Video: Explaining The Tyranny of the Majority

Should majorities decide everything?

That's the question dealt by Duke University Professor Mike Munger in the following video at the LearnLiberty.org (thanks to Tim Hedberg for the video)

A synopsis from LearnLiberty.org

Under a democratic system of government, how is an individual protected from the tyranny of the majority? According to Professor Munger, democratic constitutions consist of two parts: one defining the limits within which decisions can be made democratically, and the other establishing the process by which decisions will be made. In the United States Constitution, the individual is protected from majority decisions. Professor Munger warns, however, that these protections are slowly being stripped away as American courts of law fail to recognize the limits of what can be decided by majority rule. Professor Munger uses the case of Kelo v. New London to illustrate the dangers of confusing majority rule with a democratic system.

It is important to note that the lessons from the above doesn't apply just to the US but has been universal through modern political institutions. For instance, Europe's unfolding crisis has substantially been influenced by the rule of the majority channeled through the populist welfare state.

In the Philippines, such dynamic has been evident through Pork Barrel "personality" based politics.

Yet all one has to do is to look at how media and politicians shapes public opinion. Even trivial events have been sensationalized to bring about political importance. Events are always projected to appeal to the majority's emotions subtly intended to mold and manipulate the public's sense of social morality e.g. collectivism via "selfless" nationalism "para sa bayan", which have been and will be used as basis for legal mandates premised on the rule of the majority.

The tyranny of the majority as the great Professor Ludwig von Mises warned, (Theory and History p. 66-67)

If public opinion is ultimately responsible for the structure of government, it is also the agency that determines whether there is freedom or bondage. There is virtually only one factor that has the power to make people unfree—tyrannical public opinion. The struggle for freedom is ultimately not resistance to autocrats or oligarchs but resistance to the despotism of public opinion. It is not the struggle of the many against the few but of minorities—sometimes of a minority of but one man—against the majority. The worst and most dangerous form of absolutist rule is that of an intolerant majority

In short, the ethical tenet embraced by democratic politics has been "Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote". People essentially lose their "rationality" when they become overwhelmed by Groupthink dynamics applied to politics.

Importantly, the tyranny of the majority is just but one phase of the harsh political reality. Democratic politics has largely been about the rule of the political minority who uses and manipulates the majority as an instrument to acquire their self interested goals.

So democracy is essentially an illusion where the majority rules but through the palms of the privileged politically mandated minority.

Quote of the Day: Freedom and Wealth

To say that freedom creates prosperity is convenient shorthand.

To be more precise, freedom provides a conducive environment in which prosperity, the dynamic of wealth creation, can function.

What is this dynamic? Where does wealth come from? We ourselves are its creators. It is the nature of man to provide himself food and shelter, to improve his circumstances, to discover, to invent, to refine, and to expand.

When free to do so, he creates wealth, creates it again, and creates it anew.

The presence of petroleum was a nuisance to Pennsylvania farmers until in 1849 someone discovered how to refine kerosene. John D. Rockefeller’s fortune was begun in refining kerosene, although before long a man named Thomas Edison had invented a way to light homes that was superior, and Rockefeller’s business had to adjust.

The distribution of alternating current discovered by Nikola Tesla was commercially superior to the direct current Edison built his company on and Edison Electric was forced to adapt to the new improvement.

Wealth is created by the greatest resource of all: human beings. It is people who continually discover lesser resources and put them to use in new ways.

Look about at all the wealth people have created. Buildings and homes, schools and churches, stores and places of entertainment; leisure and literacy and libraries; heating and cooling systems; bright lives of bright lights, bright colors, and stunning clothing; marvels of electronics, digital magic, and the miracle of global communications; new medical techniques, devices, and medicines; high-speed travel and stores stocked full of food, much of it fresh from around the world.

A return to the path of prosperity does not lie in legislative prescriptions, new programs or new plans for what the state must do.

