A little while back, I argued that the current crisis was not, by any means, the end of libertarianism, and that anyone who says so misunderstands libertarianism both in terms of its practical consequences and in terms of its theoretical basis. What I mean by this is, in the first case, that libertarianism doesn't condone the policies that led to the current crisis and, in the second case, that libertarianism is a deontological theory of political morality, not a theory of political 'utility'. That last claim perhaps needs a translation for non-philosophers: libertarianism is a theory of which things the state should and should not do, and it claims that such actions of the state are right or wrong in and of themselves regardless of their consequences.
William Black of Cato Unbound recently argued that classical laissez-faire economic policy, if it is understood properly, is going to require precisely the sort of regulation that the Bush administration had been dismantling, leading to the current crisis (HT: pferree, via email). As Black puts it, "when you don’t regulate financial activities you de facto decriminalize control fraud because the regulators are the 'cops on the beat.'” In other words, given our current political situation, deregulation (or, as Black prefers to call it, 'desupervision') amounts to decriminalization of fraud, because there is no one else around to enforce laws against fraud besides the regulators. Now, the FBI could theoretically have opened fraud investigations long ago, and it's my opinion that they should have, but that's beside the point. The point I want to make is, rather, that a degree of legislation/regulation is not only permitted but required as part of the libertarian state's mission to protect its citizens from force or fraud.
To see why, consider the definition of fraud. My dictionary says "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain." So what the libertarian state is trying to prevent (or, failing that, to punish) on behalf of its citizens is the use of deception to violate someone's person or property. What is deception? To a first approximation, we can say that 'deception' occurs where one person acts in such a way as to bring about false beliefs in another (we will, for the moment, ignore the question of whether such acts have to be intentional to count as deceit or fraud). So when you defraud someone what you are doing is bringing it about that that person has false beliefs and using these false beliefs for your gain at that person's expense.
Suppose I own a certain building, and I put a sign up on the front of the building saying 'Kenny's Restaurant'. Seeing my sign, you come in. I hand you a piece of paper that says 'menu' at the top, and has a lot of nonsense words written below it, with a price for each one. Now suppose, seeing this menu and being an adventurous eater, you order a 'zubast' (thinking it is some kind of foreign food) and pay me $10 in advance. I bring you a rock. You ask for your money back and I refuse.
This is a case of fraud. But why? The word 'zubast' is a word I made up, and I (let us suppose) intended it to mean 'a medium sized rock.' You paid for a zubast without knowing what it was. So I'm not to blame, am I?
The problem lies in the fact that I posted a sign saying 'restaurant' over my door, which means that I am implicitly representing to you that what I am serving inside is food fit for human consumption. (I didn't use the case of food that makes you sick or kills you because such a case shows how fluid the boundary between force and fraud is, and thus complicates the discussion.) Now, the libertarian state is supposed to prevent fraud, which means it must enforce agreements. You handed me $10 in exchange for a zubast. If I took the money and ran, that would be another type of fraud. I have to fulfill the obligations of our implicit agreement. But in order for the libertarian state to be able to enforce agreements it has to be able to interpret them, and this is what courts are for. The court will need to be able to decide both (1) whether any agreement exists between us, and (2) what the contents of that agreement are. So the court will adjudicate between us and rule in your favor that because of my restaurant sign I had (fraudulently) led you to believe that a zubast was a type of food.
But suppose I want to sell zubasts (medium sized rocks) and other people want to buy them. The libertarian state mustn't prevent us from making this sort of agreement. That means that I need to know how to make a non-fraudulent representation as to what it is I'm selling. Other people likewise need to know what my representation means. That is, we need to be able to make the agreement we are trying to make. So now that the court has ruled in your favor, I know that if I tell anyone my establishment is a restaurant that's deception. The court has made a legal definition of what implicit representations are involved in the claim that an establishment is a restaurant. This, of course, only works in a 'common law' system, but this strikes me as a powerful reason why common law systems are good: predictability is essential to good jurisprudence.
But there is a problem with this: the exact same story could happen with no fraud involved. In fact, you could be using the court as an instrument to defraud me! How? Well, suppose that you and I both speak a peculiar dialect of English in which 'restaurant' means 'a place for buying and eating prepared food, and also for buying rocks,' but the judges speak normal English. Further suppose that the context on the menu makes it plain to anyone in our dialect that a 'zubast' is a type of rock. Then we have actually formed an agreement whereby you give me $10 and I give you a rock, and you are now trying to get your $10 back through the courts. You know the courts will see it in a way that advantages you, since you know that they speak a different dialect than we do, and are using this fact to your advantage to defraud me of my $10.
If all of these sorts of definitions were made by common law, then it would be extremely common for things like this to occur: lacking legal definitions, two people could make an agreement only to have one party successfully get out of it by misinterpreting it in court. On the other hand, two people could also non-culpably form an agreement - even a written contract - where there is no common understanding between them as to its meaning. These cases can never be entirely prevented, but there is a way of mitigating them: by legislative and regulatory bodies creating legal definitions of words before such cases arise. So it is perfectly reasonable for Congress to create a law defining what implicit representations are made when something is called 'food', or from them to delegate the power of such definitions to agencies like the FDA.
There are, however, two libertarian concerns about this picture: (1) what if this power was used to make it impossible to make certain sorts of agreements, in Orwellian fashion? (For instance, what if 'food' is defined as 'items approved for human consumption by the FDA' and the government deems that any time you sell something that looks like a carrot you implicitly represent that it is food? Then we have a case much like the current situation, which libertarians abhor, where individuals are not permitted to buy and sell non-FDA-approved carrots, even if both parties give informed consent.) (2) What if the government defines the terms in question in ways radically different from normal English so that the law becomes an instrument of fraud by those familiar with the law against those who are unfamiliar? (For instance, what if the government defines 'food' to mean poison and I know that you don't know this so I sell you some 'food' and thereby make a profit and kill you? Then you end up forming an agreement radically different from the one you intended to form, to your great detriment.)
