"...when economic liberties are abridged or destroyed all other liberties are abridged or destroyed with them."

"Many of today's writers who are most eloquent in their arguments for liberty in fact preach philosophies that would destroy it. It seems to be typical of the books of our intelligentsia to praise one kind of liberty incessantly while disparaging or ridiculing another kind... [T]he liberty that they so foolishly denounce is economic liberty.…[T]hey seem to attach scant value to economic liberty because they think of it not as applying to themselves but to businessmen. Such a judgment may be uncharitable; but it is certainly fair to say that they misprize economic liberty because, in spite of their brilliance in some directions, they lack the knowledge or understanding to recognise that when economic liberties are abridged or destroyed all other liberties are abridged or destroyed with them. 'Power over a man's subsistence,' as Alexander Hamilton reminded us, 'is power over his will.' And if we wish a more modern authority, we can quote no less a one than Leon Trotsky, the colleague of Lenin, who in 1937, in a moment of candour, pointed out clearly that, 'In a country where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation: The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat'.”
          ~ Henry Hazlitt, from his 'Introduction' to the 1958 Free Man's Library

'Mystics of Spirit and of Muscle'

"As products of the split between man’s soul and body, there are two kinds of teachers of the Morality of Death: the mystics of spirit and the mystics of muscle, whom you call the spiritualists and the materialists, those who believe in consciousness without existence and those who believe in existence without consciousness....
    "The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive—a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. The good, say the mystics of muscle, is Society—a thing which they define as an organism that possesses no physical form, a super-being embodied in no one in particular and everyone in general except yourself. Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. Man’s mind, say the mystics of muscle, must be subordinated to the will of Society....
    "What is the nature of that superior world to which they sacrifice the world that exists? The mystics of spirit curse matter, the mystics of muscle curse profit. The first wish men to profit by renouncing the earth, the second wish men to inherit the earth by renouncing all profit.
    "Their non-material, non-profit worlds are realms where rivers run with milk and coffee, where wine spurts from rocks at their command, where pastry drops on them from clouds at the price of opening their mouth. On this material, profit-chasing earth, an enormous investment of virtue—of intelligence, integrity, energy, skill—is required to construct a railroad to carry them the distance of one mile; in their non-material, nonprofit world, they travel [across cities and] from planet to planet at the cost of a wish. If an honest person asks them: 'How?'—they answer with righteous scorn that a 'how' is the concept of vulgar realists; the concept of superior spirits is 'Somehow.' On this earth restricted by matter and profit, rewards are achieved by thought; in a world set free of such restrictions rewards are achieved by wishing.
    "And that is the whole of their shabby secret. The secret of all their esoteric philosophies, of all their dialectics and super-senses, of their evasive eyes and snarling words, the secret for which they destroy civilisation, language, industries and lives, the secret for which they pierce their own eyes and eardrums, grind out their senses, blank out their minds, the purpose for which they dissolve the absolutes of reason, logic, matter, existence, reality—is to erect upon that plastic fog a single holy absolute: their Wish."

          ~ Ayn Rand, from 'Galt's Speech' in Atlas Shrugged

          

Debate --> Truth

“Persuade me or prove to me that I am mistaken in thought or deed, and I will gladly change—for it is the truth I seek, and the truth never harmed anyone. Harm comes from persisting in error and clinging to ignorance.”
          ~ Marcus Aurelius

[Hat tip Objective Standard Institute]

Activists from right + left

"[T]he main problem with right-wing activists is that they are stupid, while the main problem with left-wing activists is that they are insane."
          ~ Philippe Lemoine, commenting on this

""The affordable housing problem is one of insufficient supply...."

"The affordable housing problem is one of insufficient supply. The solution to a supply shortage is an increase in production. If we truly want to solve the affordability problem, then we must let those who can produce and operate housing do so without arbitrary restrictions."

~ Texas Institute of Property Rights (yes folks, it's a western-worldwide problem,  for all the same stupid western-worldwide reasons, in which New Zealand has been 'winning' by being the stupidest!)

 

"In 50 years time, we may be looking back on the UN climate policies, and this so-called green economy, as using chemotherapy to try to cure a head cold..."

"For the past two decades, people have equated environmental disaster with manmade global warming. We’ve been hearing about the climate crisis, climate catastrophe, existential threat and most recently a code red for humanity. Note that the IPCC itself does not use the words ‘crisis’, ‘catastrophe’, or even ‘dangerous’; rather it uses the term ‘reasons for concern.’ Apart from the scientific uncertainties, the weakest part of the UN’s argument about manmade global warming is that it is dangerous. The link to danger relies on linking warming to extreme weather events, which is a tenuous link at best....
    "In 50 years time, we may be looking back on the UN climate policies, and this so-called green economy, as using chemotherapy to try to cure a head cold, all the while ignoring more serious diseases. In other words, the climate crisis narrative gets in the way of real solutions to our societal and environmental problems."