Our prosperity will not be restored by some new tax-cut proposal or new spending initiative; no laws will do it; no charming candidate.

Our problem transcends any mechanical solutions or reform package. We are beyond the ability to fix our problems with process tinkering.

As congressman Ron Paul has noted, “It’s not a budgetary problem. The budget is a symptom of this disease. Americans have to inquire into the nature of government itself.”

(italics original)

This is from Charles Goyette’s Red and Blue and Broke All Over as quoted by Dr. Martin Weiss at the moneyandmarkets.com

Quote of the Day: Freedom is Indivisible

First, let me say that freedom is indivisible. You cannot lose a part of your freedom, the freedom of speech, the freedom to buy, the freedom to print, without eventually losing all of your freedom. Of course, all freedom is based on economic freedom. Freedom is indivisible. No one man invented the airplane. It took many, many men to invent today's jet. It took a lot of history, a lot of just minor improvements.

My great teacher, Mises, asks, "What is the automobile of 1969?" He answers his own question: "It is just the automobile of 1909 with thousands upon thousands of minor improvements." Everyone who suggested an improvement did it with the hope that he would make a profit. Many made suggestions that fell by the wayside. But it was the freedom of those men to work on improving the automobile that has given us the automobile that we have today. No one man invented it, neither did one man produce it.

This is from the late economist Percy L. Greaves, Jr’s must read article (it's really a transcript from a talk) about the essence of Economics.

Quote of the Day: Shun the Non-Believers

When you do important work, work that changes things and work that matters, it's inconceivable that the change you're trying to make will be met with complete approval.

Trying to please everyone will water down your efforts, frustrate your forward motion and ultimately fail.

The balancing act is to work to please precisely the right people, and just enough of them, to get your best work out the door.

Shun the non-believers.

This is from my favorite marketing guru Seth Godin.

This powerful marketing message seems highly relevant to the struggle for liberty and to the advocacy of the unpopular economic truths.

Quote of the Day: Freedom is not Defined by Safety

Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons

This is from Ron Paul’s latest outlook Security and Self Governance

Quote of the Day: Constructing Freedom-Oriented institutions

From libertarian Wendy McElroy at the Laissez Faire Books, (bold original)

What is an institution?

An institution is any stable and widely-accepted mechanism for achieving social and political goals. Traditional institutions of society include the family, court systems, the free market, and churches. Institutions generally evolve over time to reflect the history and dynamics of a culture. For example, the institution of common law evolved on a grassroots level to meet the demand for justice by average people. Equally, the institutions of money and the market arose to satisfy human need and desire for goods.

As those needs and desires change, so do the institutions. Sometimes the change occurs due to conscious human design. Trial by a jury of one’s peers, for example, was a procedure consciously designed to maximize the justice of verdicts. This court procedure weathered the test of time well enough to now be viewed as a cornerstone of Western jurisprudence. When institutions are responsive and grassroots in nature, they become such a natural part of human progress that they change in a spontaneous manner, as in the continuing evolution of language. Like the free market, they strongly encourage peaceful interaction because that is what benefits the vast majority of people.

The political system is the institution upon which libertarians focus. They commonly observe that politics ‘institutionalizes corruption’; political structures and procedures encourage bad results like the personal malfeasance of elected figures. A large reason for the corruption is that the political system is not responsive, not grassroots. As a static institution, it serves the embedded interests of an elite class rather than the dynamic ones of the average person. (The elite class consists of politicians and those with political pull.) What libertarians call ‘corruption’ is what the elites call ‘profit’. They have consciously sculpted the institution to increase their profits through such procedures as non-transparency.

In a sense, the embedded corruption of politics is good news for libertarians because it spotlights a basic truth about institutions. They can promote liberty or statism depending upon their structure, procedures and the embedded incentives. The Founding Fathers knew this. For example, they attempted to limit the government by constructing a tripartite system of checks and balances designed to prevent the centralization of power. The Bill of Rights created incentives toward liberty by laying down societal ground rules to be upheld by the Supreme Court. (Whether the best intentions of the Founding Fathers were doomed to defeat by the inherent nature of politics is debatable.)

