Sandbox (3)

Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.

This is also a continuation of previous Sandbox threads (1) and (2) that have fallen victim to the dreaded page bug.

1,013 thoughts on “Sandbox (3)

  1. keiths:
    Patrick,

    The points you made for the usefulness of national and subnational governments — their role in promoting human rights, defense, mediation, economies of scale — also apply to supranational organizations like the EU, NATO and the UN.

    More assertion without proof. Please explain why produce marketing standards, for example, should be part of the EU’s remit. Those are the types of bureaucratic overreach that inspired some of the Leave voters.

    What is the principled reason for drawing the line precisely at the national level?You’re arguing that governments can be appropriate below the line, but that only treaties are suitable above it.I’m not seeing the rationale.

    Wrong question. You claimed that there was value in the EU government over and above what can be achieve through treaties among the member nations. It’s up to you to demonstrate it.

  2. Allan Miller:
    Patrick,

    I find the response from the Remain supporters quite telling. Many seem to be blaming the older, more rural population not simply for having a different opinion but for being uneducated.

    I’m not sure how extensive that perception of a correlation is – I’ve not come across it. That there are two voting correlations, one with age group and one with education level, does not automatically force a third, between age and education.

    What we do have is a well-travelled and outward-looking younger demographic. The backpack generation, with a friend on most continents, if only on Facebook. The older generation tend (huge generalisation) to go abroad, if at all, to a Britain-in-the-sun. Also, you are more likely to find some spectrum xenophobia (if not outright racism) among the older. I think these, rather than education, are the perceived sources of the skew.

    The young are being told to shut up and mind their manners. “Never had to shovel coal or fight in a war”, from someone who evidently has done neither. In fact the ‘fought-a-war-for-your-freedoms’ meme is funny. The youngest WW2 vet is 90. Most of these older voters are baby boomers.

    I don’t see the young “being told to shut up and mind their manners” but it could certainly be the case. The essential problem is that this is turning tribal. Neither side, at least in my Twitter feed, is willing to engage on the actual issues or grant good faith to those who disagree. Not only do they consider the others’ views wrong, they consider the others stupid and/or evil.

    The same thing has been happening for a long time here in the U.S. The “liberal elite”, for lack of a better term, don’t just disagree with the various conservative blocks, they insult their intelligence. SJWs are the worst examples, but it appears to be pervasive.

    Politics is going to be ugly for some time.

  3. Patrick: Please explain why produce marketing standards, for example, should be part of the EU’s remit. Those are the types of bureaucratic overreach that inspired some of the Leave voters.

    If you were honest, Patrick, you’d admit that you believe that such regulation is “overreach” whether performed by the EU, the British Parliament or a municipal trade board. As keiths correctly points out, mention of the EU is completely irrelevant here, in spite of your typical clumsy attempt to burden-shift.

  4. Patrick: Neither side, at least in my Twitter feed, is willing to engage on the actual issues

    I’d like to see you do that for a change. But what you do is spout libertarian platitudes and completely ignore the (“empirical! objective!”) facts of the matter–other than your cheese remark, which was wrong.

  5. Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 Jun 24

    But despite polls showing the race roughly even & dodgy history of UK polls, betting markets had leave as a 4:1 underdog as of 24 hours ago.

  6. Patrick,

    Please explain why produce marketing standards, for example, should be part of the EU’s remit.

    I haven’t argued that they should be!

    Those are the types of bureaucratic overreach that inspired some of the Leave voters.

    I agree that governments can overreach. The federal government does so on occasion, but you’re not advocating that the states withdraw from the Union on that basis. That would be throwing the American baby out with the bathwater.

    If it doesn’t make sense to throw the American baby out with the bathwater, why the European?

    Won’t someone think of the children??? 🙂

    keiths:

    What is the principled reason for drawing the line precisely at the national level? You’re arguing that governments can be appropriate below the line, but that only treaties are suitable above it.I’m not seeing the rationale.

    Patrick:

    Wrong question.

    It’s the right question. Your Washington quote again:

    It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world…

    And your Jefferson quote:

    Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.

    Why exactly is a permanent and entangling alliance among the US states appropriate if such an alliance among European nations is inappropriate? What is the principled reason for drawing the line precisely at the national level?

