By James H on 5/30/2008 2:07 PM

In an article in The Detroit News today, a union leader argues against right-to-work. It's standard union boilerplate, really, all taken down in our Right-to-Work Myths article. But it includes a good example of unions trying to play the coercion issue in its favor:

In right-to-work states, nonunion members can opt out of paying union dues, even though they receive all the guarantees and protections of the existing union contract under which they work.

He's absolutely right: it's wrong to force an organization to represent someone that doesn't want to be represented. But applying the same idea, it is also wrong to force a person to be a part of an organization. 

The economic benefits of a union are gained when they monopolize the labor supply of a business — letting workers get their own terms for contracts would jeopardize that monopoly. That's why they haven't called for getting rid of that forced representation. The union's own ... Read More »

Comments (0)

An observation or two

By Isaac Morehouse on 5/29/2008 5:39 PM

The 2008 Clarkson Colloquium - July 11-12

Still a few spots left - email sfeATmackinac.org to apply.

Facebook event here.

 

 

 

8th Annual Liberty Summer Seminar - Orono Ontario, July 26-27 

Once you're in, email sfeATmackinac.org if you want to join the MI carpool.

Facebook event here. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Milton Friedman Chicago Blues Trip - Chicago, Illinois, July 31-August 1 ... Read More »

By Jack McHugh on 5/29/2008 10:47 AM

My, how the media adores the “we’re all gonna die!” eco-alarmism of the extreme environmentalists – Global Warming, Peak Oil, Eco-Catastrophe – they’re all in love with “the coming collapse.”

 

So sorry, capitalism-haters and industrial civilization-haters, but it ain’t gonna happen. We’re not going to abandon this new way of living we’ve discovered since the Industrial Revolution, and not going to return to the horse-drawn village, much less the caves. Yes, over the next 50 years - or 100 years, or 200 years, or whatever - we will shift from an economy that runs on fossil fuels to one that uses other energy sources. So what?

 

First off, you “peak oil” fans, oil won't "run out" - it will just get gradually more expensive until a point comes where other ways to produce the energy needed to drive industrial civilization become more cost-effective. At that point probably half the oil in the world will still exist, and we'll still extract it for high-value uses. And some day, in the far distant future, only tiny amounts will remain in places too costly for any potential use. By then the accumulation of human knowledge and innovation will make this a curiosity, not a calamity.

 

Secondly, you “back to the village” people, industrial civilization will not end. S ... Read More »

By Isaac Morehouse on 5/29/2008 8:26 AM

I cannot begin to describe how disgusting this is.  I don't know if it's supposed to be a joke (I hope), but if it's not, it is the most disturbing thing I've seen from an environmental wacko ever.

Go through this little greenhouse calculator game to (I'm not kidding) find out when you should die, so as not to use up more than "your share" of CO2.

I answered fairly normally, and it told me I should die at age 3.5.  Then I chose the indicated "average" for Australians (it's an Australian site), and it said I should die at age 27.1.  This is truly disgusting.

Besides the absolutely ridiculous, non-scientific assumptions this kind of thing is based on, the downright evil implications are what get me.  Propagating the idea that there is a trade-off between human life and the health of the earth is a filthy idea with sickening ramifications - a new twist on the ideas that have justified the greatest atrocities in human history.

As the former President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus said,

"Like their (communist) predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality. In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat - this time, in the name of the planet. It could be even true that we are now at a stage where mere facts, reason and truths are powerless in the face of the global warming propaganda."

(HT: JM)

By Isaac Morehouse on 5/28/2008 3:33 PM

From the WSJ Opinion page:
   
Our Collectivist Candidates
By DAVID BOAZ
May 28, 2008; Page A17

On Sunday Barack Obama urged graduates of Connecticut's Wesleyan University to devote themselves to "collective service." This is not an unusual theme for a commencement address. But it was interesting how long he went on discussing various kinds of nonprofit activism without ever mentioning the virtues of commerce or of individual achievement.

He also did not cite the military as an example of service to one's country. This is a surprising omission in a Memorial Day weekend speech to college-age students by a man seeking to be entrusted with the defense of the U.S.

Sen. Obama told the students that "our individual salvation depends on collective salvation." He disparaged students who want to "take your diploma, walk off this stage, and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should buy."