The specific structures and procedures of any institution will determine the results it produces. As long as the procedures are followed, the motives of those participating in the institution are irrelevant. Elsewhere, I offered the example of a man who works in a candy factory with the intention of producing canned tuna. As long as he follows the workplace rules and procedures, however, he will produce candy. A police officer may want to promote libertarian justice but as long as he enforces the laws of a totalitarian state, he will produce injustice.

Equally, as long as everyone respects the rules of the free market, it will function as a mechanism of peace and prosperity even if some of its participants are ill intentioned human beings. You may buy goods from a man whom you would never allow into your home; he can detest your religion or skin color even as money peacefully changes hands. As long as the rules of the free market are observed, freedom itself is served.
The burning question now becomes: how do we construct institutions that encourage liberty?

Conclusion

There are two answers on how to construct freedom-oriented institutions. The first: do not to construct them at all. Allow them to evolve through the spontaneous interaction of individuals pursuing their own self-interest. This is how free markets function, families are created, free speech rings out… Many institutions require merely to be unobstructed.

But other institutions require some design beyond the “anything that is peaceful” rule. For example, a court system requires procedures of justice such as “innocent until proven guilty.” And, so, the second answer to designing institutions is: do so in as minimal a manner as possible and only to promote individual rights.

Quote of the Day: Liberty is the Solution to Social Problems

It seems to me that this is theoretically right, for whatever the question under discussion -- whether religious, philosophical, political, or economic; whether it concerns prosperity, morality, equality, right, justice, progress, responsibility, cooperation, property, labor, trade, capital, wages, taxes, population, finance, or government -- at whatever point on the scientific horizon I begin my researches, I invariably reach this one conclusion: The solution to the problems of human relationships is to be found in liberty.

From the great Frédéric Bastiat (courtesy of the Bastiat Institute at Facebook)

Quote of the Day: Libertarianism is the Philosophy of Freedom

libertarianism is simply the philosophy of freedom: freedom for one to do with his person and property as he chooses as long as in doing so he doesn’t aggress against the person or property of another. “The only freedom which deserves the name,” said political philosopher John Stuart Mill, “is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.” Or, in the simple words of Leonard Read, “anything that’s peaceful.”

That’s from the splendid review by Lawrence Vance of Judge Andrew P. Napolitano’s latest book It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2011); 240 pages. (lewrockwell.com)

Judge Napolitano's book is on my wishlist.

Lessons from the Roman Era Socialism

Inflationism had only been part of the financial repression policies that led to the fall of the Roman empire. Surviving the Roman empire’s welfare-warfare state prompted for broader adaption of socialist policies

Writes Simon Black, (bold emphasis mine)

In the terminal collapse of the Roman Empire, there was perhaps no greater burden to the average citizen than the extreme taxes they were forced to pay.

The tax ‘reforms’ of Emperor Diocletian in the 3rd century were so rigid and unwavering that many people were driven to starvation and bankruptcy. The state went so far as to chase around widows and children to collect taxes owed.

By the 4th century, the Roman economy and tax structure were so dismal that many farmers abandoned their lands in order to receive public entitlements.

At this point, the imperial government was spending the majority of the funds it collected on either the military or public entitlements. For a time, according to historian Joseph Tainter, “those who lived off the treasury were more numerous than those paying into it.”

Sound familiar?

In the 5th century, tax riots and all-out rebellion were commonplace in the countryside among the few farmers who remained. The Roman government routinely had to dispatch its legions to stamp out peasant tax revolts.

But this did not stop their taxes from rising.

Valentinian III, who remarked in 444 AD that new taxes on landowners and merchants would be catastrophic, still imposed an additional 4% sales tax… and further decreed that all transactions be conducted in the presence of a tax collector.