Because of these concerns it is necessary to place additional restrictions on this power besides the obvious restriction against applying such definitions ex post facto to agreements made with other definitions in mind. There is one way of dealing with the first problem which is fairly obvious (to me): simply permit people to state, at the beginning of their contract, that they intend to use a different set of definitions than the one set up by the government. If both parties agree to use a different set of definitions, then the court will have to use those in interpreting the contract. (Of course, the words used in the definitions will have to be interpreted either according to normal English or, if they have legal definitions, according to those definitions, so this won't halt a thorough-going Orwellian language reform, but it makes it more difficult.) The second problem will, it seems to me, have to simply be a constitutional principle: courts will have to overrule legislation or regulation which does violence to the plain meanings of words.
This first line of legislation/regulation had to do with the interpretation of agreements. I previously said, however, that the state would also have to make determinations about the existence of agreements. This will lead, for similar reasons, to the development of legislation/regulation regarding standards of consent. Libertarians insist that the government must allow consenting (legally competent) adults to agree to anything which does not violate the rights of non-consenting parties. But that doesn't mean that standards of consent must be uniform across all agreements. In fact, it seems to me that they shouldn't be. For instance, in current US law, there are some things minors can consent to on their own (e.g. paying cash for an ice cream cone), some things minors can consent to if their parents also consent and/or supervise (e.g. seeing an R-rated movie), and some things a minor cannot consent to under any circumstances (e.g. sex with an adult). Likewise, it seems reasonable for adults that different standards of consent should apply to different activities. For instance, it is currently the case in some states that some sort of counseling is required in order to consent to elective medical procedures, especially those that have serious risks associated with them, but there are other things for which verbal, or even implicit, consent is sufficient.
This, it seems to me, is perfectly reasonable. However, the government's power must again be limited so that they cannot set the standards of consent so high as to make consent to certain agreements impossible, either de iure or de facto.
To summarize, the libertarian state has the power to legislate and regulate (1) the interpretation of agreements, and (2) the conditions for consent to agreements. These powers are necessary for it to be able to achieve its purpose of preventing fraud against its citizens. However, these powers must not be exercised in such a way as to prevent consenting (legally competent) adults from entering into agreements which do not implicate the rights of others.
"The blessed Polycarp bore witness [i.e. was martyred] ... He was arrested by Herod while Philip of Tralles was high priest and Statius Quadratus was proconsul, but Jesus Christ - to whom be glory, honor, majesty and an eternal throne from generation to generation - was reigning as king forever. Amen."
- The Martyrdom of Polycarp, ch. 21, my translation, based on Ehrman's)
There are some issues that I always hesitate to talk or write about on account of the fact that it seems to me that most of the discussion on the issue - regardless of which side it's coming from - is, well, stupid. Evolution (in the context of either (1) theology, or (2) public education) is one of those issues. Another is gay marriage. Nevertheless, since, now that I'm a Californian, I have to decide how to vote in two weeks, I suppose I had better wade in.
When the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing gay marriage, it did so on essentially two grounds: recognition of a 'right to marry,' allegedly implicit in the state constitution (the constitution having previously been read in this way during disputes over interracial marriage many years ago), and 'equal protection' issues. The former, we learn on p. 16 of the decision, is "protected by the due process and privacy provisions of the California Constitution," along with the equal protection clause. The latter has to do with article 1's guarantee that "A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws" and the US Constitution's 14th amendment which says that no state may "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
As a libertarian, I have a very specific view of 'rights' and of 'property' and it irks me when people assert that this or that is an issue of 'rights' or of 'property' without being clear on why we should think this (or on what the alleged 'right' or 'property' is), like San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's claim that wireless internet is "a civil rights issue", or the claims of 'intellectual property' proponents. Now, I realize that the majority of people don't believe that there are such things as rights or, especially, property in the exact sense in which libertarians define these terms, but we should be able to weaken our concepts in such a way as to make them more broadly applicable. We will say that you have a 'right' to do something just in case it is always (or, to allow for non-libertarians, nearly always) morally abhorrent for anyone, especially the government, to interfere by force with your attempt to do it. I will use the term 'absolute right' when I want to exclude the 'nearly' that I have allowed for inclusivity. I may occasionally use the term 'positive right'. You have a positive right to a thing just in case it is morally abhorrent that you should fail to have it done for you (presumably someone other than you is the guilty one). I won't talk about this much because it's nonsense. Something is your property just in case you and you alone have the authority to decide what is done with it. Libertarians, of course, believe that you have an absolute right to your property, but the definition of property just given doesn't require that. (Someone might suppose that there are circumstances in which it is ok to take property away - imminent domain, for instance.)
Now, the question is, what rights are at stake here? The court says there is a 'right to marriage'. Clearly this isn't a positive right. If it was, then I suppose the government would have an obligation to make sure you can find a spouse. So this must mean that the government cannot interfere with two adults who want to get married to each other. That sounds good, right?
But the question is, what does 'married' mean? And this is all that is at stake in prop. 8, as I will further explain below. Before we get there, however, it seems that there are some important rights you have, which derive from self-ownership and/or freedom of contract and/or property rights, which are traditionally associated with marriage:
Now, the exercise of all these rights is rather complex. In my view, the state has made it far too complex. However, in order to simplify the situation, the state has instituted certain 'defaults' which apply to couples who are joined by civil marriage. Lauren and I were recently married in the state of Pennsylvania. We don't happen to agree with the conditions for dissolution which nearly every state specifies (specifically: we don't believe in 'no fault' divorce), but we didn't bother to write an agreement adjusting the terms, because it's a hassle. We're agreed among ourselves, and didn't think we needed the state to enforce that.
