In today's Washington Post, former Bush speechwriter and policy adviser Michael Gerson sees the online role-playing game Second Life as a “large-scale experiment in libertarianism.” And since the world of Second Life apparently features its share of weirdness — violent, sexual, and otherwise — Gerson concludes that the libertarian concept of spontaneous order is a fantasy. Because of what he saw in a fantasy game.
I know, I can’t follow the logic either, but remember that Gerson runs with a crowd that thinks "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality," so he may not be all that clear on the distinction between what's real and what's make-believe.
I don’t know much about Second Life, and what I hear about it makes me feel crotchety and unhip beyond my years. But however bizarre the game is, it seems that nobody actually gets hurt. In that respect at least, it’s superior to the large-scale experiment in “compassionate conservatism” that Gerson helped conduct for the last several years. That experiment has left us with an exploding federal budget, a metastasizing welfare state, and a vast humanitarian disaster in Iraq. It's little wonder some people prefer virtual reality to the real thing.
Cato vice president for research Brink Lindsey tries to be a uniter, not a divider. In his much-discussed "Liberaltarians" article for the New Republic, Brink held out an olive branch to liberals. TNR's Jonathan Chait was, well, less than enthusiastic.
In his "A Farewell to the Culture Wars," recently published in National Review, Brink does much the same for conservatives, advising them to seek to conserve the "great American heritage of limited government, individual liberty, and free markets," instead of, say, exclusively heterosexual marriage and a not-so-Mexican America. Perhaps unsurprisingly, NR's Ramesh Ponnuru has declined the advice. Brink's rejoinder, published online this Tuesday, is smart and effective:
Ramesh Ponnuru concedes the main point I was trying to make. Specifically, he admits that “[i]t really is pointless to pine for the social order that existed prior to the late 1960s,” and that “most conservatives would not want to go back if they could.”
Ramesh makes this concession almost casually, as if it were no big deal. But I’m sorry, it’s a very big deal indeed. After all, a great deal of intellectual and emotional energy on the right has been expended over the years in precisely the kind of pining Ramesh now regards as pointless. Conservatives have defended, with great conviction and moral passion, positions on race relations, the role of women in society, and sexual morality that most conservatives today would disown as ludicrous or offensive. I don’t think it suffices to dismiss these glaring errors of judgment with an Emily Litella-like “Never mind.”
While commentators left and right may be hesitant to pick up what Lindsey's laying down, that doesn't mean he's about to stop trying to transcend the stale terms of yesterday's political dialectic.
Tune into Cato Unbound on Monday, where Brink will kick off a fresh round of discussion on "The Politics of Abundance" with a panel of blogosphere luminaries. On the left, we'll have The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias. On the right, National Review's Jonah Goldberg. And in the ... middle? ... Reason contributing editor Julian Sanchez.
In an article today in the Boston Globe, Rep. Barney Frank (D, MA) commented on the closure of a fabric maker located in or near (the article is unclear) his district:
These working-class people are bearing the brunt of a policy of globalization that benefits the few and damages the many," Frank said. (my emphasis)
Mr. Frank has the problem precisely backwards. Open trade benefits the many — through more competition and lower prices — even though it takes away the protection of a chosen few. It is tariffs that impose (relatively small) costs on many dispersed consumers, but benefits concentrated interests (and harms the economy overall). In this case, the closure of a 900-employee textile plant is a highly visible manifestation of a phenomenon that has been largely postive on net. It is sad for those losing their jobs, to be sure, but millions of American consumers benefit every day from opening the U.S. market to cheaper imports.
As a Wall Street Journal article yesterday pointed out (and my colleague Dan Ikenson blogged about here last week), the power of organized labor in the Democratic Party has probably spoiled any further trade liberalization in the near future, despite the month-old and much-hyped "bipartisan deal" on trade. This backtracking comes after the administration agreed to Democrats' demands for stronger labor and environmental provisions in trade agreements.
The recently-inked deal with Korea — the biggest trade deal for the United States since NAFTA, and one that promises large market opportunities for American farmers and service providers, not to mention deals for U.S. consumers — is probably off, all because of American automobile makers who fear competition from Korean imports and assert that the Korean market was not going to open enough for their liking. (Of course, if the deal fails, then the market probably won't open further at all, but that logic is apparently unconvincing.) Talk about benefiting the few and damaging the many.
In one city, the right to keep and bear arms is respected. And so is the right to use arms for self-defense.
In another city, the right to keep and bear arms has been criminalized. In that city, the police want to lock up people who take responsibility for their own safety.
For Cato work about self-defense and gun control, go here and here.
[W]hile the authors observe that some people on waiting lists are in chronic pain, they fail to note that few if any universal coverage advocates believe that is anything other than a flaw that needs to be corrected.
A flaw that needs to be corrected! Et si ma tante en avait, elle s'appellerait mon oncle.
In a Cato Institute policy analysis titled "Health Care in a Free Society: Rebutting the Myths of National Health Insurance," John Goodman explains why Eskow's belief that waiting lists are minor problems to be corrected is mostly just wishful thinking:
The characteristics described above are not accidental byproducts of government-run health care systems. They are the natural and inevitable consequences of placing the market for health care under the control of politicians. Health care delivery in countries with national health insurance does not just happen to be as it is. In many respects, it could not be otherwise....