Under such a debilitating regime, both rich and poor wished dearly that the barbarian hordes would deliver them from the burden of Roman taxation.

Zosimus, a late 5th century writer, quipped that “as a result of this exaction of taxes, city and countryside were full of laments and complaints, and all… sought the help of the barbarians.”

Many Roman peasants even fought alongside their invaders, as was the case when Balkan miners defected to the Visigoths en masse in 378. Others simply vacated the Empire altogether.

In his book Decadent Societies, historian Robert Adams wrote, “[B]y the fifth century, men were ready to abandon civilization itself in order to escape the fearful load of taxes.”

Perhaps 1,000 years hence, future historians will be writing the same thing about us. It’s not so far-fetched.

In the economic decline of any civilization, political elites routinely call on a very limited playbook: more debt, more regulation, more restriction on freedoms, more debasement of the currency, more taxation, and more insidious enforcement.

Further, the propaganda machine goes into high gear, ensuring the peasant class is too deluded by patriotic fervor to notice they’re being plundered by the state.

The lesson is simple: the loss of freedom leads to a collapse of civilization. Freedom is the essence of humanity.

As the great Ludwig von Mises wrote, (bold emphasis mine)

The establishment of this truth does not amount to a depreciation of the conclusiveness and the convincing power of the antisocialist argument derived from the impairment of productivity to be expected from socialism. The weight of this objection raised to the socialist plans is so overwhelming that no judicious man could hesitate to choose capitalism. Yet this would still be a choice between alternative systems of society's economic organization, preference given to one system as against another. However, such is not the alternative. Socialism cannot be realized because it is beyond human power to establish it as a social system. The choice is between capitalism and chaos. A man who chooses between drinking a glass of milk and a glass of a solution of potassium cyanide does not choose between two beverages; he chooses between life and death. A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings.

Quote of the Day: Freedom is the Essence of Humanity

Oh they tell us that in a democratic system, we can vote and that this is our choice. We have nothing to complain about. If we don’t like the system, we can change it. But this is wholly illusory. The government completely owns the democratic system and administers it to generate the types of results that government wants. More and more people are catching on to this, which is why voter participation falls further in every election season.

The great thinkers of the libertarian tradition have always told us that freedom and the good life are absolutely inseparable. I think of Thomas Jefferson, Frederic Bastiat, Herbert Spencer, Albert Jay Nock, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, F.A. Hayek and so many others. Even contemporary authors have addressed the theme. They had long warned that every step away from freedom would mean a diminution of the quality of life. We are seeing these prophecies come true.

Too often public policy debates take place on the wrong level. The core point is not to make the “system” work better or otherwise fine-tune the rules within a bureaucracy. We need to start talking about larger issues about the dignity of the human person, the moral status of freedom and the rights and liberties of the individual in society. The expansion of the state is not just wrong as a matter of “public policy”; it is wrong because it is dangerous to the good life and the quality of life.

To kill freedom is to kill the essence of what makes us human.

(bold emphasis mine)

The stirring excerpt is from the prolific Jeffrey A. Tucker at the Laissez Faire Books.

Again, the mainstream’s public policy debates can be summarized into the following alternatives 1) change the authority involved 2) throw money at the problem 3) control, restrain or prohibit activities of parties perceived as immoral and or 4) tax the alleged offenders.

And that’s why politics tend to become mostly personality oriented as policy debates have been premised on a system which is largely perceived as a “given”, and where the solution has been reduced to “saintliness” or “virtuosity” of those in power. The solution of which is like eternally Waiting for Godot who never comes.

Instead what truly matters is to debate the ethics, as well as, the feasibility from which the incumbent political system has been established. [Well anyway maybe economic realities would render the debate moot]

Unfortunately, all of which of mainstream’s way of solving social problems evolve around restricting people’s freedom.