My point in bringing that up is not to highlight how socially conservative I am, nor is it to argue for the elimination of 'no fault' divorce from the law. Rather, my purpose is to point out that already 'civil marriage' is, to a large degree, a one-size-fits-all institution and the current definition is already out of line with my religious beliefs about the definition of marriage, and with my personal preferences, but it's such a hassle to fight it, and religious marriage is so much more important to me, that I didn't bother.
The claim I am building to is that I actually believe all people, including gays, ought to have far more freedom than they do now in exercising the rights listed above.
However, this is not what proposition 8 is about, nor is it what the court decision was about. The court decision doesn't grant any rights to homosexual couples that they didn't have before, other than the right to have their union called marriage by the state. (Hmm... I just noticed - this is actually a positive right: proponents of the decision are claiming that their rights are violated if the state doesn't apply the term 'marriage' to their agreement!) What does this amount to? The court decision again and again talks about the respect and dignity accorded to the institution of marriage. But all the same respect and dignity is already accorded officially by the state to domestic partnerships. They have all the same rights and privileges and obligations as far as the state is concerned. So what are the justices talking about? It seems to me (and yes, I did read the whole majority opinion) that the justices want, by this change in nomenclature, to erase the cultural or popular distinction made between committed heterosexual and homosexual couples. The are trying to engage in some cultural engineering. (Isn't that what the right is always accused of?) Where does the court get off trying to do this? This type of behavior implicates freedom of religion (to which the court gives a brief nod on p. 117) and of conscience.
Why don't you have a right to gay marriage? In my opinion (and this also seems to be the opinion of Justice Baxter in his dissent), it is for the same reason you don't have a right to a round square.
When I first heard of proposition 8, I was torn about it, because I would not want to interfere with any of the legitimate rights listed above, but, at the same time, I wouldn't want the state's definition of marriage to get any worse than it already is. Now that I have studied the issues, I see that both sides agree that we are fighting about a name. It is already the case that everyone has the same substantive (negative) rights. I would strongly prefer that the state not define marriage at all, but given the way this measure is written, it seems clear to me that I must support it.
I also want to say that the proponents of the measure are not so out-to-lunch as many suppose in their claims that this will affect public school children. It already has (HT: GetReligion). Furthermore, it's difficult to see how the definition of marriage could be irrelevant to how sex ed. is taught. In fact, if it was - that is, if the school system talked about sex without ever once mentioning marriage -, I'd be worried. I realize that, as the superintendent of public instruction has noted, the statewide education requirements don't require talk about marriage, but treating the two topics as totally unrelated strikes me as extremely disturbing. I don't mean to say that it should be required, but only that if we are having a healthy discussion about sexual behaviors (and 'behaviors' are certainly included in 'comprehensive' curricula, like California's), it ought to come up one way or another. The ability to opt out doesn't seem to me to be a sufficient remedy (which, I suppose is one of the reasons I oppose socialized education). The state still presents a particular view as the normative one, and other views are treated as divergent. By striking marriage from the law entirely and allowing people to exercise the rights I mentioned above at will (in some sufficiently simple fashion), the state could take a truly neutral position. Neutrality is not what is happening here. What is happening is that the state takes a particular view of the definition of marriage, and no matter what that view is, it will amount to the state claiming that some particular moral or religious view is false.
For more context on my thought on the matter, see my previous discussion of Christianity and homosexuality.
I'm still on the newsletter of the Penn Libertarian Association, which has pointed me to an article on Slate entitled "The End of Libertarianism". Author Jacob Weisberg believes the current US financial collapse proves that libertarianism is not viable in the same way that the fall of the USSR proved that Communism is not viable. I offer two brief practical responses and one theoretical response.
Firstly, without any government involvement, it is unlikely that any of this would have happened. (I am not an economist, so correct me if my facts are wrong on this first point.) For one thing, bad loans were thought 'safe' in part because of the involvement of Freddy and Fanny. For another, a government agency rates the quality of the derivatives, and rated the mortgage-backed securities as 'safe', so everyone bought them. Everyone can, I hope, agree that this latter should not have occurred.
Secondly, libertarians do not unequivocally oppose all government intervention in anything. Libertarians believe that government has a very specific purpose: the prevention - and, failing that, the punishment - of acts of force or fraud against its citizens. According to some of the early news reports, Alan Greenspan was alerted years ago to shady dealings related to subprime mortgages and said there was nothing the Fed could do about it. What he should have done was turn it over to the FBI, and they should have prosecuted these cases aggressively. There was all kinds of secrecy and dishonesty involved in the circumstances leading up to this situation, and none of it should have been permitted. This would have been the right kind of government involvement. Now, the government has failed, and some people are homeless because of it. I'm not opposed to the government setting up some sort of expedited process to help people keep their homes if there is a credible accusation of fraud, and then trying to recover its losses by suing whoever needs to be sued. This seems to me to be a reasonable way of dealing with some (not all) of the problems we are dealing with.
