David Boaz

David Boaz , ,

1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights... .

2. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression... .

4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights... .

17. [P]roperty is an inviolable and sacred right.

, ,

3. The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation... .

6. Law is the expression of the general will.

, ,

The decisive factor which made the efforts of the Revolution toward the enhancement of individual liberty so abortive was that it created the belief that, since at last all power had been placed in the hands of the people, all safeguards against the abuse of this power had become unnecessary.

, ,

is the right to be subjected only to the laws, and to be neither arrested, detained, put to death or maltreated in any way by the arbitrary will of one or more individuals. It is the right of everyone to express their opinion, choose a profession and practice it, to dispose of property, and even to abuse it; to come and go without permission, and without having to account for their motives or undertakings. It is everyone's right to associate with other individuals, either to discuss their interests, or to profess the religion which they and their associates prefer, or even simply to occupy their days or hours in a way which is most compatible with their inclinations or whims.

,

Yesterday Mario Rizzo pointed out a couple of new studies on the unexpected results of paternalist policies designed to "nudge" Americans into making what their betters consider smart decisions. In today's Wall Street Journal, Energy Secretary Steven Chu sums up the paternalist view very concisely. Opposing a House bill to repeal the 2007 federal law that effectively outlaws incandescent light bulbs, Chu says:

We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money.

Exactly. The government wants to take away our choice. It wants to take away our right to make our own decision. It doesn't trust us to make our own choices. And why should it? Secretary Chu won the Nobel prize in physics. He's obviously smarter than we are. Sure, some people just don't like fluorescent light. Some people don't like the way the new bulbs come on slowly. Some people don't like the curlicue look. Some find that they don't in fact last longer than incandescent bulbs. Some are skeptical about promises of long-term savings, or simply prefer to spend less now. But none of that matters to Secretary Chu and other paternalists. They know that these bulbs are best for us, and so they "are taking away a choice" that they don't think people should make. That's the difference between the libertarian and paternalist views in a nutshell.

The front pages of Thursday's Wall Street Journal and Washington Post (links below) both featured stories on the unexpected consequences of the sort of "nudging" policies recommended by so-called "libertarian paternalists." Mario Rizzo, an economist at New York University who often blogs at ThinkMarkets, sent along this commentary to share with C@L readers:

As Glen Whitman and I have repeatedly argued, new paternalism faces a knowledge problem similar to that uncovered by F.A. Hayek in his critique of socialist calculation. In our view, paternalists cannot acquire the knowledge they need to implement policies that are effective according to their own standards. The new paternalism purports to nudge people toward the better satisfaction of their own preferences than people can achieve themselves. We are too ignorant, too weak-willed, and computationally too incompetent to satisfy our real or underlying preferences. We save too little for our retirement because we are overly impatient and cannot postpone spending.  We eat too many calories because we underweight the costs of future illness due to obesity. The new paternalists thought they had at least a partial solution to the first problem of undersaving. For those people who have employer-sponsored retirement savings programs we can use a common “defect” in decisionmaking to help them out.  People are prone to status-quo bias, that is, they tend to leave in place whatever situation they may find themselves in. So when employees are automatically enrolled in retirement savings unless they opt out, more people are enrolled than when the default is non-enrollment unless they opt in. What could be simpler?  Make the default automatic enrollment, and voila more retirement savings! Now comes the annoying data. According to a recent study commissioned by the Wall Street Journal more people are indeed enrolled in 401k programs as predicted. However, those who would have chosen enrollment under the old opt-in system (around 40% of new workers) tended to remain in a lower salary allocation in the default (frequently 3%) than they would have chosen on their own. So instead of using the status-quo bias to increase savings it turned out that the automatic enrollment decreased savings among this group. Read more...

