Browsed by
Category: Politics

What People Mean When They Talk About Freedom – Article by Bradley Doucet

What People Mean When They Talk About Freedom – Article by Bradley Doucet

Comments 0 Comment
The New Renaissance Hat
Bradley Doucet
April 11, 2012
******************************

Most people I talk to believe that freedom is important. They generally want to be free, and they want others to be free as well. The disagreements only begin when we start discussing what, exactly, we mean by “free.” These disagreements over the meaning of liberty underlie a good part of the much-hyped polarization of politics in the western world.

One meaning, or set of meanings, is reflected in Freedom House’s annual Freedom in the World survey, whose findings for 2009 are available here. Freedom, according to this survey, is “the opportunity to act spontaneously in a variety of fields outside the control of the government and other centers of potential domination.” If that seems a little vague, the organization’s website gets more specific, breaking freedom down into two broad categories: political rights and civil liberties. Political rights allow people to “vote freely for distinct alternatives in legitimate elections, compete for public office, join political parties and organizations, and elect representatives who have a decisive impact on public policies and are accountable to the electorate.” Civil liberties include “freedoms of expression and belief, associational and organizational rights, rule of law, and personal autonomy without interference from the state.”

In the latest survey, fully 47 countries, ranging from Canada to Barbados, from the United States to Uruguay, get a perfect score of 1 for political rights and a perfect score of 1 for civil liberties. Only nine countries, including North Korea, Somalia, and Sudan, get the worst possible score of 7 on both counts. To get a sense of the spread, Argentina gets a pair of 2s, Turkey gets 3s, Kenya gets 4s, Ethiopia 5s, and Iran and Zimbabwe 6s.

Setting the Bar Too Low

This survey, however well-intentioned, suffers from two glaring deficiencies. First, it sets the bar way too low. By no stretch of the imagination are there 47 countries in the world that deserve perfect scores for freedom, even if we accept Freedom House’s criteria. Are civil liberties really perfectly safe in England, with surveillance cameras on every other street corner? Should the American Civil Liberties Union close up shop in an age of warrantless wiretaps, enhanced interrogation techniques, and jail time for smoking a joint? And here at home, how many Canadians really imagine that our proroguing Prime Minister is fully accountable to the public? I’m not saying I’d rather live in Zimbabwe—or Argentina, for that matter—but even in these relatively free countries of the Anglosphere, there remains plenty of room for improvement.

The other glaring defect in Freedom House’s survey is that it completely ignores economic freedom. There is no mention, for instance, of red tape, which costs small- to medium-sized Canadian businesses over $30 billion a year. No mention, either, of the eminent domain abuse that is rampant in the United States, robbing small property owners of their homes and shops in order to help some developer with deep pockets.

The Economic Freedom Network—with members in over 70 nations around the globe, including Canada’s own Fraser Institute—provides a picture of economic freedom in the world with its annual report. By its definition, economic freedom exists when property acquired “without the use of force, fraud, or theft is protected from physical invasions by others” and when individuals “are free to use, exchange, or give their property as long as their actions do not violate the identical rights of others.” More specifically, according to its latest report, to have high economic freedom, a country has to protect private property, enforce contracts, and have a stable monetary environment. “It also must keep taxes low, refrain from creating barriers to both domestic and international trade, and rely more fully on markets rather than the political process to allocate goods and resources.”

Compare and Contrast

Many of the countries that score highest in economic freedom are also at the top of the list in Freedom House’s survey of political rights and civil liberties, and conversely, most of the least free score dismally on both surveys. In fact, a graph in the Economic Freedom Network’s report shows this strong positive correlation. But there are some notable exceptions. Hong Kong and Singapore, first and second respectively for economic freedom with scores of 8.97 and 8.66 out of a possible 10, are only middling according to the Freedom House survey; and the United Arab Emirates (7.58) and Bahrain (7.56), 19th and 20th for economic freedom, are quite repressive on other counts, both scoring 5.5 according to Freedom House (with 7 being the worst possible combined average score).