Finally, on a more theoretical note, Weisberg doesn't understand what libertarianism is. Libertarianism is not a theory of how to create the wealthiest or happiest society. It is not a theory of what kind of government people 'like' or what kind of government benefits whom. Libertarianism is a theory of the moral permissibility of the use of coercive force. (Or, perhaps more accurately, to make it easier to draw my distinction between public and private morality, it is a theory of the impermissibility of coercive force.) Libertarianism, furthermore, is radically deontological - that is, it claims that certain actions are right in and of themselves, and other actions are wrong in and of themselves, without regard for consequences. Libertarianism is the Kindergarten ethic: it's wrong to take other people's things. To this extent perhaps Weisberg is right in calling libertarians "intellectually immature" - we never learned to rationalize away the moral principles we learned in Kindergarten. Perhaps everyone else has come up with rationales for theft and coercion ("it's ok if the majority bands together and uses the power of government to do it"), but we haven't. As such, no matter what the practical consequences of libertarianism may be, these are not objections. Perhaps people who behave at even the minimum standard of public morality will be impoverished. Such is life in a world like ours. But at least they'll be doing the right thing.
Empirical claims are not normative claims. Normative claims are not empirical claims. I would like to see our nation continue in its material prosperity. I would also like to stop drug use. For that matter, I would like everyone in the world to be a practicing Christian. But I will absolutely not cooperate in the use of force to achieve any of these ends. Period. So some smart economists can tell us what is the best way to achieve material prosperity (I couldn't possibly answer that question), but this will not answer the question what should we do. Is the financial crisis the end of libertarianism? Not a chance.
Lex Americanorum, the King of America, passed away this afternoon on the Senate floor. Lex had been ill for some years and White House-ologists in Moscow have long suspected that one or more cabinet members had in fact taken responsibility for most major decisions. The exact identity of this person had not been firmly established, but most experts agree that it is Vice President Dick Cheney.
Lex was born on September 17, 1787 and became king shortly thereafter upon election by representatives of the 13 American colonies. Lex was able to survive and maintain power for nearly 221 years, despite numerous attempted coups such as those by Presidents Andrew Jackson and Richard Nixon.
Lex is succeeded as King of America by former President George W. Bush, who will henceforth be known by the title Tyrant George I. Most White House-ologists expect former Vice President Dick Cheney, who will now be known by the title Vice Regent, to continue to be "the Decider" - the term used by White House insiders for the individual with ultimate decision-making responsibility. A sizable minority of experts think that the Decider will continue to be - and always has been - former Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, although he holds no formal position in the administration. Some White House-ologists suspect that his resignation was a ploy to distract attention from his actual governing actions.
Lex's illness and inability to govern had been noticed some time ago by White House-ologists who noted that his orders were disregarded by members of his government with increasing frequency. Although there were occasional attempts to prosecute those who disobeyed his edicts, these attempts were generally abortive, and none resulted in substantial punishments.
The circumstances of Lex's death are not entirely clear. Although he had been ill for some time, some suspect foul play, possibly at the hands of Tyrant George and his followers. Even prior to the panic of September 11, 2001, the Tyrant had been seeking to overthrow Lex's rule. Nevertheless, most experts agree that it is unlikely that Tyrant George will permit a truly independent investigation. The legislature has ordered such an investigation, but observers expect Tyrant George to be successful in significantly influencing the outcome.
Lex is survived by his wife, Libertas, and his brother Iudicia Libera. Mrs. Americanorum continues to be hospitalized and in critical condition after receiving a blow to the head when she and her husband were attacked by a panicked mob of legislators and government officials in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Doctors familiar with the case said that even if Mrs. Americanorum is successfully revived, she is not expected to survive the shock of her husband's death.
Allies of the Lex dynasty, including The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Congressman Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty, have vowed to fight to place a member of the dynasty on the throne again as quickly as possible.
Overturning the district court and the Ninth Circuit rulings, the US Supreme Court has upheld Washington's modified blanket primary! According to the Seattle Times (HT: Scotus Blog), the political parties are "fuming". Good.
I hope to write a detailed analysis of the opinions, and my opinion of them, after Easter, but for now, here is a brief summary of the three opinions filed:
Video and transcript of Obama's big race speech, delivered in Philadelphia today (no, I wasn't there) is now available from the campaign web-site. I haven't taken time to watch the whole speech, but I read the transcript and watched the highlights that Richard Chapell posted on his blog. His speechwriters deserve to be commended. (I have this foolish hope that perhaps he wrote it himself, but this is not the norm in modern American politics.) It is a fine example of rhetoric in the good sense: the skillful presentation of actual substantive content in a moving and inspirational way. Furthermore, it shows Obama's ability to relate to a wide spectrum of the American electorate. He also deals head-on in a very intelligent and balanced way with Rev. Wright's offensive racist remarks, while explaining why he nevertheless maintains his connection to that church.
In the video, Obama's presentation of the text is quite competent, although after reading the transcript I had hoped for better rhetorical skills on his part. Still I think he pulled it off better than most modern politicians could. The sound-bite culture has all but destroyed the art of rhetoric and, as Richard points out, it is not clear whether this speech, though truly excellent, will actually positively effect the electorate, since no one has the patience to sit through all forty minutes of it.
On the downside, however, Obama merely shows understanding of our problems, not real solutions. Furthermore, of course, I personally happen to disagree with nearly all of his policy positions. However, after watching this speech, my overall respect for him and my estimation of the effect he will have on the next few decades have greatly increased. I recommend that everyone read or watch what he has to say.
The most recent Electronic Frontier Foundation newsletter contains a couple of links on telecom immunity which allude to an argument against telecom immunity that I want to expand upon.