The people Mr. Obama is sneering at are the ones who built America – the traders and entrepreneurs and manufacturers who gave us railroads and airplanes, housing and appliances, steam engines, electricity, telephones, computers and Starbucks. Ignored here is the work most Americans do, the work that gives us food, clothing, shelter and increasing comfort. It's an attitude you would expect from a Democrat.

Or this year's Republican nominee. John McCain also denounces "self-indulgence" and insists that Americans serve "a national purpose that is greater than our individual interests." During a Republican debate at the Reagan Library on May 3, 2007, Sen. McCain derided Mitt Romney's leadership ability, saying, "I led . . . out of patriotism, not for profit." Challenged ... Read More »

By Isaac Morehouse on 5/28/2008 8:43 AM

Don't miss out on one of SFE's summer events!

The 2008 Clarkson Colloquium - July 11-12

What the heck is a Colloquium, and who is Clarkson?

col·lo·qui·um [kuh-loh-kwee-uhm] –noun

1. A conference at which participants analyze and discuss a specific topic, based on pre-selected material.

2. An in-depth, discussion-based, free food and hotel, kick-butt weekend to challenge and hone your skills in spreading freedom with other top-rate students in the state.  SFE covers meals, hotels, materials, etc.

Still a few spots left - email sfeATmackinac.org to apply.

Facebook event here.

8th Annual Liberty Summer Seminar - Orono Ontario, July 26-27

This is an awesome event full of camping, great libertarian speakers, great food and more.

Register here - http://www.liberalstudies.ca/events/lss.html

Once you're in, email sfeATmackinac.org if you want to join our Michigan carpool

Facebook event here.

Milton Friedman Day Chicago Blues Trip - Chicago, Illinois, July 31-August 1

You heard right, we're joining with the Friedman Foundation to celebrate what would have been Milton's 96th birthday by taking a charter bus from Lansing, MI to Chicago where we'll here about Friedman's life at his alma mater, the University of Chicago.  Later we'll hear from some blues and jazz artists and enthusiasts on the connection between those art forms and freedom.  SFE will pay for travel and hotel.

Email sfeATmackinac.org to get a spot - only a few left!

Facebook Read More »

By Isaac Morehouse on 5/27/2008 9:15 AM

I once had a conversation with a friend who said that everyone should switch to long-life fluorescent light bulbs.  If they did, he said, it would reduce energy consumption by some huge amount, and consequently, save everyone money on their energy bills.  Sounds great, right?

After thinking about this a bit, I asked him what people would do with the money they saved on energy costs.  He said they might spend it on other things, save it, or invest it.  And here lies the subtle paradox.  If they reduced energy use, and therefore saved money, which would then go to buy goods (which are essentially stored prior energy use), save, or invest - all of which consume energy.  Buying products sends signals through the market to produce more of such products; this consumes energy.  The act of buying itself may consume energy if it springs from a new trip to the store and makes the cashier run her electric scanner, etc.  Disposal of the product or product wrapping also consumes energy.

Savings and investment increase energy use.  Putting money into the stock market, or even a very low interest savings account increases the pool of available capital.  Such an increase tends to reduce interest rates, and increase capital expenditures, building, and production of goods - all of which consume energy.

It cannot be calculated exactly how much energy is consumed by these activities vs. what is saved on the light bulbs.  That's part of the point - it is ridiculous to claim to know that certain activities will or will not reduce overall energy use.

I told my friend the only way to guarantee a reduction in energy consumption was to literally bury the money saved in the ground and never use it.  This reveals the actual consequences of reduced energy use - essentially, the only way to do so is to become poorer.

Read More »

By Isaac Morehouse on 5/23/2008 8:10 PM

By Donald J. Boudreaux - (original article here)
Friday, May 23, 2008

My wife, Karol, shares my deep appreciation for the creative powers of people operating in free markets as well as my skepticism of politics. She and I see very much eye to eye.

On some matters, though, we disagree -- not fundamentally, but more as a matter of emphasis or, perhaps, just taste.

Karol applauds private efforts to encourage consumers to "be green." In contrast, I wince at most of these efforts. I wince not because I'd prefer political efforts. Quite the contrary. If soccer moms across the country feel the need to "do something for the environment," I much prefer that what they do be voluntary -- such as buy reusable grocery bags -- rather than that government enforce such actions. Without government force, those of us who aren't interested in parading our green credentials are free to do our own thing. That's a happy fact.