Would I rather live in Singapore than in Canada, which placed 8th for economic freedom with a respectable score of 7.91? The trade-off in terms of civil liberties would probably be too high. But I would gain something in exchange for my loss. According to the Economic Freedom Network’s report, countries with higher economic freedom have substantially higher per capita incomes, higher growth rates, longer life expectancies, better environmental performance, and less corruption. The poor are also better off in absolute terms in countries with higher economic freedom, and no worse off in relative terms.

As a libertarian, I value both civil and economic liberty. I fault the authoritarian segment of the political right for running roughshod over the former, but I also fault an equally authoritarian segment of the political left for trampling the latter. But beyond this, I fault both sides of the spectrum for fetishizing political rights. Democracy is a tool, and it can be a useful one, but what good are elections if our representatives are not checked by a strict constitution from taking away our civil and economic freedoms? What good is accountability if the people don’t know or appreciate what is being taken away from them? Looking at it from the opposite perspective, if we cared enough and were wise enough to guard our civil and economic freedoms properly, would it matter very much anymore who administered the machinery of government? Yet without constitutional limits and the will to enforce them, political rights amount to the “freedom” to force others to do what we want—a power that interest groups will fight tooth and nail to wield.

As I am regularly reminded when I discuss libertarianism with my fellow Canadians, this is a pretty good place to live. Canada scores better than or as good as most places on the planet in terms of political rights, civil liberties, and economic freedom. This is a fact, and I am grateful for it. But does that mean we shouldn’t try to make life even better? Why are we so complacent, so ready to accept “pretty good” as good enough? Why are so many intelligent, educated people uninterested in even exploring what history’s great thinkers have had to say about liberty? Few Canadians, I wager, have even heard of Benjamin Constant, for instance. A champion of individual freedom two centuries ago, he viewed political rights as a collective kind of freedom, present in the ancient world, which was “compatible with… the complete subjection of the individual to the authority of the community.” Yes, Canada is a pretty good place to live, all things considered. When individuals are no longer subjected to the dictates of their fellows, free to live as they see fit and responsible for the consequences of their own actions, it will be a great place to live.

Bradley Doucet is Le Quebecois Libré‘s English Editor. A writer living in Montreal, he has studied philosophy and economics, and is currently completing a novel on the pursuit of happiness. He also writes for The New Individualist, an Objectivist magazine published by The Atlas Society, and sings.

Gains for Ron Paul at the Douglas County Republican Convention in Nevada – and Outrageous Rigging in Carson City

Gains for Ron Paul at the Douglas County Republican Convention in Nevada – and Outrageous Rigging in Carson City

Comments 0 Comment
The New Renaissance Hat
G. Stolyarov II
April 1, 2012
******************************

Ron Paul has been gaining ample numbers of supporters as delegates to the Nevada State Republican Convention. I am proud to have participated in the March 31 Douglas County Republican Convention, which was civil and administered quite fairly. Both my wife Wendy and I have been selected as delegates to the Nevada State Convention, along with a sizable number of other supporters of Ron Paul (a majority, by some accounts). As an added bonus, I had the opportunity to speak in favor of individual liberty on a variety of issues during the discussions of the proposed Douglas County GOP platform.  It pleased me that speakers were recognized in a procedurally impartial manner, and each side of an issue was always able to express its views.

Nearby in Carson City, however, there was foul play and subversion of the legitimate process by those who wished to rig the outcome. I encourage you to read Doug Wead’s description of some of the outrageous usurpations of power by those in charge at that unfortunate convention. The contrast between the civility and good order in Douglas County and the overt abuses at the Carson City convention is stunning. In any event, with the majority of the delegates from Clark County, a sizable contingent from Douglas County, and all of the delegates from Nye County, Ron Paul will have a good number of delegates on his side at the State Convention on May 5.

Mr. Stolyarov Quoted in Article on Verizon Spectrum Acquisition

Mr. Stolyarov Quoted in Article on Verizon Spectrum Acquisition

Comments 0 Comment
The New Renaissance Hat
G. Stolyarov II
March 27, 2012
******************************

I am pleased to have again been quoted in Heartlander Magazine, this time in the article “Verizon Spectrum/Cross-Marketing Deals Hit FCC Roadblock” by Kenneth Artz. The end of the article is devoted to my remarks regarding the advantages of the FCC allowing companies to harness currently unused wireless spectrum.