Many people think that the basic principle of democracy or of a free society more generally is "majority rule" or some such. However, this is not historically how the matter has been viewed, and history in fact furnishes plenty of cases in which majority rule has not been particularly consistent with freedom. Classic liberals - the early modern thinkers who gave us the foundations of western democracy - had a different view that comes out of the classical tradition. The fundamental principle of a free society, according to this tradition, is summed up in the Greek slogan isonomia or the related Latin slogan "lex est rex." The former is traditionally translated "equal justice under law" and in this form it is inscribed on the US Supreme Court building. It might be better translated by the more generic phrase "legal equality." The latter is translated "the law is king." Although this slogan is usually given in Latin, it too originates in the Greek tradition, in the following famous passage from Herodotus, in which the deposed Spartan king Demaratus tells King Xerxes of Persia why the Spartans fight so fiercely:
[The Spartans] are the equal of any men when they fight alone; fighting together they surpass all other men. For they are free, but not entirely free: They obey a master called Law, and they fear this master much more than your men fear you. They do whatever it commands them to do, and its commands are always the same: Not to retreat from the battlefield even when badly outnumbered; to stay in formation and either conquer or die. (Histories 7.104; from Samuel Shirley, tr., Herodotus: On the War For Greek Freedom)
So what is the problem with telecom immunity? The moment "Michael Mukasey said it was ok" becomes a valid defense in a civil lawsuit or criminal prosecution, the law is no longer king: Michael Mukasey is. None of us want that.
After Ron Paul's response to racism charges and my analysis of the situation as sleaze rather than racism, I am now prepared to somewhat hesitantly re-endorse Ron Paul for president. There are two reasons for this: process of elimination, and some additional information on the racism charges. First, the process of elimination:
I declare that I am a member of the Republican Party and I have not participated
and will not participate in the 2008 precinct caucus or convention system of any other party.
Curioser and curioser...
Reason is a libertarian magazine of long standing. They now have an article up speculating on the origin of the infamous Ron Paul newsletters. I think Reason's explanation makes a lot of sense of the situation. They note that many veterans of the libertarian movement suspect Lew Rockwell was involved. Though Rockwell denies writing the articles, Reason brings up some interesting points about the history of Rockwell and another individual by the name of Murray Rothbard. The name Jeff Tucker also came up in association with the newsletters.
This is the general picture: these people, Rockwell, Rothbard, and Tucker, apparently were quite explicit in advocating that the only way the libertarian movement would ever get anywhere was to form a broad coalition which had room for "paleo-conservatives," but which they apparently mean people like Strom Thurmond and David Duke. As Reason puts it:
Lamenting that mainstream intellectuals and opinion leaders were too invested in the status quo to be brought around to a libertarian view, Rothbard pointed to David Duke and Joseph McCarthy as models for an "Outreach to the Rednecks," which would fashion a broad libertarian/paleoconservative coalition by targeting the disaffected working and middle classes. (Duke, a former Klansman, was discussed in strikingly similar terms in a 1990 Ron Paul Political Report.) These groups could be mobilized to oppose an expansive state, Rothbard posited, by exposing an "unholy alliance of 'corporate liberal' Big Business and media elites, who, through big government, have privileged and caused to rise up a parasitic Underclass, who, among them all, are looting and oppressing the bulk of the middle and working classes in America." (italics and link original)
The fact that people who were explicitly advocating this sort of pragmatic strategy makes sense of a lot of what has gone on. For instance, Paul's response to the newsletter which came out in 1996 was consistent with someone who does not want to actually endorse any form of racism, but is more concerned about alienating or offending racists than about alienating or offending non-whites: he didn't deny having written the newsletters, nor did he say anything in them was false, he simply said that his comments were out of context and he was not a racist.
It appears that somewhere between 1996 and 2001 a shift occurred. 1999 was the year in which Paul claims he spoke of Rosa Parks from the House floor as someone "who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies." By 2001, Paul granted an interview for a profile in Texas Monthly. Here is the relevant portion of the profile:
In one issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report, which he had published since 1985, he called former U.S. representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist." In another issue, he cited reports that 85 percent of all black men in Washington, D.C., are arrested at some point: "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." And under the headline "Terrorist Update," he wrote: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.
When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."
His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.
Murray Rothbard died in 1995. Today, Lew Rockwell and Jeff Tucker seem to have been partially ditched and partially reformed - they still appear with Paul more or less regularly and enthusiastically endorse him, but are not closely associated with the campaign; they also haven't said anything as bad as this in a long time (furthermore, neither of them is on record ever saying anything as bad as Rothbard, as far as I can tell). The picture painted is that Paul lost control (or was never in control) of the political mini-movement for which he was the figurehead, but allowed himself to continue to be used as a figurehead for it. Nevertheless, as Texas Monthly says, "Paul [has] never uttered anything remotely like this." At least not on the record. It also seems that Paul has managed to more or less shake off the elements of his political world that led to the problem, but he hasn't radically dissociated himself from them. In short, he became involved in sleazy politics at its worst: a pragmatic appeal to some of the most evil and destructive elements of American society in an attempt to advance his political program. It doesn't seem to have been his idea, and he seems to have been mostly passive in its implementation, but he must have known that some of his close associates supported this sort of strategy, and he nevertheless entrusted them with his good name. He did this in order to build a fundraising network, in order to get elected, in order to advance his libertarian political platform. He also personally made good money on the newsletter publishing venture, and it seems that more money came in the crazier and more vitriolic they got.
Texas monthly also notes other incidents of pragmatic nastiness in Paul's congressional campaigns, especially the 1996 campaign against one Loy Sneary:
In the years of defending himself against the assembled liberal multitudes, Paul has learned a slashing campaign style of his own. "Ron Paul specializes in attack, only he is much better at it than they are," says Dan Cobb, the editorial page editor of the Victoria Advocate, which endorsed Sneary. "He used Sneary's own record as a county judge to attack him in a misleading fashion, but it worked." Indeed, in a "Truth Test" report during the 2000 campaign, TV station KVUE in Austin found three out of four claims in Paul's ads to be false; a fourth was "true but misleading." Says Sneary, who is still upset about the campaign: "It's one thing when you criticize our position. It's another thing to take that information and use half-truths and no truths in a campaign."