         ~ climate scientist Judith Curry on 'The Next Environmental Crisis'

[Hat tip Point of Order]

Sometimes we forget where our 'watches' come from

 

The weekend's #Groundswell protests, and the #Groundswell movement itself, were intended to highlight the plight of the New Zealand farmer under an unsympathetic regime. Instead, however, the organisers have allowed it to become easily gaslighted as something it's not. As racist, or anti-vax. 

And the important message has been lost: that it's NZ farmers who allow us to live in first-world comfort -- that it's their exported produce that allows us to buy, at not unreasonable prices, all the technology of the world. As Ludwig Von Mises explained back before electronics took over:

The inhabitants of [Switzerland] prefer to manufacture watches instead of growing wheat. Watchmaking is for them the cheapest way to acquire wheat. On the other hand the growing of wheat is the cheapest way for the Canadian farmer to acquire watches.

The lesson remains the same. To paraphrase now, for us:

The inhabitants of China prefer to manufacture electronics instead of milking cows. Electronics-making is for them the cheapest way to acquire milk. On the other hand the milking of cows is the cheapest way for the New Zealand farmer to acquire electronics. 

It's those dairy exports that pay our way in the world; that, more than anything else, allow the average New Zealander to, at a reasonable price, directly acquire technology that allows them to see, hear, read and interact with the whole world's movies, music, artworks, books, and communications technology  -- to each acquire the sort of library that past royalty would have envied -- and to indirectly live the sort of lifestyles that people around other parts of the world envy still. It's those dairy exports that, more than anything else we do here, make it all possible.

Perhaps some gratitude to the farmers, rather than gaslighting them, should be the response they deserve.

Q; "What's America's longest war?"

"When you ask people, "What's America's longest war?" they usually answer "Vietnam" or amend that to "Afghanistan," but it's neither.
    "America's longest war is the war on drugs.
    "[Almost fifty] years and counting.... And drugs are more plentiful, more potent, and less expensive than ever."
          ~ Dan Winslow, from his book The Cartel

"The National Party believes in private property rights..."

 Nice to hear this from a National Party leader:

The National Party believes in private property rights, and we believe in a property-owning democracy.

Even nicer of it could be believed -- the National Party being the party that introduced the Resource Management Act (RMA) -- the one law that, more than any other, has destroyed private property rights in this country.

Perhaps we could begin trying to believe it if we were to see them fighting to have private property rights written into the legislation replacing the RMA?

This however is a fair tilt at a competitor for the property-rights voter:

"We've got other parties who say that they do [believe in private property rights]- ACT, yes, and there they are arguing for more planners doing more planning rather than actually letting people get on with building their houses," Collins said.

Boom! 

If there's one thing more apocalyptic than global warming it's ...

“Running out of energy is far more immediately disruptive, more ‘apocalyptic’ even, than anything climate change can throw at us.”
          ~ Fraser Myers on 'Why the failure of COP26 is good news'

Who decides?

“ The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best.”
          ~ Thomas Sowell, from his book Knowledge and Decisions

“‘Nazi’ actually was a term of disparagement … a traditional joke name.”

“‘Nazi’ actually was a term of disparagement. Nazi was a traditional joke name for dull simple guys from backward Bavaria and used to populate jokes about them, short for Ignatius. To the great glee of amateur comedians, Nazi also worked as a backronym for the German long-form of the National Socialist Workers’ Party. People who didn’t like them (almost everyone if you believe what Germans claimed after the war) started calling them Nazis. Which would get one beaten up and stomped to death. Shows the importance of thinking things through when you develop your brand. Or not, if you have lots of Brown Shirts. 

    “Anyway, people who escaped from the violence in Weimar Germany would tell foreigners, ‘You won’t believe what those fucking Nazis have done now….’ and so foreigners started calling Hitler’s party the Nazis without getting that it was a joke.”

          ~Mark Forsyth in The Etymologicon

[Hat tip Leslie Macmillan]

Destiny?

 

“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the street.”

          ~ attrib. physicist Stephen Hawking

What is common sense?