    You claimed that there was value in the EU government over and above what can be achieve through treaties among the member nations. It’s up to you to demonstrate it.

    Treaties are clunkier than governments. It’s why we have a federal government rather than treaties between the states, and it’s why we have city governments rather than treaties between neighborhoods.

  7. keiths: Treaties are clunkier than governments. It’s why we have a federal government rather than treaties between the states, and it’s why we have city governments rather than treaties between neighborhoods.

    They’re not just clunkier. As Locke and others have explained, between nations there is nothing inhibiting the sort of self-interest that often leads to wars. Power is all that matters in that realm. There’s been about 70 years of peace among the EU countries. And trade has been less restrictive among them than otherwise imaginable, given what can be seen elsewhere. Treaties are also violated. Trump has been talking about relishing the idea of simply tossing those he doesn’t like.

    In any case, this is largely a dodge on Patrick’s part: he doesn’t like state or local governments either. On his view, ALL government is overreach except army/police power and courts, and laws must be restricted to punishment of acts of force or fraud. This EU biz is just a red herring, especially as he’s supposed to be a free trader.

    He’d also prefer Trump to Clinton in spite of that supposed preference for free trade. NAFTA be damned–Hillary is a criminal!

  8. keiths:

    Please explain why produce marketing standards, for example, should be part of the EU’s remit.

    I haven’t argued that they should be!

    Those are the types of bureaucratic overreach that inspired some of the Leave voters.

    I agree that governments can overreach. The federal government does so on occasion, but you’re not advocating that the states withdraw from the Union on that basis. That would be throwing the American baby out with the bathwater.

    If it doesn’t make sense to throw the American baby out with the bathwater, why the European?

    Won’t someone think of the children??? 🙂

    It’s not just that governments can overreach, it’s that they always do. Once a beaurocracy is in place, its primary purposes become self-preservation and growth. That’s one reason I advocate for political decisions to be made at the smallest possible unit of the organization, starting with the individual. If I want to sell you some produce out of my garden and you want to buy it, there’s no reason for a meddlesome pencil pusher in Brussels to be involved.

    With regard to the difference between the U.S. and Europe, based on my experience the countries that make up the EU have far less in common than the states that make up the U.S. That being said, I see no reason why states should not be allowed to secede from the union if their citizens don’t feel that continued participation is of net value. I also contend that the present U.S. federal government is far too intrusive and has grown far outside its constitutional bounds. It needs to be restricted solely to national defense and protection of citizens against the state governments. If it stayed within its bounds, there would be little reason for any state to want to leave.

    You claimed that there was value in the EU government over and above what can be achieve through treaties among the member nations. It’s up to you to demonstrate it.

    Treaties are clunkier than governments.

    That’s a good thing. We don’t want those who would rule to be able to do so efficiently — that’s the recipe for a police state.

    My question remains. If the goals are to allow free trade and freedom of movement among the nations making up the EU, what purpose does the EU government serve that could not be more simply achieved through a treaty? All of the objections I’ve heard about the EU stem not from those freedoms but from additional demands placed on members by the EU government bodies. It’s not just unnecessary, it’s demonstrated to be a threat to the rights of the individuals in those nations.

  9. keiths:

    Treaties are clunkier than governments.

    Patrick:

    That’s a good thing. We don’t want those who would rule to be able to do so efficiently — that’s the recipe for a police state.

    Then why aren’t you advocating for the dissolution of federal, state, and local governments in the US, with treaties between states, cities, and neighborhoods taking their place?

    Again, what is the principled reason for drawing the line precisely at the national level, so that governments are appropriate below the line but only treaties are appropriate above it?

  10. keiths: Then why aren’t you advocating for the dissolution of federal, state, and local governments in the US, with treaties between states, cities, and neighborhoods taking their place?

    As I keep telling you, he IS.

  11. Patrick,

    My question remains. If the goals are to allow free trade and freedom of movement among the nations making up the EU, what purpose does the EU government serve that could not be more simply achieved through a treaty?

    Those aren’t the only goals of the EU, just as they aren’t the only goals of the United States.

  12. keiths, to Patrick:

    Then why aren’t you advocating for the dissolution of federal, state, and local governments in the US, with treaties between states, cities, and neighborhoods taking their place?

    walto:

    As I keep telling you, he IS.