I have always strongly supported judging each issue on its own merits. The ability to focus on the impact of a particular transaction or measure – without letting it be clouded by surrounding tangential or even unrelated matters – is a major reason why, for instance, I support line-item veto power for the President and a legislative germaneness rule to prevent the packaging of any number of unrelated measures. The same principle should apply to the deliberations of the FCC.

Eliminating Most Foreclosures: An Innovative and Just Approach to Mortgage Delinquencies

Eliminating Most Foreclosures: An Innovative and Just Approach to Mortgage Delinquencies

Comments 2 comments
The New Renaissance Hat
G. Stolyarov II
March 25, 2012
******************************

The economic and personal consequences of foreclosure are devastating. Foreclosures leave behind not only blighted neighborhoods, but ruined lives. Furthermore, during the past three years, immense abuses of the foreclosure process have come to light – with numerous banks being found to have improperly foreclosed on thousands of homeowners. The banks have either been unable to produce documentation that demonstrated their right to foreclose – or, worse, have foreclosed on individuals who were never even delinquent or did not have mortgages in the first place (see, for instance, here, here, and here). The violations of due process, private-property rights, and the rule of law have been astounding.

At this point, any solution that can reduce the number of foreclosures will be a welcome benefit to individual liberty, the US economy, and millions of Americans. Indeed, the concept of foreclosure – the expropriation of one’s home – resulting from a few late payments has always struck me as draconian. It disregards one fundamental fact: the homeowner has equity in his or home, even if he or she fails to make a few scheduled payments. So, suppose that a homeowner has a $150,000 outstanding mortgage loan on a home whose market value is $200,000. This means that the homeowner’s equity in the home is $50,000 – or one quarter of the home’s value. If the homeowner fails to make a $1000 hypothetical monthly payment on time, why is the bank entitled to appropriate the entire home and thereby deprive the homeowner of the entire $50,000 in equity? Suppose, as is often the case these days, that the foreclosure proceedings drag on for a year. A 5000% annual rate of interest for that one delinquent payment is quite steep indeed!

While delinquencies ought to be penalized, wholesale expropriation of a home is an unnecessary and disproportionate response in most cases. It would not have been possible on a truly free market, where roughly equal negotiating power would exist between lenders and borrowers. In today’s politicized financial environment, however, the large banks receive all of the privileges: bailouts, loan guarantees, access to “free money” from the Federal Reserve, barriers to entry for smaller competitors, the ability to “securitize” personal loans through means of dubious accountability, the ability to flout laws such as those pertaining to mortgage modifications, and a swiftly operating “revolving door” between bankers and politicians. Thus, homeowners are often left to acquiesce to terms that are far harsher than what they could have gotten for themselves in a truly free market.

A more equitable solution, that recognizes that the real value of the homeowner’s equity, is not to foreclose, but rather to reduce the homeowner’s equity for each delinquent payment. If the homeowner fails to make a scheduled payment, then the bank should be able to recoup its resulting losses – by seizing the portion of the homeowner’s equity corresponding to the amount of the delinquency, perhaps also incorporating an interest charge at the prevailing market rate. Only when all of the homeowner’s equity has been exhausted in this way should the bank have the right to foreclose. In today’s housing market, where many homes are “underwater” (i.e., the mortgage balance exceeds the market price, which has declined precipitously since the days of the housing bubble), this solution would still mean that some foreclosures would occur. But the number of foreclosures would be greatly reduced, and the majority of currently planned foreclosures would never occur. Furthermore, the “underwater” homeowners could still be helped by downward principal modifications that recognize the illusory and unsustainable nature of the inflated market prices that existed during the housing bubble and that were fueled by the expansionary monetary policy of the Federal Reserve. Homeowners should not be made to suffer for the Federal Reserve’s blunders.

