Featuring John Allison, President and CEO, Cato Institute; James A. Dorn,Vice President for Monetary Studies and Senior Fellow, Cato Institute; and Mark Calabria, Director of Financial Regulation Studies, Cato Institute; moderated by John Maniscalco, Director of Congressional Affairs, Cato Institute.
In Bootleggers & Baptists: How Economic Forces and Moral Persuasion Interact to Shape Regulatory Politics, economists Bruce Yandle and Adam Smith explain how money and morality are often combined in politics to produce arbitrary regulations benefiting cronies, while constraining productive economic activities by the general public.
You see, the immigration policies Congress has set are the source of the problem. Document fraud is made more likely by employment authorization requirements meant to enforce them, which are also—let’s remember—intrusive and costly business regulation.
In my Cato Policy Analysis “Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification: Franz Kafka’s Solution to Illegal Immigration,” I wrote about restrictive immigration policies and the intrusive “internal enforcement” programs they have spawned. In a section titled “Counterattacks and Complications,” I examined how workers and employers will collude to avoid and frustrate worker verification. Mandatory E-Verify will increase identity and document fraud because it makes these frauds profitable. Trying to solve this problem, the government will naturally gravitate toward more powerful identity systems, including biometric identity cards and tracking.
Sure enough, House Judiciary Committee chairman Lamar Smith’s bill, the “Legal Workforce Act,” has a “pilot program” for a biometric national identity card.
When committing fraud is the pathway to productive employment, you know something is out of whack. Among the things out of whack are: too-restrictive immigration policy, internal enforcement, and E-Verify. This is supposed to be a free country where willingness and ability are the keys to employment.
Ideologies grow and develop over time. Those that don’t die out. Where is classical liberalism headed next?
At Cato Unbound this month, Matt Zwolinski and John Tomasi argue that we who favor limited government and strong private property rights can – and should – make our case in terms of social justice: Among its many other excellent traits, liberty is good for the least well-off, and this is a reason to insist upon it.
David Friedman dissents, however: On his reading, 19th century and earlier classical liberals weren’t really arguing about the lot of the least well-off as such. Instead, they were arguing about the largest group in their own societies, which also just happened to be unskilled laborers. Adam Smith, then, is more the ancestor of Jeremy Bentham than of John Rawls. And anyway, Rawls’ account of social justice is flawed in several important respects.
Alexander McCobin suggests that ideologies, and notably ours, are mostly tied together by a set of principles; the justifications for these principles can vary, and there is often room for disagreement about specific policy outcomes. Taking any small group of them as essential and rejecting all others as somehow impure would mean, in practice, that we enact fewer libertarian policies of any type at all. On the intellectual side, it might also mean giving up a lot of very productive dialogue: It’s actually a good thing when the contractarianism of a John Locke meets the anti-contractarianism of a Lysander Spooner – resulting, say, in the public reason liberalism of a Gerald Gaus, or the presumption of liberty as championed by Randy Barnett.
There’s clearly a lot here to discuss, which our participants will continue to do through the rest of the month, so be sure to stop by often and/or subscribe to Cato Unbound.
Thanks to the good folks at Unz.org, we’ve filled out our archive of the late, great libertarian magazine Libertarian Review. The magazine was published from 1972 to 1981, first as a newsletter of book reviews and then as a glossy monthly magazine edited by Roy A. Childs, Jr. It made quite a splash during those years, and Childs became one of the most visible and controversial libertarian intellectuals. After the magazine folded, as so many intellectual magazines do, he spent almost a decade as editorial director and chief book reviewer for Laissez Faire Books. He had read everything, and he knew everyone in the libertarian movement. He got lots of prominent people — including Murray Rothbard, John Hospers, Thomas Szasz, Roger Lea MacBride, and Charles Koch — to write for the magazine. And he discovered and nurtured plenty of younger writers.
Libertarian Review featured
news coverage and analysis of inflation, the energy crisis, economic reform in China, the 1979 Libertarian Party convention and the subsequent Clark for President campaign, the Proposition 13 tax-slashing victory (at right), the rise of the religious right, the emergence of Solidarity, Jerry Brown, Three Mile Island, and the return of draft registration.
classic essays like Jeff Riggenbach on “The Politics of Aquarius” and “In Praise of Decadence,” Joan Kennedy Taylor on Betty Friedan, Rothbard on “Carter’s Energy Fascism.”
interviews with F. A. Hayek, Howard Jarvis, Paul Gann, Henry Hazlitt, John Holt, and Robert Nozick.
and especially Roy Childs: on William Simon’s A Time for Truth, on Irving Kristol, on the rise of Reagan, on drugs and crime, on the hot spots of Iran, Afghanistan, and El Salvador.
As Tom G. Palmer put it in a letter published in The New Republic of August 3, 1992, just after Roy died, “Roy Childs was one of the finer members of a generation of radical thinkers who worked successfully to revive the tradition of classical liberalism — or libertarianism — after its long dormancy, and who dared to launch a frontal challenge to the twentieth-century welfare state. An autodidact who knew more about the subjects on which he wrote than most so-called ‘experts’, his writings exercised a powerful influence on a generation of young classical liberal thinkers.”
The Federal Trade Commission issued a report today calling on companies “to adopt best privacy practices.” In related news, most people support airline safety… The report also “recommends that Congress consider enacting general privacy legislation, data security and breach notification legislation, and data broker legislation.”
