Written by Isaac Morehouse | 09 November 2009

The political process is a sure-fire way to take people who otherwise have no reason to be upset with each other and make them bitter foes.

In the real world (the free, private, voluntary non-political world) I have friends with completely different tastes, preferences, and priorities. This does not prevent us from associating and it rarely results in heated debate or offense. Others can express their preferences by their lifestyles and personal choices - if they believe in something they will support it and encourage me to do the same. If I disagree I simply don’t support it. Rarely is this reason enough to sever a friendship.

There are those who love certain types of music or certain sporting activities; they would be willing to spend a great deal of money and time to sustain those activities - and they do. The fact that they care more about the activities than I do is no cause for alarm or enmity.

Enter politics.

Every one of us has had money taken from us, whether we wish it or not, via taxation. The looters then “offer” us a variety of ways which they could spend our money. Since every person has different values and preferences, it is inevitable that each of the proposed expenditures make some people happy, since they get more value from them than the taxes they put it, and make others angry since they were forced to pay for something they value less than the taxes taken. Both sides advocate their position (although those benefiting from expenditure, though smaller in number, will always lobby much harder than those who are harmed, since the harm is spread in small bits among millions and the benefits concentrated in large chunks on the few) and in the process become political enemies.

The debate becomes, wrongly, about the merits of the proposed expenditure. Proponents describe how much better the world would be with project X; opponents describe how project X is a waste. Both argue the wrong thing. The project itself need not be bad or good and we needn’t attempt to settle such a subjective question once for all people. Yet advocates of the project will claim that any who oppose tax-funding oppose the project itself or even it’s noble goals. This is simplistic and incorrect. Music is a wonderful thing. Does it follow that if I prefer not to have my money taken by force and spent on the symphony that I hate music and therefore I hate wonderful things?

Both proponents and opponents of particular government projects should realize that it is not the project itself that deserves to be debated, it is the fact that it’s funded with money forcibly removed from innocent citizens. Without government getting in the way, supporters can promote their favorite projects by soliciting voluntary donations and public interest. Opponents can simply choose not to fund them. Both can remain on peaceful terms. Not so in the political market.

I was reminded of this sad reality earlier this year when the old Tiger Stadium was to receive several million in tax dollars. Those who loved the stadium were offended by those who voiced opposition to this use of tax dollars. Stadium preservationists tried to make it a debate about the merits of the project, knowledge of the details involved and the love of baseball, Detroit and history (and even about economic development - the silliest argument of all for government spending).

To call opponents names and claim they simply didn’t know or didn’t care about the rich history and heritage of the stadium or the particulars of the project was wrongheaded. The debate was not about the project itself, but about the way it was being funded. I loved old Tiger Stadium yet I believe it is immoral to force taxpayers across the nation to pay for its restoration, even if it would benefit me. Nor do I want to pay for similar projects in the other 49 states, which were inevitably included in the same massive budget.

That is what the debate should have been about - freedom and choice vs. command and control.

If you still insist on forcing others to pay for things you think are wonderful, remember; politics is a fickle game. Even if your favorite hobby or project is benefiting from government largess today you can rest assured that tomorrow another competing project will be the political flavor of the month. Do you really want to spend your time stooping and groveling before the political class begging for money to continue your project instead of everyone else’s?

I prefer to keep my dignity and go out and raise support and awareness peacefully and voluntarily. If a cause is worthy it will survive without the use of force; the last thing a noble cause needs is the muck of politics to drag it down.

Written by Isaac M. Morehouse | 07 May 2009

Here’s a snippet from my article on Mises.org today:

“There is no denying that our economy is undergoing dramatic changes. That brings not just difficulty, but also opportunity for entrepreneurs. In fact, the “creative destruction” of the market is part of what drives economic growth.

Putting aside the causes of our current economic troubles (except to say free markets are not the culprit), we can’t forget that, though massive bubbles are not necessary, markets are by nature dynamic even in the most stable of times. This dynamism is not an evil to be avoided at all costs but the very thing that makes free economies so productive.”

And,

“…growth could not happen without both creation and destruction; it is the driver of growth, not a problem to be solved. If the economy were static — if jobs were never lost, prices never shifted up or down, investments never enjoyed large profits or major losses — we would not live in a stable utopia but a stagnant subsistence economy.”

Read the whole thing here.

Written by Isaac Morehouse | 18 April 2009

For those who participated in Wednesday’s Tea Parties across the U.S. there seems a sense of both energy and confusion.  The energy appears largely to be generated by a motivation on the part of a large number of taxpayers to vent their frustration at big spending, taxing, debt, inflation and general government malfeasance.  The confusion seems to be on how to change it.