Under my proposed approach, the mere involuntary loss of one’s job, or a catastrophic illness, would not put one’s place of shelter in immediate jeopardy. Rather, in the time that it takes for the homeowner’s equity to be exhausted, the homeowner would have the opportunity to attempt to regain his or her employment or health. Furthermore, with fewer foreclosures, the unsightly, wasteful, and dangerous effects of neighborhood blight would be greatly scaled back. A homeowner will still largely maintain his or her residence, even if he or she cannot make a regular mortgage payment. But once a home enters foreclosure, it suffers from deterioration and decrepitude at best – and outright vandalism and destruction at worst.

In rolling back the political privileges of the large banks, it is essential to compensate ordinary, law-abiding, innocent homeowners for the damage that these special privileges have wrought. The benefits of years of hard work and consistent mortgage payments should not be nullified overnight by a single delinquency. Over a year ago, in “Wrongful Foreclosures and the Free Market”, I advocated breaking up the bailed-out banks and declaring a temporary moratorium on foreclosures. Rewriting foreclosure law to require the exhaustion of the homeowner’s equity before a foreclosure can be initiated can be another step to wipe out most foreclosures at the stroke of a pen – while restoring an outcome more compatible with individual liberty, true market freedom, and natural justice.

The Death Penalty: Its Limitations, Costs, and Proper Application

The Death Penalty: Its Limitations, Costs, and Proper Application

Comments 0 Comment
The New Renaissance Hat
G. Stolyarov II
March 24, 2012
******************************

With regard to my recent advocacy of keeping the death-penalty option on the table when considering punishments for George Zimmerman, the killer of Trayvon Martin, I was asked to clarify my views on the death penalty, about which I had previously expressed ambivalence in my video “Life Extension, Crime, and Criminal Justice”.

I am indeed wary of most applications of the death penalty, where the commission of the act of killing by the individual being sentenced is in doubt. But I can see legitimate uses for it in cases where the identity of that individual is clear, and the crime was particularly egregious. (Serial killings, rape-murders, killings of children where the murderer is known would qualify, for instance, as would executions of brutal dictators whose human-rights abuses are extensively documented.)

There is a cost aspect to the death penalty, in that it actually costs a lot more to execute a person today than it would to maintain that person in prison for life. Thus, it should be reserved for only the most egregious crimes.

In George Zimmerman’s case, I think a clear message needs to be sent that vigilante killing of unarmed, peaceful individuals who have given no provocation is completely unacceptable and needs to be dealt with harshly. Setting that example could be worth the cost – but ultimately, this is for the court to decide. I do think this case warrants at least considering the option.

Mr. Stolyarov Quoted in Article on Austin Surveillance Cameras

Mr. Stolyarov Quoted in Article on Austin Surveillance Cameras

Comments 0 Comment
The New Renaissance Hat
G. Stolyarov II
March 23, 2012
******************************

I am pleased to have been cited at length in the article “Austin Installs Outdoor Surveillance Cameras” by Kenneth Artz in Heartlander Magazine.

I commented for the article with regard to the negative implications of security cameras on civil liberties and the rights of innocent persons.

If transparency and easier detection of crime and collection of evidence are desired, then the filming should be done by private citizens using their own mobile devices – not by police through centrally controlled and monitored security cameras. But private filming – especially of police activities – oddly enough happens to elicit considerable resistance from many police departments.

The Travesty of Trayvon Martin’s Murder – Video by G. Stolyarov II

The Travesty of Trayvon Martin’s Murder – Video by G. Stolyarov II

Comments 0 Comment

A young man has been murdered with absolutely no provocation – and, unless his killer is brought to justice, the same could happen to any one of us.

17-year-old Trayvon Martin was killed by self-styled “neighborhood watchman” (in truth, vigilante) George Zimmerman for no offense other than walking back to his home and “looking suspicious”. Mr. Stolyarov comments on this atrocity and considers it an outrage that George Zimmerman has not yet been arrested, charged, or removed from civilized society.