The Asian edition of the Wall Street Journal has just published essays by two Chinese liberal scholars who have spoken and written for the Cato Institute. Mao Yushi created quite a storm in China with his article on the website of Caixin magazine criticizing Mao Zedong (no relation). He received threatening phone calls and warning visits. Nevertheless, he has now published a version of the essay in English, translated by my former colleague Jude Blanchette, now working in China for the Atlas Economic Research Foundation. It's still pretty tough:

Mao Zedong was once a god. With the uncovering of more and more documents and information, he is gradually returning to human form. Some still view Chairman Mao as a god, however, and view any critical discussion of him as blasphemous.... Mao not only created suffering for China, he exported his theory to the world so that all could share in his cruelty. He encouraged armed revolution in Malaysia, India, Thailand, the Philippines, Burma, Indonesia, Nepal and Sri Lanka. Perhaps Mao's greatest student was Pol Pot, who stands as the most ruthless killer in recent history. More than 30 years after his death, the world is still dealing with Mao's legacy.... After Mao's death, Hua Guofeng and Ye Jianying seized the Gang of Four, and China's Supreme Court sentenced them to death. Yet the leader of the Gang of Four can still be glimpsed hanging above the Gate of Heavenly Peace and his picture is printed on the money we use every day.

Meanwhile, Liu Junning tells Journal readers that Maoism is not the whole of China's heritage. Indeed, he says (as noted in Libertarianism: A Primer and The Libertarian Reader), Laozi (Lao-tzu or Lao-tse) was one of the earliest exponents of ideas we might now call liberal or libertarian:

Indeed, what we now call Western-style liberalism has featured in China's own culture for millennia. We first see it with philosopher Laozi, the founder of Taoism, in the sixth century B.C. Laozi articulated a political philosophy that has come to be known as wuwei, or inaction. "Rule a big country as you would fry a small fish," he said. That is, don't stir too much. "The more prohibitions there are, the poorer the people become," he wrote in his magnum opus, the "Daodejing." For Mencius, a fourth-century B.C. philosopher and the most famous student of Confucius, a kingdom would be able to defend itself from outside attack if the king "runs a government benevolent to the people, sparing of punishments and fines, reducing taxes and levies. . . ." Note that Laozi and other classical thinkers also drew a connection between good, limited government in general and prosperity in particular. To say that the narrative of liberty vs. power is uniquely "Western" is to turn a blind eye to the struggles of those who have gone before us. Individual rights are not a Western development any more than paper and gunpowder are inventions that are uniquely Chinese. Is Marxism "German"? Is Buddhism "Indian"? Of course not. When ideas are born, they take flight into the world to be used, improved or discarded by all of humanity. Constraints on political power and the protection of individual rights belong to all.... China will truly prosper only when individuals such as Liu Xiaobo, Ai Weiwei and the many other Chinese patriots who speak for reform are safe in the knowledge that they can do so without a late-night knock on the door from the government.

My own thoughts on the ideas of the American Revolution and of the Chinese Communist Party appeared at the Britannica Blog on Monday.

The Washington Post says that "there is a real question as to whether [Texas governor Rick] Perry has waited too long" to begin a presidential campaign. And that Sarah Palin is dithering "even as the window for announcing narrows" and "time is running out for her." Fox News agrees that "time is running out" for any new presidential candidates. That's the conventional wisdom. But I'm old enough to think about history. Barry Goldwater announced his candidacy for president on January 3, 1964, about nine weeks before the New Hampshire primary. A decade later, Ronald Reagan announced his challenge to President Gerald Ford on November 20, 1975. After that unsuccessful race, he announced another, this time successful candidacy, on November 13, 1979. I'm not suggesting that Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, or Chris Christie is another Ronald Reagan or even another Goldwater. Nor am I unaware of the changes in the campaign process. But I do wonder if a candidate with real appeal really has to announce his or her candidacy so many months before earlier candidates did.

At the Britannica Blog I take a look at the founding ideas of the United States and the Communist Party of China, both of which are celebrating anniversaries this weekend:

The ideas of the Declaration, given legal form in the Constitution, took the United States of America from a small frontier outpost on the edge of the developed world to the richest country in the world in scarcely a century. The country failed in many ways to live up to the vision of the Declaration, notably in the institution of chattel slavery. But over the next two centuries that vision inspired Americans to extend the promises of the Declaration—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—to more and more people. China of course followed a different vision. Take the speech of Mao Zedong on July 1, 1949, as his Communist armies neared victory. The speech was titled, “On the People’s Democratic Dictatorship.” Instead of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it spoke of “the extinction of classes, state power and parties,” of “a socialist and communist society,” of the nationalization of private enterprise and the socialization of agriculture, of a “great and splendid socialist state” in Russia, and especially of “a powerful state apparatus” in the hands of a “people’s democratic dictatorship.” Tragically, unbelievably, this vision appealed not only to many Chinese but even to Americans and Europeans, some of them prominent. But from the beginning it went terribly wrong, as really should have been predicted....What inspired many American and European leftists was that Mao really seemed to believe in the communist vision. And the attempt to actually implement communism leads to disaster and death.

