Russell Roberts's Blog, page 1441

Neither Order Nor Liberty

Not only does the "war on drugs" war on peaceful people (only some of whom use intoxicants that the government disapproves of) create its own unattractive and dangerous artifacts, it also encourages people to rat on their neighbors.  (HT Mary O'Grady)

Some people call this war on peaceful people (only some of whom use intoxicants that the government disapproves of) a source of ordered liberty.  I call it tyranny – and it's tyranny that doesn't even deliver on its marquis promise: it creates disorder as it batters liberty.

See, by the way, Mark Perry's stats on U.S. incarceration rates.  "Ordered liberty" my arse.

Addicted to an Immoral Substance: Power

I'd originally planned to include the following items in my most recent "Some Links" post – the one that mentions that today is the 40th anniversary of Richard Nixon's declaration of a "war on drugs" war on peaceful people who choose to use intoxicants that the government disapproves of.  But this bit of history in this unconscionable war is so important that it deserves its own post.

Those of you who believe that the so-called "war on drugs" is not a war on peaceful people, pay special attention, for you'll find evidence that not only is this war waged against peaceful people who choose to use intoxicants that the government disapproves of but also a war waged against peaceful people who do not necessarily use any officially disapproved intoxicants.

Consider the unspeakably horrible experience in early 1997 of Ms. Janneral Denson.  Here's what I wrote in 1999 about this atrocity.  And here's Ms. Denson's own testimony before Congress.

Some Links

Richard Ebeling reminds me that today is the 40th anniversary of Richard Nixon's declaration of a "war on drugs" war on peaceful people who choose to use intoxicants that the government disapproves of.  Jimmy Carter, writing in today's New York Times, calls for its end.

Speaking of the "war on drugs" war on peaceful people who choose to use intoxicants that the government disapproves of, I'm delighted that to find an ungated link to an essay that I regard to be especially compelling on this front: Randy Barnett's 1994 Yale Law Journal article "Bad Trip."

In this essay from the June 14th edition of the Washington Times, the always-effective Dan Griswold reminds us that trade is always balanced.

Here's a shocking finding!

Over at EconLog, David Henderson rightly calls out Ron Paul and other Republican presidential hopefuls for their confusion and misunderstanding of the state of manufacturing, and its significance, in the modern American economy.  Sheesh.  These people ought to regularly read Mark Perry's Carpe Diem.

How much did the tax cuts under Pres. George W. Bush contribute to today's budget deficit?  Here're some data.

In this podcast, the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Ryan Young and Lee Doren weigh in on Pres. Obama's Luddite-lite allegation that ATM's contribute to slower job creation.

A Constitutional Question

In response to this post about Uncle Sam's bribes paid to the government of Brazil, my friend Reuvain Borchardt (Fordham Law, '10), as well as commenter "hamilton," challenge my suggestion that these payments to Brazil are unconstitutional.

They might have a valid point.

My initial thought is that the U.S. Constitution does not authorize Uncle Sam to tax Americans in order to acquire cash used to buy (allegedly) desirable commercial policies from foreign governments.  Would it be constitutional, for example, for Uncle Sam to subsidize the building of steel factories in Thailand if Congress determined that such factories would redound to the economic benefit of Americans?

But on second thought perhaps the Brazilian cotton bribes do, arguably, fall under the meaning of "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations."

I'm not at all sure that such payments would have been recognized by the framers as falling within the meaning of that clause.  But I'm not sure that they wouldn't.

What do you think?

Either way, of course, the fact that a majority of the members of the House (including a majority of the GOP members) voted to keep most farm subsidies in place is itself sufficient evidence that these members of Congress take seriously neither their oaths of office nor their proclamations that they are in Washington to help reduce the size and power of Uncle Sam.

Cotton This

Sadly but predictably the U.S. House of Representatives just refused to make meaningful cuts in farm subsidies.  (See, e.g., this report in the Washington Post from the Associated Press: "House keeps farm subsidies, cuts food aid as it passes food and farm spending bill.")  Buried in this bad news, however, is a speck of good news: over the objection of a majority of House Republicans, that chamber voted to end the crazy year-old scheme of sending more than $12 million monthly to Brazil in order to induce the government there not to raise tariffs on U.S. exports to Brazil.

