by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

/in , , , /by

Editor’s Note: Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, considered the father of anarchism, might also fairly be considered a founder of the libertarian left. Readers of this publication will find much to disagree with in Proudhon’s work, especially when it comes to his famous line: “Property is theft.”

The institution of private property, far from being a source of subjugation, has undoubtedly been a liberating force for humanity. Indeed, that private property is a precondition of trade also makes it a source of global prosperity. On the whole, private property is indispensable.

But, dear reader, what if we were to read Proudhon’s short piece not with his anti-propertarian lens, but with our own understanding of private property as a force for decentralization and growth? How then might we interpret this work?

By applying the economic way of thinking, we might come to agree with Proudhon that an economic revolution is possible, perhaps even inevitable. Indeed, Proudon seems to forecast globalization. But will globalization—accelerated by more cosmopolitan relationships online—start to erase national boundaries? We’ll have to wait and see. But Proudon’s thesis is provocative, even if it’s over 160 years old.

Nationality, aroused by the state, opposes an invincible resistance to economic unity: this explains why monarchy was never able to become universal. Universal monarchy is, in politics, what squaring the circle or perpetual motion are in mathematics, a contradiction. A nation can put up with a government as long as its economic forces are unorganized, and as long as the government is its own, the nationalism of the power causing an illusion as to the validity of the principle; the government maintains itself through an interminable succession of monarchies, aristocracies and democracies. But if the power is external, the nation feels it as an insult: revolt is in every heart, it cannot last.

What no monarchy, not even that of the Roman emperors has been able to accomplish; what Christianity, that epitome of the ancient faiths has been unable to produce, the universal Republic, the economic Revolution will accomplish, cannot fail to accomplish.

It is indeed with political economy as with other sciences: it is inevitably the same throughout the world: it does not depend upon the fancies of men or nations; it yields to the caprice of none. There is not a Russian, English, Austrian, Tartar, or Hindu political economy, any more than there is a Hungarian, German or American physics or geometry. Truth alone is equal everywhere: science is the unity of mankind.

If then science, and no longer religion or authority, is taken in every land as the rule of society, the sovereign arbiter of interests, government being void, all the legislation of the universe will be in harmony. There will no longer be nationality, no longer fatherland, in the political sense of the words: they will mean only places of birth. Man, of whatever race or colour he may be, is an inhabitant of the universe; citizenship is everywhere an acquired right. As in a limited territory the municipality represents the Republic, and wields the authority, each nation in the globe represents humanity, and acts for it within the boundaries assigned by Nature. Harmony reigns, without diplomacy and without council, among the nations: nothing henceforward can disturb it.

What purpose could there be for entering into diplomatic relations among nations who had adopted the revolutionary programme?

No more governments,

No more conquests,

No more custom houses,

No more international police,

No more commercial privileges,

No more colonial exclusions

No more control of one people by another, one state by another

No more strategic lines,

No more fortresses.

Russia wants to establish herself at Constantinople, as she is established at Warsaw: that is to say, she wants to include the Bosporus and the Caucasus in her sphere. In the first place, the Revolution will not permit it; and to make sure, it will begin by revolutionising Poland, Turkey, and all it can of Russian provinces, until it reaches St. Petersburg. That done, what becomes of the Russian relations at Constantinople and Warsaw? They will be the same as at Berlin and Paris, relations of free and equal exchange. What becomes of Russia itself? It becomes an agglomeration of free and independent nationalities, united only by identity of language, resemblance of occupations, and territorial setting. Under such conditions conquest is meaningless. If Constantinople belonged to Russia, once Russia was revolutionized Constantinople would belong to it neither more nor less than if it had never lost its sovereignty. The Eastern question from the North ceases to exist.

England wants to hold Egypt as she holds Malta, Corfu, Gibraltar, etc. The same answer from the Revolution. It notifies England to refrain from any attempt upon Egypt, to place a limit upon her encroachment and monopoly, and to make sure, it invites her to evacuate the islands and fortresses whence she threatens the liberty of nations and of the seas. It would be truly a strange misconception of the nature and scope of the Revolution to imagine that it would leave Australia and India as the exclusive property of England, as well as bastions with which she hems in the commerce of the continent. The mere presence of the English in Jersey and Guernsey is an insult to France; as their exploitation of Ireland and Portugal is an insult to Europe; as their possession of India and their commerce with China is an outrage upon humanity. Albion, like the rest of the world, must be revolutionized. If necessary to force her, there are people here who would not find it so hard a task. The Revolution completed in London, British privilege extirpated, burnt, thrown to the winds, what would the possession of Egypt mean to England? No more than that of Algiers is to us. All the world could enter, depart, trade at will, arrange for the working of the agricultural, mineral, and industrial resources, the advantages would be the same for all nations. The local power would extend only to the cost of its politics, which the colonists and natives would defray.