    I don’t get that impression at all. See this comment, in which he argues in favor of governments at the national and subnational level.

  13. keiths:

    Then why aren’t you advocating for the dissolution of federal, state, and local governments in the US, with treaties between states, cities, and neighborhoods taking their place?

    I do advocate for significant reductions in the size and scope of governments at all levels. I do think that many things that are done by the federal government should either not be done at all or should be done by voluntary organizations (that may include state governments).

    Again, what is the principled reason for drawing the line precisely at the national level, so that governments are appropriate below the line but only treaties are appropriate above it?

    I’m not drawing that line. I’m merely pointing out that the EU has unnecessary authority if the goals are to promote free trade and freedom of movement. It’s very hard to talk about principles in connection with organizations that rely on force for their very existence.

  14. keiths:

    My question remains. If the goals are to allow free trade and freedom of movement among the nations making up the EU, what purpose does the EU government serve that could not be more simply achieved through a treaty?

    Those aren’t the only goals of the EU, just as they aren’t the only goals of the United States.

    What are the other goals of the EU, in your view?

    The goals of the U.S. are clearly stated:

    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

  15. keiths,

    Well, as i’ve said, my take is that he supports only the most limited role for governments, and, based on ‘closeness’ (ie nothing really), prefers local governments to regional, etc. But I’ll let him answer for himself.

  16. walto,

    Well, as i’ve said, my take is that he supports only the most limited role for governments…

    That’s a far cry from calling for them to be dissolved and replaced by treaties!

  17. Patrick,

    I do advocate for significant reductions in the size and scope of governments at all levels.

    Then why not simply call for reductions in the size and scope of the EU government versus dismantling it completely in favor of treaties?

    keiths:

    Again, what is the principled reason for drawing the line precisely at the national level, so that governments are appropriate below the line but only treaties are appropriate above it?

    Patrick:

    I’m not drawing that line.

    You certainly seem to be. You’re calling for the dissolution of the EU, but not of the US federal government or of state and local governments. You’ve also approvingly quoted Washington and Jefferson, who warned against “permanent” and “entangling” alliances between the US and other nations but had no problem with a permanent and entangling alliance between American states, otherwise known as the United States of America.

  18. Patrick:

    My question remains. If the goals are to allow free trade and freedom of movement among the nations making up the EU, what purpose does the EU government serve that could not be more simply achieved through a treaty?

    keiths:

    Those aren’t the only goals of the EU, just as they aren’t the only goals of the United States.

    Patrick:

    What are the other goals of the EU, in your view?

    See Article I-3 of the draft European constitution:

    Article I-3

    The Union’s objectives

    1. The Union’s aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.

    2. The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, and an internal market where competition is free and undistorted.

    3. The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment.

    It shall promote scientific and technological advance.

    It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child.

    It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States.

    It shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and shall ensure that Europe’s cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.

    4. In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.

    5. The Union shall pursue its objectives by appropriate means commensurate with the competences which are conferred upon it in the Constitution.

  19. keiths:

    I do advocate for significant reductions in the size and scope of governments at all levels.

    Then why not simply call for reductions in the size and scope of the EU government versus dismantling it completely in favor of treaties?

    I’m not calling for the abolition of it, I simply see no value that it provides that could not be more safely and cheaply provided via treaties among the member states.

    I’m not drawing that line.

    You certainly seem to be.You’re calling for the dissolution of the EU, but not of the US federal government or of state and local governments. You’ve also approvingly quoted Washington and Jefferson, who warned against “permanent” and “entangling” alliances between the US and other nations but had no problem with a permanent and entangling alliance between American states, otherwise known as the United States of America.

    As I’ve already noted, the European countries have far less in common with each other than the U.S. states have with each other. That makes the value of a “United States of Europe” much less, especially when compared to the risk of yet another level of government.

    That being said, I strongly advocate significantly reducing the scope and power of the U.S. federal government, moving responsibility for everything except national defense and protection of individuals against other levels of government to the states or the people.

  20. keiths:

    What are the other goals of the EU, in your view?

    See Article I-3 of the draft European constitution:

    Article I-3

    The Union’s objectives

    . . . .

    There’s the problem right there. Several of those goals are incompatible with each other. Even if they weren’t, most can’t be achieved by government action unless that action is limited to protecting individuals against force and fraud.