This is regulatory cheerleading of the same kind our government’s all-purpose trade regulator put out a dozen years ago. In May of 2000, the FTC issued a report finding “that legislation is necessary to ensure further implementation of fair information practices online” and recommending a framework for such legislation. Congress did not act on that, and things are humming along today without top-down regulation of information practices on the Internet.
By “humming along,” I don’t mean that all privacy problems have been solved. (And they certainly wouldn’t have been solved if Congress had passed a law saying they should be.) “Humming along” means that ongoing push-and-pull among companies and consumers is defining the information practices that best serve consumers in all their needs, including privacy.
Congress won’t be enacting legislation this year, and there doesn’t seem to be any groundswell for new regulation in the next Congress, though President Obama’s reelection would leave him unencumbered by future elections and so inclined to indulge the pro-regulatory fantasies of his supporters.
Nathaniel Branden on Self-Esteem and Libertarianism
Nathaniel Branden is a psychotherapist and writer known for being both the founder of the self-esteem movement in psychology and a former associate of Ayn Rand. In this lecture given at a Libertarian Party of California event in 2000, Branden talks about the connection between the workings of free-market capitalism, the self-esteem movement, and the Information Age. In his words, “entitlement robs people of the sense of self-reliance” and the self-esteem that comes with that sense of independence.
Jacob Sullum: In Defense of Drug Use
Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine and Reason.com and is a nationally syndicated columnist. In this lecture from a Libertarian Party of California event in 2000, Sullum goes beyond utilitarian arguments for repealing drug prohibition, saying that the nature of the act itself—using chemicals to alter one’s mental state—does not justify prohibition.
Sheldon Richman on Separating School and State
Sheldon Richman is the editor of The Freeman (a magazine published by the Foundation for Economic Education), a senior fellow at the Future of Freedom Foundation, and a research fellow at the Independent Institute. In this lecture from one of the Future of Freedom Foundation’s conferences in 1995, Richman describes the state of public education in modern America. He makes note of state education’s Spartan origins, and refers to Israel Kirzner’s work on entrepreneurship. Opening up public schools to competition, Richman says, would put the power to decide what and how their children learn back into parents’ hands.
Critics of State Education Part 2: The British Voluntaryists
With his new essay in his Excursions series, George H. Smith turns to the philosophy of Voluntaryism, discussing how its proponents fought against state control of education in the nineteenth century.
One important Voluntaryist was Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), a leading libertarian philosopher of his day. Although Spencer became an agnostic, he was home-schooled in Dissenting causes by his father and uncle. “Our family was essentially a dissenting family,” Spencer wrote in his Autobiography, “and dissent is an expression of antagonism to arbitrary control.” Much of Spencer’s first political article, written in his early twenties and published in The Nonconformist in 1842, was devoted to a critique of state education, and it possibly influenced the birth of the Voluntaryist movement in the following year.
Gary Gutting on Charles Murray’s Coming Apart
Jason Kuznicki, who reviewed Murray’s new book Coming Apart: The State of White America 1960-2010 for Libertarianism.org back in February, looks at a critique of the book by Gary Gutting at the New York Times. Kuznicki writes,
It is, in short, a misreading to say that the message of the book is that poor people need to shape up. Instead it’s a lot more nuanced: rich and poor people alike might do better, but right now the government works very hard to make sure that they can’t.
But he does think Gutting raises an interesting question about how much support the rich get from government.
Michael Sandel Thinks Markets Make Us Worse—But He Can Make Us Better
I take aim at an article the philosopher Michael Sandel wrote in The Atlantic on the moral limits of markets.
And here’s his first—of many—missteps. Because of course we did arrive at this condition through deliberate choice. Every item bought and every item sold in his preamble was bought and sold through deliberate choice on the part of those doing the buying and the selling. Sandel’s argument thus is not that there wasn’t any deliberate choice involved but that the deliberative chooser wasn’t who Sandel thinks it should’ve been—and the choices made weren’t what Sandel himself would’ve chosen.
Having originally come to Washington to defend federalism, I am always delighted to see the division of powers among the states and the federal government have its proper effect: to protect liberty and limited government.
This afternoon, the House passed HB 1549, which would prohibit the state’s participation in the E-Verify system, with a nearly unanimous voice vote. The House also killed HB 1492, which would require employers to verify an employee’s eligibility to work in the United States using the E-Verify System, with a 226-59 vote.
E-Verify is essentially a national identification system that requires employers to verify all job applicants’ citizenship in a national database system before they can employ them. If the state agreed to participate, all citizens would have to be listed in this national database as a U.S. citizen in order to get a job.
You want to fix immigration, feds? You do it without putting American citizens into a national ID system. Good message.
Here’s the clear language of HB 1549, which the New Hampshire House has approved to govern release of motor vehicle records. It embraces legitimate law enforcement while rejecting national identification schemes.
III. Motor vehicle records may be made available pursuant to a court order or in response to a request from a state, a political subdivision of a state, the federal government, or a law enforcement agency for use in official business. The request shall be on a case-by-case basis. Any records received pursuant to this paragraph shall not be further transferred or otherwise made available to any other person or listed entity not authorized under this paragraph. No records made available under this section shall be used, directly or indirectly, for any federal identification database. (New language in bold.)