Ron Paul recently appeared on CNN to address charges of racism. The video is available on YouTube and I recommend that everyone watch it.
I still don't think the response is fully adequate, but there are a number of points that I think are important in terms of a total evaluation of the situation:
That's about it. I'm still not fully satisfied with his response, but it is better and more complete than his initial press release. It wouldn't take much more at this point to convince me again that Paul is better than any of the other candidates (after all, the bar is set pretty low - I can't really even think who else I would vote for; John McCain, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel would be frontrunners, though Kucinich and Gravel may drop out by the time Washington's primary comes around), but it would take a lot for me to be an enthusiastic supporter again.
Ron Paul did rather poorly in yesterday's New Hampshire primary. He barely matched hist poll results. In Iowa, which is much less fertile ground for Paul and his views, he got nearly double what the polls predicted. The campaign blog blames an article in the New Republic on the newsletters that were published in Paul's name in the '90s containing racist content and the like. The blog links to Paul's issue page against racism and a campaign press release to clarify the campaign's positions on the subject.
When I first read the campaign's response, not having seen the New Republic article, I was quite satisfied with it. I was glad that the campaign had addressed the issue and clarified Paul's stance, and I was fairly impressed with the press release. Here is an excerpt from Paul's statement:
I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’
...
When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.
Unfortunately for those of us who have supported Paul, the earlier reports don't seem to have communicated the full scope of the problem. In comments to my previous post, Jeremy points to analysis at the Volokh Conspiracy which links to the article itself. For those of you who, like me, are libertarians and skeptical of political correctness, read the whole article. In a few places, the author's quotations do not fully justify his claims, and he occasionally jumps to conclusions or leaves out important information (for instance, the author fails to state that when, on Meet the Press, Ron Paul recently said he opposed Lincoln should not have gone to war, Paul was quite clear that he believed slavery could have been ended peacefully; whether he is factually right or wrong, such a view is not racist or pro-slavery). Nevertheless, in the context of all the provided quotations, most of the author's conclusions are quite justified.
In short, the quotations from Paul's newsletters are horrible, hateful, and offensive, and they took place not in a single letter but over the course of several years (the author states that they went on for "decades" but unless you count negative remarks about the government of Israel in 1987, all of the racist quotations in the provided selections are between 1990 and 1994 - the Salman Rushdie article is a red herring). In this context, Paul's explanation and semi-apology ring hollow, to say the least.
On the other hand, nothing of this sort has come directly from Paul's own mouth, as far as we know, and the statements that have come from his own mouth don't appear ad hoc - they fit very neatly with his overall political theory. He says on the previously mentioned issue page that "Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups." This is exactly the sort of statement we would expect someone like Paul, an adamant individualist, to say. Racism would be inconsistent with the rest of his positions (well, except perhaps his position on immigration, which also troubles me).
This leads me to suppose that his explanation is at least more or less true. During the period in question, Paul probably thought of himself as retired from politics (it wouldn't surprise me if he was frustrated and apathetic during this time, which was shortly after his unsuccessful 1988 Libertarian presidential run), but some fellow libertarians (or so he thought) wanted to use his name to promote libertarian political views so he told them they could go ahead, and then didn't pay any more attention. This turned out to be a big mistake, as the management turned out not to be so trustworthy as he thought.
Now, if this narrative is correct, there is still more explaining to do. As some Volokh Conspiracy readers asked, why were there no lawsuits? Why is there not documentation of Paul demanding that these people to stop printing this hate-filled garbage in his name? Well, one plausible answer to these two questions is simply that Paul felt that he was responsible for having trusted them with his name, and shouldn't complain in court or demand damages for his own failure of oversight.
This, however, only plays further into the biggest problem. If Paul really does accept "moral responsibility" for the propagation of hatred and bigotry that took place in his name, then why has he not made a real apology? You would expect a person of firm morals and high ideals - as Paul has appeared to be during his time in Congress and his presidential campaign - to be horrified to discover that his own negligence had led to this sort of thing. Granted, it happened a long time ago, and for Paul himself the shock has probably long-since worn off, but if he's been taking responsibility for "decades," where is the record of his initial response when he first discovered what had happened? Ron Paul will not receive my primary election vote unless, between now and Washington's primary, he can produce a more complete explanation and a convincing, sincere, heart-felt apology. He must provide details which corroborate his claim not to have been aware of what was happening, and he must show that he is truly grieved by the hatred propagated in his name.
So, I've been rather busy and slow in covering recent developments related to federal government action against the Liberty Dollar. Some of you may have seen news coverage related to the seizure of the Liberty Dollar organization's assets. The news media mostly focused on the fact that the raid occurred when the office was full of Ron Paul dollars. The media coverage was pretty incomplete. Here is a more complete timeline of what has occurred to date:
Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Your constituent, and other concerned about NORFED's "Liberty Dolars" have also referred to statements by the Treasury Department, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Federal Reserve, or United States Secret Service officials that the NORFED paper gold and silver certificates are not counterfeit Federal Reserve Notes and appear to be part of a barter system. The United States Mint, however, has tailored its information to the public on the use of NORFED's gold and silver medallions - not NORFED's paper gold and silver certificated.
Now, Ron Paul's bill will not save the Liberty Dollar from charges of fraud, which apparently stem from the claim that the Liberty Dollar's assertion that it is "100% backed" by gold and silver is misleading in terms of the actual system. The actual system, is, of course, well documented on the Liberty Dollar's web-site, so it should be difficult to actually charge them with fraud. Unfortunately, my understanding is that if they are never charged at all, they are not eligible to be compensated for the confiscation. It is my understanding that they are compensated only if they are tried and acquitted (this is probably one of the reasons that von Nauthaus has been in constant contact with the FBI about when he can turn himself in). The upside is that the government is putting all of these Liberty Dollars back into circulation, so even if the organization is destroyed once and for all people will be able to continue bartering with their Liberty Dollars.