    As George Washington may or may not have said, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” Regardless of its origin, the warning is valid. The greatest violations of individuals’ freedoms come from governments. We need to work to reduce their power.

  21. walto,

    As I said.

    No, what you originally said was quite different:

    keiths, to Patrick:

    Then why aren’t you advocating for the dissolution of federal, state, and local governments in the US, with treaties between states, cities, and neighborhoods taking their place?

    walto:

    As I keep telling you, he IS.

    He clearly isn’t.

  22. I don’t think you’re reading him right. I’d say he’d vote today for the dissolution of all of them if given the opportunity. Why don’t you ask him?

  23. Patrick: I’m not calling for the abolition of it, I simply see no value that it provides that could not be more safely and cheaply provided via treaties among the member states.

    One advantage of the EU is it actually exists.

  24. walto,

    I don’t think you’re reading him right.

    Then link to a comment in which he is “advocating for the dissolution of federal, state, and local governments in the US, with treaties between states, cities, and neighborhoods taking their place”.

    I haven’t seen any.

  25. Patrick, regarding the EU draft constitution’s statement of objectives:

    There’s the problem right there. Several of those goals are incompatible with each other.

    There are tradeoffs, sure, but that doesn’t make the goals incompatible. And remember, libertarian goals also require tradeoffs: libertarianism imposes limits on freedom in order to protect the rights of people.

    Even if they weren’t, most can’t be achieved by government action unless that action is limited to protecting individuals against force and fraud.

    The claim isn’t that the EU can achieve those goals by itself — just that it has a role in promoting them. Look at the language of Article I-3 again, and note the use of “promote”, “work for”, “aim at”, “combat”, “respect”, “contribute to”, and “pursue”.

    Not “achieve on its own”.

  26. Patrick,

    Also, you’re forgetting why we ended up talking about the goals of the EU.

    You asked:

    If the goals are to allow free trade and freedom of movement among the nations making up the EU, what purpose does the EU government serve that could not be more simply achieved through a treaty?

    The goals of the EU go well beyond free trade and freedom of movement. If they were limited to those two, then you might have a point: perhaps a treaty would suffice.

    But they aren’t. Take another look at Article I-3.

  27. BruceS,

    But the Conservatives are split and it is hard to see how they would campaign for ignoring the referendum. OTOH, could Labor be elected given the other policies of its leadership?

    Labour took a move to the left with its latest leader. But his cabinet are leaving him in droves because they felt his support for Remain lukewarm (it appeared to be, but he’s not a forceful personality so it’s hard to tell). Where it will end up is uncertain.

    So basically we have two parties in the process of eating themselves. The whole thing was precipitated by party politics – a referendum was offered prior to the last election to try and reclaim some of the Conservative support drifting towards UKIP.

  28. Patrick,

    I don’t see the young “being told to shut up and mind their manners” but it could certainly be the case.

    No, like everything, there is a bit of it, which does not mean a lot. Analysis can only be anecdotal. But I am seeing that reaction to stories about the young protesting. The ‘2 world wars’ thing.

  29. walto,

    I’d like to see you do that for a change. But what you do is spout libertarian platitudes and completely ignore the (“empirical! objective!”) facts of the matter–other than your cheese remark, which was wrong.

    Concrete examples are hard to come by. I’ve asked a few times what EU position my interlocutor would reverse if given power, and nothing much comes forth. ‘Straight banana rules’ are mentioned, but this is just folklore, and a trivial example of trivial rules. There was something along those lines proposed, and it was silly, but it was dropped back in 2008.

    Current position is that misshapen veg should not be thrown away! Who could disagree with that?

  30. Patrick,

    All of the objections I’ve heard about the EU stem not from those freedoms but from additional demands placed on members by the EU government bodies. It’s not just unnecessary, it’s demonstrated to be a threat to the rights of the individuals in those nations.

    Honestly, I can’t think of a single right of mine the EU threatens. I can travel right through the continent, stopping only for petrol. My kids can apply to any university, I can get a job anywhere. I don’t see that happening on a ‘separate treaty’ system.

    I can’t make staff work more than X hours a week, but hey, can’t have everything.

  31. Patrick,

    It’s very hard to talk about principles in connection with organizations that rely on force for their very existence.