That these payments were authorized in the first place – and continue to be supported by most GOP House members – is lunacy.  In no rational universe does government A raise taxes on citizens of A in order to acquire funds for use in bribing government B not to raise taxes on citizens of B.

That a majority of GOP House members voted to maintain this unsavory scheme suggests that that party, in fact, is populated chiefly by charlatans whose disregard for their oath to uphold the Constitution is matched only by their duplicity in proclaiming a wish to rein in government while pusillanimously voting to keep it galloping ahead at full speed.

(HT Andy Roth)

Quotation of the Day…

… from pages 36-37 of John H. Cochrane, "How Did Paul Krugman Get It So Wrong?" Economic Affairs, June 2011 (Vol. 31):

Krugman writes as if the volatility of stock prices alone disproves market efficiency, and believers in efficient marketers [sic] have just ignored it all these years.  This is a canard that Krugman should know better than to pass on, no matter how rhetorically convenient.  There is nothing about 'efficiency' that promises 'stability'.  Stable price growth would in fact be a major violation of efficiency as it would imply easy profits.

He Who Lives by Legislation….

Here's a letter to the Wall Street Journal:

Months after ordering the U.S. military to commence the still-ongoing air strikes in Libya – and, hence, after disproving his initial claim that these strikes would last "days, not weeks" – Pres. Obama, as you report, informed Congress yesterday of "the administration's view that the Libyan conflict is too limited to require authorization by Congress under the War Powers Act" ("Obama Defends Libya Intervention," June 16).

Can I cite Pres. Obama as an exemplar if I refuse to pay taxes this year because my view is that my income is too limited to require such payment under the Internal Revenue Code?

Sincerely,

Donald J. Boudreaux

Open Letter to Barack Obama

Mr. Barack Obama

President of the Executive Branch

United States Government

Washington, DC

Dear Mr. Obama:

In your recent interview with NBC News you explained that your policies would promote more private-sector job creation were it not for (as you put it) "some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers.  You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don't go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate."

With respect, sir, you're complaining about the source of our prosperity: innovation and the increases it causes in worker productivity.

With no less justification – but with no more validity – any of your predecessors might have issued complaints similar to yours.  Pres. Grant, for example, might have grumbled in 1873 about "some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers.  You see it when you go to a bank that uses a modern safe and so employs fewer armed guards than before, or when you travel on trains which, compared to stage coaches, transport many more passengers using fewer workers."

Or Pres. Nixon might have groused in 1973 about such labor-saving innovation: "You see it when you step into an automatic elevator that doesn't require an elevator operator, or when you observe that polio vaccination keeps people alive and active without the aid of nurses and all those workers who were once usefully employed making iron-lung machines, crutches, and wheelchairs."

Do you, Pres. Obama, really wish to suggest that the innovations you blame for thwarting your fiscal policies are "structural issues" that ought to be corrected?

Sincerely,

Donald J. Boudreaux

Professor of Economics

George Mason University

Fairfax, VA 22030

Quotation of the Day….

…from page 52 (and with original emphasis) of David Mamet's The Secret Knowledge:

Our politicians, left and right, are, to belabor the metaphor, the wastrel son: they are free to spend, to chase fantasies, and to squander resources, for the resources are not theirs, and there is no penalty for their misuse or loss.

A Question About Institutions and Incentives

A conversation that I had yesterday with my 14-year-old son, Thomas, prompts me to pose this question: would college education in the U.S. be improved if it, too, were supplied in the same manner as K-12 schooling is supplied?

That is, would the quality of college education in the U.S. rise (or at least not fall) if every American were assigned to a government owned and operated college nearest to his or her residence?  (Thomas, for example, would be assigned to George Mason University.)  Tuition at these colleges would be $0.00; these colleges' expenses would be funded exclusively through taxes.  Each college student would be unable to attend any government college save the one to which he or she is assigned (although students would retain the right to attend privately owned and operated colleges that would sustain themselves by charging tuition).

Finally, truancy statutes would be enhanced to require schooling through grade 14 (that is, through a student's sophomore year in college).

Would this arrangement work?  Would it improve the quality of post-secondary education in America?