The timing of the raid is, of course, also rather suspicious, coming as it did after some seven years of government statements to the effect that the Liberty Dollar is legal. It coincides with (1) serious mismanagement of monetary policy by the federal government, (2) the presence of a lot of Ron Paul currency, and (3) a lawsuit in process against the government. There are already credible accusations against the Bush administration of various strong-arm tactics including selective prosecution being used to influence politics. I obviously don't know exactly what is going on in this incident, and I don't want to come off as a conspiracy theorist, but the whole thing looks awfully suspicious to me.
An op-ed in today's New York Times bemoans the fact that none of the leading presidential candidates read Latin. (Well, Giuliani apparently studied it briefly in his Catholic high school.) In all of US history, there have only been 9 presidents who have not studied Latin. Apparently James Garfield even taught both Greek and Latin at the college level before becoming president. Even George W. Bush has a moderately extensive background in Latin. This marks a shift not only in our education system, but in our political system: whereas it was once the case that many (at the beginning of US history, all) of our politicians had broad educational backgrounds and professional experiences, today most are career politicians with narrow training. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Rudy Giuliani (who the author of the article considers to be the front-runners) all majored in political science in college, and are effectively career politicians.
On the other hand, I think it is now safe to say that Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee are at least second tier candidates, since they placed first and third, respectively, in the Virginia GOP retreat straw poll (Fred Thompson came in second; the rest of the list, in order, was Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Hunter, Tancredo), and neither of them is a career politician: Paul was a physician, and Huckabee a pastor. Both of these fields involve a lot of knowledge outside the scope of political science, which I regard as a good thing, as long as its combined with political knowledge. I don't know, however, if either of them speaks Latin. (Huckabee, as a Protestant pastor, probably had a year each of Greek and Hebrew, but no Latin, in seminary.)
A Latin translation of the Op-Ed is also available.
I have said before that while I am not without reservations about Ron Paul, I think that he is far and away the best candidate to enter the race so far. What was previously my principle reservation has, in fact, been answered by the campaign. This letter to the editor of the National Review, written by Ron Paul's communications director, Jesse Benton, is the second source I have seen that answered my concern directly (the first was a news clip on YouTube, and didn't feature a direct quotation from Paul or anyone on his campaign staff, so I didn't both reporting it). The letter says: "Clearly, a Paul administration cannot end the IRS on January 29, 2009. Ending the income tax, a goal all real conservatives should share, would take major cooperation with the Congress. But, with honest communication and a lot of hard work, Dr. Paul knows that we can end the end the income tax over the course of just a few years." In other words, a Paul administration would not act unilaterally to abolish the IRS, but would attempt to work with Congress (of course, unfortunately, that means it probably wouldn't happen). Presumably similar reasoning applies to the Department of Education, etc.
The letter is also the first attempt directly by the campaign that I have seen to dispel the rumor that Paul is a racist and/or anti-Semite. The letter says: "Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity, and the protection of inalienable individual rights. He knows that liberty is the antidote for racism, anti-Semitism, and other small minded ideologies."
As for the origin of this rumor, I have heard it by word of mouth from a few different people, and have seen major news sources hint darkly at it by commenting that Paul has support of various fringe groups, including white supremacists. However, the major news sources have not actually claimed that Paul agreed with these people, which always suggested to me that the evidence for Paul's alleged racism was not particularly strong.
So what is going on? Where does the rumor come from?
A quick Google search reveals this article from Free Republic quoting some old news reports with some comments by Paul when running for Congress.
Before delving into these comments and examining Paul's alleged racism, let's make some definitions:
Now, in terms of evaluating a politician, I think it is clear that these things, from first to last, get progressively worse. That is, a person who makes racially insensitive remarks, but does not actually hold racist views or advocate racist policies is in certain respects a poor leader: he or she is a poor communicator, and is not good at inspiring all portions of society. Similarly, an individual might hold racist views (and therefore probably make racially insensitive remarks), but not actually advocate racist policies. For instance, it is possible, in principle, to be a racist and a libertarian: libertarians hold that private business owners have the right to discriminate if they so choose (let me pause to add that if they do I think we all ought to boycott them and put them out of business). Someone could hold that government ought not to discriminate and ought to protect everyone's rights equally, but choose to discriminate in his or her own private business practices. That person would hold racist views, but not support racist policies.
It seems clear to me that it would be immoral to support a politician who supports racist policies. A candidate who held racist views but successfully separated his or her personal opinions from what ought to be law would make me uncomfortable, but I wouldn't automatically disqualify that candidate from consideration for this reason. (I should note, however, that such a candidate would have to go a long way to prove to me that his or her personal views were separated from his or her policy positions.) A candidate who was prone to racially insensitive remarks would be, as I have said, in certain respects a poor leader (and, of course, not very electable), so, other things being equal, I would rather vote for someone who showed some sensitivity. There is also the issue that, although the remarks themselves are merely insensitive and not actually expressing racist views, they may still be indicative of racist views which the candidate simply doesn't want to express publicly.
I think that Paul clearly made some racially insensitive remarks (all of them over 10 years ago, it should be noted), but I have been unable to find solid evidence of any racist views on his part, and he certainly cannot, consistently with his other positions, support racist policies. He has not, to my knowledge, supported any policies that might reasonably be called racist during his time in Congress.
So what did he actually say?