    The EU’s rules are drawn up by its members, and its officers elected by the same (apart from salaried staffers, which any level of government retains). I don’t see where force comes into it.

  32. Interesting that several friends reject the EU because they see it moving towards a “United States of Europe” model.

  33. keiths: He clearly isn’t.

    He’s coy, certainly. Here, he specifically denies saying he’s calling for the abolition of anything at all–while also saying that the world would be better with out those valueless (or worse!) things:

    I’m not calling for the abolition of it, I simply see no value that it provides that could not be more safely and cheaply provided via treaties among the member states.

    His posts above are filled with remarks about how terrible governments are generally. They all overreach because they’re only interested in conserving their own power. They should be limited to enforcing penalties against force and fraud. Their goals are self-contradictory. Etc. Etc. If he’s not calling for their immediate dissolution, its either because there’s no real opportunity to do so at present and he will just support each individual destruction measure as it comes up, or because he’s self-contradictory, both indicating that “treaties” between individuals would be best, but not wanting them to replace the less “safe and cheap” mechanisms we now have anyhow.

    Again, it’s best to ask HIM to provide his views on these matters. I personally think his positions not only express both a comic-book level of political theory and make for perfect examples of selfishness and greed made political, but are also extremely dangerous. So I’m not likely to put them in the most charitable light.

    And I do think it’s interesting that someone who is so fervent an advocate for the abolition of government is apparently quite happy to be the worst part of the “government” here (such as it is).

    ETA: I also think that he’s not so concerned about “objective empirical evidence” for claims when he’s pushing his libertarian creed. In that area we simply find religious proclamations with no defenses to be found anywhere.

  34. keiths:

    There’s the problem right there. Several of those goals are incompatible with each other.

    There are tradeoffs, sure, but that doesn’t make the goals incompatible. And remember, libertarian goals also require tradeoffs: libertarianism imposes limits on freedom in order to protect the rights of people.

    Please give an example. We may have different conceptions of libertarianism.

    Even if they weren’t, most can’t be achieved by government action unless that action is limited to protecting individuals against force and fraud.

    The claim isn’t that the EU can achieve those goals by itself — just that it has a role in promoting them. Look at the language of Article I-3 again, and note the use of “promote”, “work for”, “aim at”, “combat”, “respect”, “contribute to”, and “pursue”.

    Not “achieve on its own”.

    My contention remains that the additional layer of government and bureaucracy that the EU represents is an unnecessary risk that adds no value to what can be achieved through treaties. Unless you have evidence or a rational argument to the contrary, I’ll stop beating this horse.

  35. keiths:
    Also, you’re forgetting why we ended up talking about the goals of the EU.

    You asked:

    If the goals are to allow free trade and freedom of movement among the nations making up the EU, what purpose does the EU government serve that could not be more simply achieved through a treaty?

    The goals of the EU go well beyond free trade and freedom of movement. If they were limited to those two, then you might have a point: perhaps a treaty would suffice.

    But they aren’t. Take another look at Article I-3.

    Those are the ostensible goals of the EU but they’re not the reason why those of my friends who voted Remain did so. Their primary concerns are free trade with the EU members and freedom to live and work anywhere in the EU. None are fans of the Brussels bureaucrats.

    About a third of my informal poll voted Leave. They still see the value in free trade and free movement, but they object more strongly to the EU’s overreach and have concerns about the impact of an influx of Syrian and other Muslim refugees on British culture. (Yes, there is a conflict between their desire to move freely in Europe and that to restrict immigration.)

    So while you are correct about the goals of the EU, those are not the goals that are important to the people I know.

  36. Allan Miller:

    All of the objections I’ve heard about the EU stem not from those freedoms but from additional demands placed on members by the EU government bodies. It’s not just unnecessary, it’s demonstrated to be a threat to the rights of the individuals in those nations.

    Honestly, I can’t think of a single right of mine the EU threatens. I can travel right through the continent, stopping only for petrol. My kids can apply to any university, I can get a job anywhere. I don’t see that happening on a ‘separate treaty’ system.

    I can’t make staff work more than X hours a week, but hey, can’t have everything.

    The issue is creeping overreach. The EU government doesn’t need to do anything other than enforce the agreements with respect to free trade and freedom of movement to achieve what you and most of my contacts in Britain want. The problem is that governments and bureaucracies tend to grow beyond their initial limits. While now it might “only” be produce regulations, history shows that the intrusiveness is only going to increase.