I wince at these efforts for two reasons. The first is identical to the reason why I wince at the thought of people voluntarily buying books that explain how to get rich quick or how to lose weight while they sleep. While I don't wish to forcibly prevent adults from choosing to spend their money on such gimmicks, the fact remains that these things are fraudulent. Their purveyors prey on people's gullibility.

And so it is with many of the ideas for how to "live green." For example, consider the admonition to use ceramic cups rather than paper or Styrofoam cups. The idea is that production of paper cups causes more trees to be felled and Styrofoam cups cause more oil to be extracted. Such activities are deemed "ungreen." But the production of ceramic cups requires intense heat -- a requirement that consumes resources. And being heavier than disposable cups, ceramic cups require greater amounts of energy to be shipped to m ... Read More »

By HKM007 on 5/23/2008 3:29 PM

The American reports on the story of Adam Shepard, an entrepreneurial soul who undertook to build a solid life from next to nothing and thus prove that it is not governmental assistance that lifts people out of the cycle of poverty, but rather hard work, determination and saving.

The American describes the background of his adventure:

In college, Shepard read Barbara Ehrenreich’s Nickel and Dimed, which argues that only government intervention can rescue the working poor from what Ehrenreich portrays as a desperate plight. Shepard doubted her thesis and wanted to test it. So after graduating, he went to Charleston, South Carolina, with a sleeping bag, a change of clothes, $25, and a made-up tale of woe.

The American quotes Shepard on his inspiration:

“I wanted to believe that there were people living in these tumultuous circumstances who weren’t living the life of cyclical misery that Ehrenreich was writing about…. The economics side of Ehrenreich’s story didn’t make sense to me from the beginning and she never proved her point. To me, anyway. She lived in a hotel, ate out, didn’t look for ways to really save money…. She postured to fail, and she did. I postured to succeed, and I did.”

Critics have dismissed Shepard’s claims by pointing to the fact that he enjoyed an array of government services, from food stamps to bus rides to homeless services. But everyone Shepard encountered at the shelter and in the bad neighborhood he later lived in was already using the same services. It wasn’t the public services that lifted Shepard out of destitution—it was his own initiative. Read More »

Demand to live in a better world

By Isaac Morehouse on 5/23/2008 10:08 AM

I remember working on the Appropriations Committee in the Michigan Legislature and always hearing the refrain from politicians, "our hands are tied, we can't cut anything else!”  Of course, the only restrictions on what could and could not be cut were restrictions put on the legislature by itself, and removed just as easily.

So when a colleague sent me this, I was kind of excited to have access (virtually) to the federal budget.  The intro asks, "Ever wanted to control where your tax dollars go?"  Yes!

I was quickly disappointed.  The game was created by some public radio station or some other rent-seeking institution.  I suspect that is why the game sets you up in an incredibly (and unrealistically) restrictive environment.  They break the budget into general categories and allow you to choose various options within those categories - resulting in more or less spending.  It also gives you options for taxes.

I clicked on "defense" first.  They had about a half a dozen cutting options, and about 3-4 spending increase options.  Not bad.  Next I clicked "education".  They had about 10 increase options and ONE, I repeat ONE, tiny cutting option.  Even in a pretend world, the creators of this game couldn't stomach giving players any control to actually cut the federal dept. of Ed. (a useless bureaucracy).

The same basically followed for Social Security, Health, etc.  The only real cutting options were to eliminate "pork barrel" spending and cut off "the rich" from SS and health bennies.

I ... Read More »

By Isaac Morehouse on 5/22/2008 4:17 PM

If you don't think economics is relevant to everyday life, then you have failed to make the obvious connection between the Coase Theorem and toilet seat etiquette.

A little economic thinking can go a long way to a happy and efficient outcome in cohabitation!

By Isaac Morehouse on 5/21/2008 2:10 PM

This could be a super-cool short flick!

Budding filmmaker Chandler Tuttle is working on a short-film version of Kurt Vonnegut's story, Harrison Bergeron, about the world in 2081.  Here are the opening words of the story to whet your appetite:

"The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General."

By Isaac Morehouse on 5/19/2008 10:07 AM

Two great events to celebrate freedom and do some traveling this summer:

Orono, Ontario - July 26-27

The eighth annual Liberty Summer Seminar, sponsored by the Institute for Liberal Studies.  If you're a Michigander who wants to go, register and then contact SFE, and we'll let you hitch a ride for free and save some gas!

The event is overnight (bring a tent), and a tons of fun.