Well, it all goes back to a 1992 Paul campaign newsletter. One commenter on Free Republic says that the newsletter was written by a staffer and not Paul himself, and that Paul apologized for it, but I haven't found anything about that, so I'm going to operate under the assumption that Paul actually said these things. In a discussion on gang crime, the newsletter says, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." (To be perfectly honest, I find that sentence very amusing - if that's insensitive of me, I apologize.) Now, to be "fleet-footed" is a positive thing so that, at least, is not expressing a racist view. However, it is probably racially insensitive, in that it is really an unfair generalization, and people don't like to be stereotyped, whether positively or negatively. Furthermore, depending on the context, the assumption that the robber's race is somehow relevant to the discussion may be indicative of a racist view.
Slightly more troubling is the remark in the same newsletter regarding crime in D.C., that "we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." When this was reported this during Paul's 1996 campaign, "Paul said ... that his comments came in the context of 'current events and statistical reports of the time,' and that he opposes racism." In other words, if we believe Paul's own explanation of his comments (and note that the newspaper report implies that Paul acknowledge the words as his own), he was simply observing a statistical fact. The comment is not racist insofar as it makes an observation about demographics; it is only racist if it is taken to imply a causal connection between the individuals' being black males and their turning to crime, a connection which Paul disavows. Still, this is probably another racially insensitive remark, as it could easily be taken to imply a causal connection, and the relevance of the information is extremely questionable. It could even be taken as supporting racial profiling, which IS a racist policy.
According to the report, "In later newsletters, Paul wrote that lobbying groups who seek special favors are evil, and that 'by far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government.'" This, however, is certainly not racist, or even racially insensitive. Paul supports a non-interventionist foreign policy, and the Israeli government lobbies the US government for military assistance against its enemies. It should be obvious that this is the reason for Paul's remark, and not anti-Semitism of any type. Furthermore, no one would be accused of being a racist for opposing providing military assistance to any country other than Israel, even if the population of that country was one that a lot of racism had been directed against.
The final remark on Free Republic is: "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action." This is, however, once again merely insensitive rather than actually racist. Furthermore, it is well-known that the majority of black voters vote Democrat, and Democrats do not, according to Paul, "have sensible political opinions."
It should be noted, however, that in this article, dated Dec. 23, 2002, Paul talks about the philosophy of liberty and individualism as the antithesis of racism. He in fact views racism as a serious problem and argues that his own policies are a better solution for it than affirmative action. This is an important counter-balance to the previous remarks.
Thus, I would conclude that the evidence shows simply that Paul used to make racially insensitive remarks 10 years ago. Thus far in his presidential campaign he doesn't seem to have made any mistakes like this, which is evidence that he has become a better leader over the last 10 years. Furthermore, the evidence does not show that Ron Paul holds or ever has held any racist view.
I am still, however, a bit concerned. There are questions that I can't answer without more context. In particular, the statistics Paul gives are rather extreme, lumping huge groups of people (young black males in DC, blacks generally) almost entirely together and, as such, the statistics seem rather suspicious. Furthermore they are reported without controls - i.e., the number of poor whites in DC who are criminals (probably a lot of them) is not mentioned, nor is the percentage of whites who have what Paul considers to be "sensible political opinions." So, although the remarks themselves are merely insensitive, and Paul seems to have stopped making such remarks quite some time ago, there may be a real problem behind them. Why did Paul find these statistics credible? Why did he think they were relevant? What was his point in citing them? I urge the Paul campaign to go farther in actually addressing this issue, rather than simply brushing it aside. If the newsletter was not written by Paul himself, and if the staffer was fired and/or an apology issued (which is what pro-Paul Free Republic readers claim), I urge the Paul campaign to publicly document this.
Oral arguments in the Washington primary system case took place this morning between 10:02 and 10:53, and the transcript is now available online. Justice Souter and, to a lesser degree, Justice Ginsburg seem clearly to be in favor of I-872. Justice Stevens also seems likely to vote to overturn the Ninth Circuit, though his position is not as clear. Justices Alito, Scalia, and Roberts seemed skeptical of the State's arguments, though it was not clear to me if they had made up their minds. At at least one point (p. 32) Scalia seemed to think that the parties had overstated their case. Justice Thomas doesn't speak, but he ordinarily sides with the conservative bloc. Justice Breyer also never spoke, but ordinarily agrees with Ginsburg .Justice Kennedy was fairly harsh to both sides, so it is difficult to predict his vote, but he seemed skeptical of the parties' facial challenge - specifically, he seemed to think that as long as no one was actually misled into believing that the candidates who 'preferred' a party were that party's nominees, the statute was fine. Justice Stevens also seemed to consider this position (p. 42-43), though he was explicitly skeptical about whether anyone could possibly be misled about this distinction. My prediction: the usual liberal-conservative divide, with Kennedy as the swing vote. I expect him to swing our way, which means we'll win, but it wouldn't surprise me if he wrote a concurring opinion to the effect that if the parties could show that voters were actually misled they could come back with an as-applied challenge. It puzzles me a bit that the typical liberal-conservative split should apply to this case, and that the liberals should side with us, but I suppose it is a matter of the "little guy" versus the "establishment," and the liberals tend to like the little guy. At any rate, here are some interesting issues that came up in the argument.
First, I was very happy that Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna agreed with what I previously suggested (see the last paragraph): namely that the parties are free to nominate whomever they wish, by whatever means they wish, and this person is the party's nominee for purposes of campaign finance law, major party status, etc. This was not stated clearly earlier in the argument. McKenna also points to an exhibit I haven't been able to find online showing sample ballots which contains disclaimers to the effect that the parties do not necessarily endorse the candidates.
A second point is that the Justices, including some of those I've listed as "against" (especially Justice Scalia) consider some very slight modifications, such as allowing candidates to write any short phrase they choose, and on p. 31 Justice Stevens asks whether narrower relief could not have been granted, i.e. whether the whole statute necessarily had to be invalidated. This means that if t