    One of the driving forces of the Leave initiative is the EU’s refusal to allow Great Britain to restrict benefits to immigrants until they had lived in the country for four years. Whether you agree or disagree with that decision, it’s exactly the kind of violation of national sovereignty that will only increase.

  37. Allan Miller:

    It’s very hard to talk about principles in connection with organizations that rely on force for their very existence.

    The EU’s rules are drawn up by its members, and its officers elected by the same (apart from salaried staffers, which any level of government retains). I don’t see where force comes into it.

    All laws are enforced by the credible threat of denying people their property, freedom, and lives. That’s the inherent nature of government.

  38. Patrick: My contention remains that the additional layer of government and bureaucracy that the EU represents is an unnecessary risk that adds no value to what can be achieved through treaties. Unless you have evidence or a rational argument to the contrary, I’ll stop beating this horse.

    Yes keiths, where’s YOUR evidence? Patrick doesn’t need any to support his ‘contention.’

  39. Re the 2008 crash, it resulted largely from UNDER-regulation of such financial vehicles as mortgage derivatives.

    Agreed, but the government was doing a terrible job regulating and protecting since it was politically motivated by interest groups not the welfare of the people.

    I had a small amount of money in a broker that I pretty much decided shouldn’t handle my transactions. CFTC/SEC regulators were asleep for 20 years until the bum got caught during a suicide attempt after the FBI was at his heals. A simple phone call by the CFTC/SEC just once in that 20 years would have sent that criminal to jail. Thankfully I lost only about 500 dollars, but that’s nothing compared to the 200 million he scammed from others. Here is the bum in question:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Wasendorf

    Russell R. Wasendorf, Sr. (born 1948) is the former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Peregrine Financial Group, also known as PFGBEST, a futures commission merchant (commonly known as a commodity broker) that filed for bankruptcy protection in Chicago in July 2012.

    He was arrested in July 2012 following a suicide attempt. In September he pleaded guilty to embezzling $215.5 million from more than 13,000 customers over the course of 20 years. On January 31, 2013 he received a 50-year sentence for fraud, effectively a life sentence.[2]

    and then there is Obama’s friend, John Corzine. I nearly got taken by this loser too since I had a residual account with E-trade (which thankfully was down to 24 cents after I withdrew funds) since Corzine’s MF-global was going to handle my futures trades through E-trade. Did the regulators or congress throw Obama’s friend in jail like he should have been thrown in? Eric Holder the Atty General refused to do much:

    http://moneymorning.com/2013/08/09/jon-corzine-the-face-of-american-crony-capitalism/

    I’d be a big supporter of big government if government actually protected the interest of citizens rather than acted as a proxy for the corrupt and incompetent.

    I’m not a complete libertarian — about 10% government, 90% individual.

  40. stcordova,

    Sal, I certainly don’t believe that governments always or even usually do a good job. There is incompetence, cronyism, corruption, all of it. The point is what they are supposed to be doing is generally beneficial, as the list of EU goals keiths linked to above shows. Their purpose is to create a peaceful, safe, healthy environment for all the people–to, as the document that patrick posted, “increase the general welfare.”

    That is not the case for individuals or corporations. Their goals are to increase their own individual welfares. If, through some “invisible hand” those activities should happen to help others, fine, but if not, too bad. So whether they do a good job or a bad one, the rest of us shouldn’t expect much.

    Where there is a power vacuum, strong individuals and businesses take over, and do whatever they can get away with in the area of stealing from others, raping the environment, etc.–it is precisely their charge, what their owners want their managers to do. So if democratic governments fail (and of course they fail), they still beat being run by powerful corporations. Not only is their explicit goal in our interest, but each person is supposed to get a vote on what his or her representatives should be at least trying to do. And this vote is not based on spending power or amount of stock owned. Everybody’s is the same.

    Your 90-10 split seems arbitrary (not to say capricious) to me. As a Georgist myself, I’d be okay with eliminating all taxes on labor and capital and limiting government expenditures to what government can get by taking the full economic rent of natural resources (e.g., the value of land and spectrum) for the community.