Yet ironically and fortunately, many people find ways to circumvent or fight the repressive system—built to benefit and preserve the interests of the political insiders which thrive on patron-client relations or state (crony) capitalism—through the informal economy, black markets and corruption (as response to arbitrary regulations or statutes).

Bottom line: The battle for freedom continues.

Video: Andrew Napolitano: What If Freedom's Greatest Hour of Danger Is Now?

A rousing message of Freedom from Judge Andrew Napolitano.


(hat tip Bob Wenzel)

Quote of the Day: Fervent Love of Individual Liberty

In receiving of the Alexis de Tocqueville Award, I excerpt Professor Robert Higgs' speech, (italics original)

For society as a whole, I wish nothing more fervently than I wish that it should be as free as possible. For me, freedom is not simply the highest-ranked value with regard to public affairs; it stands on a level by itself, far above all the others.

I espouse individual liberty in this “extreme” fashion for two reasons, which in my mind complement one another. The first is that freedom is the optimal condition for each individual’s engagement in society. To be driven, bullied, abused, disregarded, treated with contempt and dishonor―these are bad things in themselves, not only for me, but for every human being. We ought to recoil from them, regardless of whether the perpetrator is a local cop or the government in Washington. Yet all too many of us become accustomed to such official cruelties and take them in stride without much conscious thought that they are wrongs and ought to be stopped, regardless of their source.

Individual liberty, however, is also an instrument for the creation of many of the conditions, goods, and services that constitute material abundance and relieve many of the anxieties and pains that once accompanied social life for almost everyone. Virtually everyone favors economic development, especially inasmuch as it reduces or eliminates extreme poverty. Individual liberty is a necessary condition for sustained economic progress. The specific conditions of a free society―private property rights, secure contracts, a reliable rule of law―are prerequisites for the ongoing creation of wealth in the long run. At this late date, after we have witnessed the personal horrors and economic disasters brought about by socialist central planning, it should not be necessary to go on preaching the gospel of private property and the market economy, yet we all know that many people still do not understand these essential matters and often act politically to thwart the operation of a genuinely free society.

Congratulations for a very much well deserved honor, Professor Higgs.

Video: John Stossel Interviews Jeffrey Tucker "Society Can Manage Itself"

In this interview by John Stossel, Mises Institute editor and author Jeffrey Tucker shows how government intervention impedes on our choices, which affects even the routinary things we do, that ultimately impacts the quality of our lives.

(Hat tip: Professor Robert Murphy)

The Failure Of Centrally Planned Democracies And Of Foreign Aid Dictatorships

GMU Professor Chris Coyne over at the Coordination Problem blog has some valuable insights on the current spontaneous People Power revolutions at the Middle East.

He cites two important lessons: The failure of the foreign policy of imposing ideals (democracy) abroad, and in accessory to the first, the failure of foreign aid to promote democracies via dictatorships.

On imposing western ideals Prof Coyne writes,

what is happening in the Middle East is an indictment of U.S. 'nation building' and more specifically the idea that social change toward freedom must be initiated by outsiders. Consider that the U.S has now been in Afghanistan for nearly 10 years and have been unable to ‘win the hearts and minds’ of Afghan citizens. In Egypt it was a matter of weeks between the initial indigenous uprising and Mubarek’s resignation.

The spontaneous and unexpected events in Egypt, and the Middle East more broadly, highlight the flaws in the planning mentality that underpins most, if not all, U.S. foreign interventions. This view holds that (1) certain societies are unable to move towards freedom without outside assistance and (2) that the complex array of institutions that underpin societies are the result of some ‘grand plan’ which can be engineered by experts.

People’s actions have fundamentally been aimed at achieving the removal of unease. Thus, the political economic conditions have always been evolving as people yearn and strive to attain satisfaction or a better life.

And through trial and error, society has reflected on such perpetual discovery process as seen from the lens of the economy, and subsequently, politics.