Resources:
– “Shooting of Trayvon Martin” – Wikipedia
– “Trayvon Martin case: No-confidence vote for Sanford police chief” – by Tina Susman – Los Angeles Times
– Change.org Petition to Prosecute the Killer of Trayvon Martin

Ronny Edry’s Heroic Outreach to Ordinary Iranians

Ronny Edry’s Heroic Outreach to Ordinary Iranians

Comments 0 Comment
The New Renaissance Hat
G. Stolyarov II
March 20, 2012
******************************

CNN has published an excellent article (“Peace-minded Israeli reaches out to everyday Iranians via Facebook“) on an Israeli graphic designer whose individual efforts may gather sufficient momentum to turn public opinion against an Israeli strike on Iran. This is an excellent example of individual hyper-empowerment, through technology, being able to overcome the machinations of cynical national politicians.

Ronny Edry may be able to prevent a bloodbath by getting enough people to recognize the obvious: that the Iranian population is fundamentally like the rest of us, and that these mostly decent people should not be made to suffer for the transgressions of their leaders.

Let technology and human decency overcome the callous, manipulative, life-sacrificing “world leaders” – like Netanyahu – who are ready to drag us all into a mass slaughter!

The Real War — and Why Inter-Human Wars Are a Distraction – Video by G. Stolyarov II

The Real War — and Why Inter-Human Wars Are a Distraction – Video by G. Stolyarov II

Comments 0 Comment
The New Renaissance Hat
G. Stolyarov II
March 15, 2012
******************************
Other than the unjust killing of innocents, there is a further reason to oppose wars among human beings: they distract us from the real war that we should all be fighting, against the real enemy that threatens us all.Mr. Stolyarov explains the urgent war on ruin that we should all be fighting.This video is based on Mr. Stolyarov’s essay “The Real War — and Why Inter-Human Wars Are a Distraction“.

Support these video-creation efforts by donating at The Rational Argumentator: http://rationalargumentator.com/index.html

References:

– “A Complete Denunciation of War” – Video series by G. Stolyarov II
Part 1
Part 2

– “Refuting Ayn Rand on War” – Video by G. Stolyarov II
– “Progress: Creation and Maintenance” – Essay by G. Stolyarov II
– “Spanish flu” – Wikipedia

Is There a Moral Difference Between Innocent Deaths Caused by Military and Police?

Is There a Moral Difference Between Innocent Deaths Caused by Military and Police?

Comments 1 comment
The New Renaissance Hat
G. Stolyarov II
March 15, 2012
******************************

It is an odd bit of cognitive dissonance among most people today that killings of innocent people by police are (rightly) treated as moral outrages, while killings of innocent civilians by militaries are often rationalized as “collateral damage” – unfortunate, perhaps, but such is war, and the greater cause of the war is said to justify them. Ayn Rand, for instance, made the argument that all of the civilian deaths in a war are the moral fault of the aggressor regime.

One need not look to the battlefield to see clear instances of unjustified initiation of force. There exist numerous acts of criminal aggression within a country’s borders, with regard to which the kind of arguments that are used to justify war would be readily seen as faulty. There is still a lot of murder in every country. Suppose there is a murderer on the loose. Would it be justified for a country’s domestic police force to send a missile into or plant a bomb in a large and inhabited apartment building, simply because the murderer is believed to be hiding there? Would the answer change if this murderer were a serial killer who has already had a string of victims and/or plans to kill more?

I think virtually everyone would agree that inflicting civilian casualties to eliminate this murderer would not be appropriate and would not be worth the moral cost. Virtually nobody would make the argument that it is the murderer, not the police force, who would be morally responsible for any civilian deaths – and therefore it would be acceptable for the police to act to bring about civilian deaths, and to plan for some civilian deaths in advance, and to simply describe these deaths as regrettable “collateral damage”. Virtually everybody in that situation would agree that the police who permit innocent civilians to die in the capture or destruction of the murderer would themselves bear the blame for the clearly preventable deaths of those civilians.

So why is the situation any different just because the word “war” is used to describe a particular instance of aggression – and just because the people involved are not all from the same country and may be acting outside the borders of their country? Aggression is aggression, and the leaders of an invading dictatorships are criminals just like serial killers, except on a larger scale. My view is that the same moral principles should apply to the proper response to all of them. The proper moral response is to neutralize the threat, but to leave the innocent people out of it entirely. No innocent death should ever be dismissed as mere “collateral damage” – and no plan should be pursued if it is known or expected to result in innocent deaths.