  41. walto:
    stcordova,

    That is not the case for individuals or corporations.Their goals are to increase their own individual welfares.If, through some “invisible hand” those activities should happen to help others, fine, but if not, too bad.So whether they do a good job or a bad one, the rest of us shouldn’t expect much.

    Where there is a power vacuum, strong individuals and businesses take over, and do whatever they can get away with in the area of stealing from others, raping the environment, etc.–it is precisely their charge, what their owners want their managers to do.So if democratic governments fail (and of course they fail), they still beat being run by powerful corporations.Not only is their explicit goal in our interest, but each person is supposed to get a vote on what his or her representatives should be at least trying to do.And this vote is not based on spending power or amount of stock owned.Everybody’s is the same.

    Sure, but there’s so much money and progress to be gained in letting the “business men” run our future:

    https://www.weylandindustries.com/investor

    http://bladerunner.wikia.com/wiki/Tyrell_Corporation

  42. Walto:

    Your 90-10 split seems arbitrary (not to say capricious) to me. As a Georgist myself, I’d be okay with eliminating all taxes on labor and capital and limiting government expenditures to what government can get by taking the full economic rent of natural resources (e.g., the value of land and spectrum) for the community.

    Thanks for your response. I don’t have a lot of issue with what you said. Lots of wisdom there….

    I generally don’t view highly empowered governments as more or less ethical and wise than greedy individuals or corporations because it is made of the same substance — people. Unless the people in charge demonstrate they have high incentive for integrity and competence for the public welfare, then that is the degree trust and power should be given.

    The 10% figure is arbitrary but proceeds from a personal theological belief (related to the tithe).

    In my own industry, the financial industry, the self-policing was much more effective in the case of Wassendorf than the government regulators. Financial institutions worried about Wassendorf’s honesty were the ones who did their own investigation, the CTFS/SEC with all its power to issue subpoenas, warrants, whatever — did nothing. It was the investigation of the other financeers who provided data to the FBI….

    Government should protect boundaries and property and natural resources. Of late, in the USA, I see them plundering the populace, and the government has become an instrument for greedy individuals and corporations under the guise of public good.

    As far as the EU, I don’t have much say, but hedge fund managers have been betting on the stupidity of the EU handling the greek crisis and making a killing. The expectation is pretty high, as far as Greece is concerned the EU will mess up. As for the other good the EU has done, I really don’t know.

    Smart money is betting on the idiocy and corruption in government, especially the EU:
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-01-10/eclectica-s-hendry-turns-greece-chaos-profit-into-bet-that-china-will-fail

    The 41-year-old fund manager says he’s proud to have profited from trading interest-rate options after the near collapse of the European and U.S. banking systems.
    ….

    Hendry’s Eclectica Fund, which bets on broad global macroeconomic indicators, gained the notice of investors in 2008 when it posted a 31.2 percent return, in a year when the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index dropped 38.5 percent. Hendry’s fund was up 9.6 percent for the year to Oct. 31, besting 83 percent of its rivals in the annual Bloomberg Markets ranking of global macro hedge funds. (Hendry’s fund wasn’t big enough to be included in the rankings for mid-sized funds.) As of Nov. 30, 2010, the $233 million Eclectica Fund had climbed 119.3 percent since its inception in 2002.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-01-10/eclectica-s-hendry-turns-greece-chaos-profit-into-bet-that-china-will-fail

    So as a bystander on the case of the EU, smart money (not the gambling houses) but the hedge fund managers had bet on the dysfunction of the EU (while publicly saying they supported the EU).

    Hedgefunds are publicly saying they are supportive of the EU today, but we don’t know what is being said behind closed doors.

    Personally, I don’t think Greece is going to fix its problems and Greece is part of the EU.

    Finally, I’m inclined to trust businessmen when it is in their best interest to do business honestly and for my benefit.

    There have been a several times I dealt with an incompetent bureaucrats with no recourse to when they screwed up since the relationship was forced on me. I didn’t like that.

    I briefly worked for the IRS as co-op student. What I saw going on was a bit chilling.

  43. Patrick,

    About a third of my informal poll voted Leave. They still see the value in free trade and free movement, but they object more strongly to the EU’s overreach and have concerns about the impact of an influx of Syrian and other Muslim refugees on British culture. (Yes, there is a conflict between their desire to move freely in Europe and that to restrict immigration.)