And this is why the character of Arab revolutions has shifted from Nationalist to Islamist and now to People Power movements.

The quest for liberty may not be an immediate outcome of the recent spontaneous MENA upheavals, but from signs we see, we can be confident that the appreciation and adaption of the concept of freedom and liberty by Muslims have been gradually deepening.

As Michael Novak writes at the Wall Street Journal,

Yet it took the Jewish and Christian worlds centuries to begin cashing in their own longings for liberty. And so also it took the consciences of nonbelievers from the slave society of Aristotle and Plato until the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The universal hunger for liberty is not satisfied in any one generation, or in all the generations put together. It is an unlimited desire. (bold highlights mine)

And such endogenous ‘universal’ freedom inspired revolutions has NOT been imposed. The failed foreign policies designed for this has essentially backfired.

And to repeat what Mr. Novak points out, the desire for freedom has also been a long painstaking process mostly accrued from generational experience. I might add that this process will likely become accelerated as the facilities that stimulates these interchanges of experience or ‘emprical’ knowledge via the web or internet will dramatically be improved and whose usage will become widespread.

In addition, the concept of propping up dictators in the name of democracy via foreign aid has also been exposed as a disastrous model.

Again Mr. Coyne, this is

an excellent opportunity to reconsider the longtime U.S. practice of giving foreign aid to the world’s worst dictators...

These are not the only cases of the U.S. providing assistance to the world’s worst governments. Every year Parade magazine compiles a list of the “World’s Worst Dictators.”...

This means that the source of the problem—the predatory state—is tasked with playing a central role in solving the problem of which its very existence is the cause. The result is the well-known pitfalls of aid such as increased corruption and issues of aid effectiveness.” (bold emphasis mine)

At the end day, freedom is a bottom up process which can only be experienced, shared, learned, and assimilated, and not imposed from a top down dynamics especially through the state, or at worst, by dictatorships. As people learn about freedom, vertical structures and power centers are bound to crumble.

Multiple Intelligence And Human Freedom

Marketing guru Seth Godin makes another fantastic insight about the multiple intelligence of the individual which he calls ironically calls multiple dumbness.

``About twenty five years ago, Howard Gardner taught us his theory of multiple intelligences. He described the fact that there's not just one kind of intelligence, in fact there are at least seven (1 Bodily-kinesthetic, 2 Interpersonal, 3 Verbal-linguistic, 4 Logical-mathematical, 5 Intrapersonal, 6 Visual-spatial, 7 Musical, 8 Naturalistic). This makes perfect sense—people are good at different things." (emphasis added)

In other words, dumbness or intelligence depends on the relative comparison of traits, as no person can claim a monopoly or absolute superiority in all traits.

And such uniqueness makes man superior and complimentary, which highlights the case for human freedom.

Quoting Murray N. Rothbard from Inequality,

``If men were like ants, there would be no interest in human freedom. If individual men, like ants, were uniform, interchangeable, devoid of specific personality traits of their own, then who would care whether they were free or not? Who, indeed, would care if they lived or died? The glory of the human race is the uniqueness of each individual, the fact that every person, though similar in many ways to others, possesses a completely individuated personality of his own. It is the fact of each person's uniqueness, the fact that no two people can be wholly interchangeable, that makes each and every man irreplaceable and that makes us care whether he lives or dies, whether he is happy or oppressed. And, finally, it is the fact that these unique personalities need freedom for their full development that constitutes one of the major arguments for a free society." (bold emphasis added)

Happy Holidays: Live Life. Love Life. Love Liberty!

I'd like to greet everyone a Merry Christmas and A Healthy and Prosperous New Year!

In ecumenical context: Happy Holidays!!!

My message, to paraphrase the Hallmark Channel: LIVE LIFE. LOVE LIFE. LOVE LIBERTY.

That's because, to quote Greek author and historian Thucydides (460-404 B.C.) ``The secret of happiness is freedom. The secret of freedom is courage.”