Read the whole thing.

David Boaz , ,

The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.

, ,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

, ,

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

, ,

Political change, however gradual and inconsistent, has made China a significantly more open place for average people than it was a generation ago.

Much remains unfree here. The rights of public expression and assembly are sharply limited; minorities, especially in Tibet and Xinjiang Province, are repressed; and the party exercises a nearly complete monopoly on political decision making.

But Chinese people also increasingly live where they want to live. They travel abroad in ever larger numbers. Property rights have found broader support in the courts. Within well-defined limits, people also enjoy the fruits of the technological revolution, from cellphones to the Internet, and can communicate or find information with an ease that has few parallels in authoritarian countries of the past.

,

In the apparent belief that the Tea Party movement and Americans' general aversion to higher taxes are conjured out of thin air by master manipulator Grover Norquist, Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick offers this devastating riposte to Norquist's support for limited government:

I remember sitting in the Dunster House dining hall at Harvard with Norquist when we were sophomores or juniors in college, while he explained his view of government, or lack thereof. It sounded logical — the notion that we could live independently of each other, making our own decisions in our own self-interest. But then who puts out the fires? Who answers the calls to 911? Who educates poor children? Who helps people with disabilities?

Good point. And we could go on. Without government, who would make shoes and ensure that they came in different sizes? Who would invent and build software programs? Who would supply us with home and automobile insurance to protect us from the risks of life? Who would feed and clothe and house us? And then one might also wonder: Governor Patrick asks, "Who educates poor children?" in a society with limited government. Right now, government provides schooling for poor children, but all too few of them actually get educated. Check out the achievement gap for black students -- in Massachusetts and elsewhere -- in this Department of Education report. Perhaps Governor Patrick should make sure government is actually doing the things he worries about before he claims that a different system couldn't do them.

Our friend Alberto Mingardi of the Bruno Leoni Institute in Italy writes about the Greek crisis:

In a way, the most surprising element of the Greek disaster is that taxpayers in other European countries aren’t outraged at being called to rescue an economy that has been marching towards disaster for so long. The legitimate fear of contagion affecting other European countries is now being used to persuade the electorates outside Greece that: first, Greece has not manufactured its own fate, but is rather the victim of “locust-like” speculators and, second, a Greek bailout would be an indictment of the European social model, that is, the welfare state. Where European public opinion is collapsing under its contradictions is in the attempt to reconcile the idea of the EU as the ultimate policeman of public finance with the ideological need to save the “European social model” no matter what. If the European Union has long been a major catalyst for reform in member states, it seems inappropriate that it now aims to artificially remove the ultimate incentive for fiscal wisdom: the possibility of a sovereign default. The problem of “moral hazard” should not be considered the exclusive preserve of too-big-to-fail banks; countries can suffer from it, too.

At two Cato forums last year Simeon Djankov, Steve Hanke, and Takis Michas discussed the background of the Greek crisis. Partial transcript here. Video here and here. Michas blamed the problems on "clientelism," which he described as "a system in which political support is provided in exchange for benefits.... The largest part of public expenditure was directed, not to public works or infrastructure, but to the wages of public service workers and civil servants…. What makes the case of Greece interesting is that Greece can be said, in a certain sense, to provide the perfect realization of the left’s vision of putting people above markets. Greek politicians have always placed people (their clients) above markets, with results we can all see today." Dan Mitchell said "I told you so" about the failure of the previous Greek bailout. My thoughts on the Greek "anarchists" demanding a continuation of government subsidies here. And here's a comparison between the Greek and U.S. debt problems.