    Freedom of movement only applies to EU nationals. There is a common conflation, including in the minds of the ballotted, between reducing free EU movement and stemming the perceived (largely mythical) tide of Muslim refugees reaching Britain. The two are not directly linked, except in so far as the border controls of the 60’s would have slowed things down a bit.

  44. Patrick,

    The issue is creeping overreach. The EU government doesn’t need to do anything other than enforce the agreements with respect to free trade and freedom of movement to achieve what you and most of my contacts in Britain want. The problem is that governments and bureaucracies tend to grow beyond their initial limits. While now it might “only” be produce regulations, history shows that the intrusiveness is only going to increase.

    Freedom of movement is intrinsically tied of with across-the-board rules for migrants, so there are bound to be discrepancies vs what a set of individual states might enact. But, we still influence those rules. The EU is not something entirely apart from its membership. The criticism of the EU appears to be its lack of perfection; the need for some degree of compromise.

    So, we leave, and find that, in order to trade with it, we need to pay it, and to accept its rules in large degree, but have lost our votes. Good job.

  45. Allan Miller:
    Patrick,

    Freedom of movement only applies to EU nationals. There is a common conflation, including in the minds of the ballotted, between reducing free EU movement and stemming the perceived (largely mythical) tide of Muslim refugees reaching Britain. The two are not directly linked, except in so far as the border controls of the 60’s would have slowed things down a bit.

    True, the Leave proponents did hype the proposal by the EU to require the UK to accept 90,000 refugees, without mentioning that that could only happen if the UK opted into the program.

  46. Allan Miller:

    The issue is creeping overreach. The EU government doesn’t need to do anything other than enforce the agreements with respect to free trade and freedom of movement to achieve what you and most of my contacts in Britain want. The problem is that governments and bureaucracies tend to grow beyond their initial limits. While now it might “only” be produce regulations, history shows that the intrusiveness is only going to increase.

    Freedom of movement is intrinsically tied of with across-the-board rules for migrants, so there are bound to be discrepancies vs what a set of individual states might enact. But, we still influence those rules. The EU is not something entirely apart from its membership. The criticism of the EU appears to be its lack of perfection; the need for some degree of compromise.

    So, we leave, and find that, in order to trade with it, we need to pay it, and to accept its rules in large degree, but have lost our votes. Good job.

    I strongly suspect that Britain will join Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein in the EFTA. While that does not include voting rights, it does keep them as part of the common market and exempts them from the more onerous intrusions from Brussels. It could be the best possible outcome, if Juncker doesn’t nix it.

  47. Freedom of movement is intrinsically tied of with across-the-board rules for migrants

    Probably, but I see little need to get the EU involved in matters of immigration. Does there have to be so much bureaucratic centralization to enable free commerce? I’d prefer to see politicians less involved in free trade and commerce since “highly regulated free-trade” seems an oxymoron.

    I think governments should help enforce contracts and prevent fraud, beyond that, government seems incompetent to legislate prosperity.

    If they want to stabilize the EU currency (aka EURO) tie it to the gold standard rather than the whims of 28 dysfunctional governments. Fat chance that will happen though.

    “Brexit” will probably be in name only, imho because the economies of countries will remain integrated. As long as there are contractual relationships between UK citizens and corporations with non-UK citizens in the EU countries, there will have to be cooperation on some level.

    OK, from my perspective across the Atlantic, the following sort of conduct by the EU Parliament looks pretty senseless. It doesn’t send a message of competent leadership but rather politicians just grand standing and trying to justify the existence of a mostly useless institution and wasting money in the process.

    So they break up Google to protect privacy, anyone really think the next search engine company coming along will be free of the same issues? Ha!

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/28/business/international/google-european-union.html?_r=0

    E.U. Parliament Passes Measure to Break Up Google in Symbolic Vote

    BRUSSELS — Europe’s resentment of the American technology giant Google reached a new noise level on Thursday as the European Parliament passed a nonbinding vote to break up the company.

    Although merely symbolic — the resolution carries no legal weight — the move came the day after a separate European body sought to further expand citizens’ “right to be forgotten” privacy protections against Google.

    Both moves are also playing out against the backdrop of a long-running investigation by the European authorities of Google, on which the European Union’s new antitrust chief, Margrethe Vestager, is still getting up to speed.

Comments are closed.