Why do national health insurance schemes skimp on expensive services to the seriously ill while providing so many inexpensive services to those who are only marginally ill? Because the latter services benefit millions of people (read: millions of voters), while acute and intensive care services concentrate large amounts of money on a handful of patients (read: small numbers of voters). Democratic political pressures in this case dictate the redistribution of resources from the few to the many.
Goodman offers other examples of problems inherent to political control of health care that are not so easily fixed. Read the whole thing.
Some people hoped that new French president Nicolas Sarkozy would liberalize France's economy and reduce the burden of government. But all the evidence points in the other direction.
The International Herald Tribune reports on Sarkozy's statist choices:
[C]riticism of Sarkozy's interventionist language...is mounting. The question that Eurocrats, central bankers and fellow politicians are asking is the same they asked three years ago: Is the man who wants to shake up France's labor market and ignite economic growth with a flurry of tax cuts the liberal European he claims? Or is he an old-style Gaullist in modern disguise?
"Institutions, procedures, directives and rules are not ends in themselves," Sarkozy declared in Strasbourg, calling for a Europe "that does not submit itself to the pseudo-dictatorship of the market....
Sarkozy has shown little willingness to abandon certain nationalist instincts of past French leaders. He has defended EU agricultural subsidies against demands for greater trade liberalization. He has shown little inclination to withdraw from France's aim of creating national champions, particularly in the energy sector. On Thursday, he debated the future of the state-controlled gas company Gaz de France with his prime minister and finance minister. And rather than encouraging globalization, he has appeared to reinforce French fears of unfettered capitalism — for example, by fighting to remove a largely symbolic affirmation of EU competition policy from the revamped treaty agreed last month in Brussels.
"Sarkozy talks right but rules left. Portrayals of him as a French Thatcher who will shake things up are vastly exaggerated," said one EU official in reference to the former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher. "He is, after all, French."
There's been a lot of hand-wringing lately about Rupert Murdoch's drive for total world domination. I'd be as disappointed as anyone if he took over the Wall Street Journal and wrung out of it what makes the Journal a great paper.
But a recent New York Times story on "Murdoch, Ruler of a Vast Empire" rather off-handedly made clear what real power is — and it isn't what Murdoch has. As the Times reported,
Shortly before Christmas in 1987, Senator Edward M. Kennedy taught Mr. Murdoch a tough lesson in the ways of Washington.
Two years earlier, Mr. Murdoch had paid $2 billion to buy seven television stations in major American markets with the intention of starting a national network. To comply with rules limiting foreign ownership, he became an American citizen. And to comply with rules banning the ownership of television stations and newspapers in the same market, he promised to sell some newspapers eventually. But almost immediately he began looking for ways around that rule.
Then Mr. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, stepped in. Mr. Kennedy’s liberal politics had made him a target of Murdoch-owned news media outlets, particularly The Boston Herald, which often referred to Mr. Kennedy as “Fat Boy.” [This is an unfair claim by the Times; one columnist at the Herald calls Kennedy that. This is like saying "The Times often refers to Cheney as 'Shooter'" because Maureen Dowd does.] He engineered a legislative maneuver that forced an infuriated Mr. Murdoch to sell his beloved New York Post.
Murdoch could spend $2 billion on American media properties and change his citizenship — but one irritated senator could force him to sell his favorite American newspaper. The Times continued,
“Teddy almost did him in,” said Philip R. Verveer, a cable television lobbyist. “I presume that over time, as his media ownership in this country has grown and grown, he’s realized that you can’t throw spit wads at leading figures in society with impunity.”
Well, actually you can in a free society. That's what makes it a free society — that you can criticize the powerful. And true, nobody tried to put Murdoch in jail. They just forced him to change his citizenship and sell his newspaper.
He ran into similar problems in Britain. His newspapers there, unsurprisingly, usually supported the Conservative Party. But in 1997 two of them endorsed Labour Party leader Tony Blair for prime minister. Blair reacted warmly to the support, but some Labour leaders still wanted to enact media ownership limits, which might have forced Murdoch to sell some of his properties.
“Blair’s attitude was quite clear,” Andrew Neil, the editor of The Sunday Times under Mr. Murdoch in London from 1983 to 1994, said in an interview. “If the Murdoch press gave the Blair government a fair hearing, it would be left intact.”
Is this what the long British struggle for freedom of the press has come to? A prime minister can threaten to dismantle newspapers if they don't give him "a fair hearing"?
Murdoch has been a realist about politics. He knows that while he may buy ink by the barrel, governments have the actual power. They can shut him down at the behest of a prime minister or a powerful senator. So he plays the game, in Britain and the United States and even China.
After the 2006 elections, for instance, News Corporation and its employees started giving more money to Democrats than Republicans.
“We did seek more balance,” said Peggy Binzel, Mr. Murdoch’s former chief in-house lobbyist. “You need to be able to tell your story to both sides to be effective. And that’s what political giving is about.”
Rupert Murdoch's empire may become yet more vast, but he'll still be subject to the whims of powerful politicians. This is hardly surprising in China. But one would hope that in the country of John Milton and the country of John Peter Zenger, and especially in the country of the First Amendment, a publisher would be free to say whatever he chooses without fear of government assault on either his person or his property.