There are still among us chauvinists who maintain absolutely that France must recapture her natural frontiers. They ask too much or too little. France is everywhere that her language is spoken, her revolution followed, her manners, her arts, her literature adopted, as well as her measures and her money. Counting thus, almost the whole of Belgium, and the cantons of Neuchâtel, Vaud, Geneva, Savoy, and a part of Piedmont belong to her; but she must lose Alsace, perhaps even a part of Provence, Gascony and Britanny whose inhabitants do not speak French, and some of them have always been of the kings’ and priests’ party against the revolution. But of what are these repetitions? It was the mania for annexation which, under the Convention and the Directory, aroused the distrust of other nations against the Republic, and which, giving us a taste for Bonaparte, brought us to our finish at Waterloo. Revolutionize, I tell you. Your frontiers will always be long enough and French enough if they are revolutionary.

Will Germany be an Empire, a unitary Republic, or a Confederation? This famous problem of Germanic unity which made so much noise some years ago, has no meaning in the face of the Revolution; which proves indeed that there has never been a Revolution. What are the states, in Germany as elsewhere? Tyrannies of different degrees of importance, based on the invariable pretexts, first, of protecting the nobility and upper classes against the lower classes; second, of maintaining the independence of local sovereignty. Against these states the German democracy has always been powerless, and why? Because it moved in the sphere of political rights. Organize the economic forces of Germany, and immediately political circles, electorates, principalities, kingdoms, empires, all are effaces, even the Tariff League: German unity springs out of the abolition of its states. What the ancient Germany needs is not a confederation but a liquidation.

Understand once for all: the most characteristic, the most decisive result of the Revolution is, after having organized labour and property, to do away with political centralization, in a word with the state, and as a consequence to put an end to diplomatic relations among nations, as soon as they subscribe to the revolutionary compact. Any return to the traditions of politics, any anxiety as to the balance of power in Europe, is based on the pretext of nationality and of the independence of states, any proposition to form alliances, to recognize sovereignties, to restore provinces, to change frontiers, would betray, in the organs of the movement, the most complete failure to understand the needs of the age, scorn of social reform, and a predilection for counter-revolution.

The kings may sharpen their swords for their last campaign. The Revolution in the nineteenth century has for its supreme task not so much the overthrow of their dynasties, as the destruction of the last root of their institution. Born as they are to war, educated to war, supported by war, domestic and foreign, of what use can they be in a society of labour and peace? Henceforth there can be no more purpose in war than in refusal to disarm. Universal brotherhood being established upon a sure foundation, there is nothing for the representatives of despotism to do but to take their leave. How is it that they do not see that this always increasing difficulty of existence, which they have experienced since Waterloo, arises, not as they have been made to think, from the Jacobin ideas, which since the fall of Napoleon have again begun to beset the middle classes, but from a subterranean working which has gone on throughout Europe, unknown to statesmen, and which, while developing beyond measure the latent forces of civilization, has made the organization of those forces a social necessity, an inevitable need of revolution?

As for those who, after the departure of kings, still dream of consulates, of presidencies, of dictatorships, of marshalships, of admiralties, and of ambassadorships, they also will do well to retire. The Revolution, having no need for their services, can dispense with their talents. The people no longer want this coin of monarchy: they understand that, whatever phraseology is used, feudal system, governmental system, military system, parliamentary system, system of police, laws and tribunals, and system of exploitation, corruption, lying and poverty, all are synonymous. Finally they know that in doing away with rent and interest, the last remnants of the old slavery, the Revolution, at one blow, does away with the sword of the executioner, the blade of justice, the club of the policeman, the gauge of the custom officer, the erasing knife of the bureaucrat, all those insignia of government which young Liberty grinds beneath her heel.

ABOUT PIERRE-JOSEPH PROUDHON

Voice & Exit 2014: Join us to celebrate “human flourishing”

/in , , , , /by

Are you done with rubber chickens, cold hotels, and boring panels? FEE is a proud sponsor Voice & Exit 2014.

The event, to be held on June 21, 2014, in Austin, Texas, allows guests to explore ideas of “human flourishing.” Themes include:

  • Radical innovation
  • Opt-out culture
  • Entrepreneurship
  • Disruptive technology
  • Biohacking and personal optimization
  • Communities of the future (seasteading and startup cities)

Get tickets and make plans now to attend Voice & Exit 2014. Join FEE in celebrating ideas that could take us to the next stage of freedom, life meaning, and human well-being.

Use promo code “freedom” for a 10 percent discount. Student tickets are just $50.