As I’ve said before, the real frustration should be (and largely is I think) at the entire political class, not at any one party or person.  Likewise if there is to be any positive outcome it can only occur with a major push towards policies aimed at curbing the grotesque appetite of the entire political class and returning to a more Madisonian conception of limited government.

Here are a few suggestions that I humbly submit to anyone who participated in the Tea Parties.  Any or all of these would, I think, create some real change in the direction of limited government, favorable to all taxpayers.

1. Vote out every single incumbent politician on both the federal and state level in the next series of elections.*

2. Enact term limits on all 538 federal lawmakers.

3. Impose a federal balanced budget amendment.

4. Require a 3/4 supermajority vote for any spending beyond the rate of inflation and population growth, state and federal.

5. Require a 3/4 supermajority vote for any tax or fee increase, state and federal.

6. Implement a strict monetary rule or commodity standard that the Federal Reserve must follow.

7. Put the entire government check register online at the state and federal levels.

*There may be a VERY small number of politicians who have not voted to increase spending, taxes, pork, earmarks or debt and who have respected the constitution through and through.  If so, I can probably count them on one hand and the odds are almost zero that your representative or senator is one of them.  The chance that you will take the time or even be able to find out who they are (or that you can trust any information you do find about them, especially considering much of it will come from their own office) is very, very small.  It’s better to simply vote out every single incumbent without exception than to search in vain (and expect others to do the same) for proof of innocence on the part of a few.  Ousting one or two or five good apples is a small price to pay for cleaning out hundreds and hundreds of rotten ones.

(Cross posted on the SFEblog)

Written by Isaac Morehouse | 23 January 2009

Disagreeing with a man whose face appears on the necktie of many a freedom-lover is perhaps dangerous, but sound reason can’t be sacrificed on the altar of great men – and Smith was a great man.

Indeed, Adam Smith, in his depiction of the division of labor in a pin factory and his timeless prose on the invisible hand and the self-interest of the butcher, offers some of the greatest explanations and defenses of capitalism ever written, even some 230 years later. I consider Smith a great thinker, and a hero of liberty. That doesn’t mean he was never wrong; particularly when it comes to the question of value.

Written by Isaac Morehouse | 08 January 2009

Some snippets from my article on generational wealth posted today on Mises.org:

"It is a great irony that prosperity affords posterity the luxury of forgetting its origins. Though not a hard-and-fast rule of societal evolution, generations who grow up wealthy often lack respect for or understanding of the values and ideas that generated the very wealth from which they benefit.

There is an honesty, realism, and practical virtue often accompanying generations that have to endure difficult labor that is sometimes lost on later generations that inherit a comfortable material life. This is not a new phenomenon but is present throughout history. Compare, for example, the life and work of the ancient Greek poet Hesiod with that of the great philosopher Aristotle some 300 years later." [...]

"Aristotle provided one of the best defenses for private property, and his work in logic and metaphysics remains unrivaled today. However, Aristotle’s political and economic thought leaves something to be desired by those who value free-market capitalism, the role of the entrepreneur, and the positive power of self-interest and individuality." [...]

"The main difference between these two men was their wealth and status. Hesiod, perhaps due to necessity, was a practical thinker. Extolling the virtues of hard work was not mere speculation; I doubt Hesiod could afford to look down his nose at labor. Aristotle, on the other hand, could afford to disparage trade and labor. The wealth of Greece provided opportunity for full-time teachers and thinkers to ponder anything they chose. Indeed, the power of wealth to fund such speculative philosophy is one of its greatest advantages, and as one who spends hours studying, I would not wish to return to a poor agrarian society. Still, such generational wealth carries with it a certain danger.

Anticapitalist theories share in common an inability to take human nature as it is. Rather than analyzing man as a complex creature who will always act to achieve what he perceives as good, anticapitalist theories tend to focus on what the theorist wishes man to be and often overlook the necessity of market exchange for human improvement. From the vantage of a moneyed aristocracy, it is easy to be “above” the hustle and bustle of the marketplace, and to pursue higher ideals than material prosperity — forgetting that such prosperity is what supports the hours of speculation.

I do not believe one must be poor to understand and appreciate capitalism, nor am I opposed to generational wealth or inheritances. It does seem, however, that there is a certain danger in living a life completely detached from market processes and the pursuit of wealth through production and trade." [...]

"In our age of plenty where “higher learning” is ubiquitous, it is imperative that we remain realistic in our assessment of human nature and not forget that the basic principles that produced our prosperity still govern human action. Teaching future generations the theories of individual liberty and capitalist production is important; perhaps letting them experience the theories in practice is as well"

Read the whole thing here.