Chicago, Illinois - July 31-August 1

SFE's second annual Milton Friedman Day celebration.  SFE will be partnering with the Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation to celebrate the great thinker's life and legacy of freedom by, what else, riding a charter bus to Chicago, visiting Friedman's alma mater, and catching some local jazz and blu ... Read More »

By Isaac Morehouse on 5/15/2008 11:26 AM

Some hilarity from my good friend over at yourdailychum.com (well worth a gander for some odd, interesting, and entertaining stuff!)

By Isaac Morehouse on 5/14/2008 3:57 PM

Johan Norberg wrote a brilliant and devastating critique for the Cato Institute on Noami Klein's recent book, The Shock Doctrine.

Norberg's article is well worth a read.  It reminded me of the immense importance of the long-term battle of ideas.  The practice of teaching political ideas on a simple continuum of left to right, with fascism on one end and communism on the other, has resulted in all manner of untruthful re-interpretations of history, philosophy and economics.   This book is probably the strongest example of the major problems this simplistic and inaccurate paradigm creates. 

Klein is unable to see the world through any lens besides the left/right paradigm.  Because of this, she is forced to make everything fit into this vision.  She crams big government Republicans, fascists, despots, corporate welfare leeches, bureaucrats, militarists, and libertarians all into one bizarre category.  No matter how strongly reality disagrees with this view, and no matter how impossible it is to fit these different shapes together, she still tries and apparently believes she’s succeeded.

The paradigms we form early in our intellectual endeavors can prove incredibly hard to shake.  Seeing the world as merely a left/right world is the root cause of almost all of Klein's inaccurate, and frankly stupid, conclusions.  It seems glaringly apparent that libertarians and neoconservatives are not even close to the same thing - scads of books, websites, essays and debates are widely available which make this overtly clear to even a casual observer.  Yet Klein holds so firmly to her left/right paradigm that she fails to see these distinctions, and sometimes even offers critiques ... Read More »

By James H on 5/13/2008 8:11 AM

I had never heard of Yon Goicoechea Lara, before, but almost in an instant, he has earned my respect and admiration. Yon was just awarded the Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty.

You can read more about him here.

Yon Goicoechea Lara is a pivotal force behind Venezuela's non-violent pro-democracy Student Movement. The 23-year-old Venezuelan law student is a passionate opponent of the erosion of human and civil rights under the government of Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez, and an organizer of massive student marches that have captured the world's attention.

By James H on 5/9/2008 10:56 AM

A runup of gas prices is a perennial issue that has been a constant threat to liberty, however small those threats may be. Whenever profits at oil companies are posted, there are calls for government to dictate how much they should be. Whenever the gas prices of every station in town, there are ongoing accusations of collusion, sometimes to the point where people call on governments to set the prices instead.

I think the biggest worry that people have is that these fluctuations can take an unforeseen bite out of their pocketbooks. But here's a thought -- if these increases had been incremental, would they have caused such an uproar?

Would you mind if gasoline went up a predictable one penny per gallon every two weeks? It would be a big increase over time, but in effect, that is what has happened.

And for reference, here is a chart that gives you the hypothetical counterfactual:

 

 

Source: Author's calculations based on data from the Energy Information Administration

By Isaac Morehouse on 5/7/2008 7:58 PM

The Institute for Liberal Studies is hosting their eigth annual Liberty Summer Seminar - details are below from an ILS email.  If you register and want to go, email SFE, and we'll do a big car-pool so you don't have to pay for gas.  It'll be a blast!!!

---------------

By James H on 5/7/2008 9:04 AM

Lately, I've seen the unemployment rate chart pop up in a couple places to show that we're in recession, close to one, or that growth isn't all that it's cracked up to be. For instance, Paul Krugman posted here and Greg Mankiw posted here.

Years ago when I first started looking at these figures, David Littmann gave me a heads up to keep in mind that the rate calculation can hide some of what's really going on. A growing economy can also have a growing unemployment rate if people join the labor force faster than jobs are able to be created.

So here are the underlying figures: the number of people in the labor force and the number of people employed. You just divide the gap between them by the top line and you get the unemployment rate.

Data from the BLS.

U.S. labor force grew steadily since 2001. Employment growth started a little afterwards in 2002. It may have slowed recently, but it's too early to tell whether it's evidence of a trend. So all in all, the U.S. is looking pretty good. I'll be more concerned about the direction of the economy if both labor force and employment decrease, as was the case in the last recession.