"Common sense is a simple and non-self-conscious use of logic... the childhood form of reasoning... That which today is called 'common sense' is the remnant of an Aristotelian influence....
    "But common sense is not enough where theoretical knowledge is required: it can make simple, concrete-bound connections—it cannot integrate complex issues, or deal with wide abstractions, or forecast the future."
          ~ From Leonard Peikoff and Ayn Rand on 'Common Sense'

"Conflicting ideas about freedom are a mainstay of politics today."

"Conflicting ideas about freedom are a mainstay of politics today. To name just a few:
    "In certain sectors of the right, COVID restrictions and mask mandates have become central animating issues. The right to own guns and the freedom to carry them have been key issues for decades of Republican politicians.
    "The political left, on the other hand, is passionate about a different set of freedom claims. Abortion rights, freedom for LGBT+ people, and civil rights have become foundations of Democratic politics.... 

    "When everything becomes a liberty claim, the term itself is at risk of losing its meaning and explanatory power. Meanwhile, the political debates grow ever more hostile and sometimes violent. Everyone seems to love liberty, yet they have come to literal riots fighting over its meaning....  

    "One salutary effect of the Trump era [however] has been the backlash against the new tribalism. Beginning with the 'NeverTrump' right, and joined by centre-left liberals who recognise the threat to liberty on their side of the aisle, a new group of intellectuals has begun to coalesce around, not an agenda, but an approach. There is some hope for genuinely fruitful political discussion—the kind of discussion John Stuart Mill himself fervently wished for, even as he planted the intellectual seeds of its destruction."

          ~ Robert Garmong on 'Where Did Liberalism Go Wrong?'

Why is local government so bad?

Councils are currently under attack here in at least two areas: their performance in delivering water, and their non-performance in allowing the delivery of housing.  There's still argument about their delivery of the former (and long may that argument continue), but their performance in the area of housing could only with great generosity be even called "dysfunctional." (A better term might be "disastrous.")

This non-performance is not unique to Enzed. Nor to the particular jobs they're asked to do. It's worldwide, and universal -- which poses the question: how come local government everywhere is always so dysfunctional? Bryan Caplan argues that the answer is structural:

First, as I’ve argued before, non-profit competition is weaker than for-profit competition, even if the number of competitors is vast. Why? Because no one is trying very hard to win. As I’ve explained before:

Tiebout implicitly assumes that non-profit competition works the same way as for-profit competition. It doesn’t. If a business owner figures out how to produce the same good at a lower cost, he pockets all of the savings. If the CEO of a publicly-held corporation figures out how to produce the same good at a lower cost, he pockets a lot of the savings. But if the mayor of a city figures out how to deliver the same government services for lower taxes, he pockets none of the savings. That’s how non-profits “work.”

With non-profit incentives, neither the number of local governments nor the ease of exit lead to anything resembling perfectly competitive results. The “competitors” simply have little incentive to do a good job, so they all tend to perform poorly.

Second, voters are deeply irrational, even at the local level. Most people [for example] childishly refuse to grant that allowing more construction will reliably make housing more affordable.

Yes, you can point to my book Myth of the Rational Voter and object, “How can voters be so irrational even though the expected cost of voter irrationality is especially high at the local level?” Reply: Even at the local level, the probability of voter decisiveness is so low that the expected cost of voter irrationality is approximately zero. If you have more than a hundred voters, “Your vote doesn’t count” is basically correct.

To reiterate, I am not arguing that local governments have two little blind spots. I am arguing that local governments have two main jobs – and they’re awful at both.

 

Gain of Function Controversy Demands Greater Scrutiny for Government-Funded Science

We will never truly know how close the link was between government funding and research to to increase viruses’ transmissibility, acknowledges Raymond March in this guest post. Regardless, we can learn one clear lesson from this concerning saga: we must reevaluate government involvement in funding scientific research. 

Gain of Function Controversy Demands Greater Scrutiny for Government-Funded Science

by Raymond March

From his National Geographic documentary to the children’s book about his life, American immunologist Dr. Anthony Fauci has certainly become a household name worldwide during the Covid-19 pandemic. But the reemergence of an alarming controversy has many calling for his arrest.

Fauci is a clinical associate at the US National Institute Of Health (NIH). More evidence of the involvement of the NIH in funding so-called “gain of function” research continues to surface, linking financial ties to highly controversial experiments. Gain-of-function research aims to genetically alter microorganisms to enhance certain biological properties. For example, recent gains of function research attempts to increase viruses’ transmissibility.

In this case, a document noting that experiments resulting in mutations of viruses that can easily infect humans required further review by the Department of Health and Human Service to secure further funding. The further we dig, the clearer the link between government funding and gain of function research becomes.

These and other findings strongly contradict Dr. Fauci’s comments made to Senator Rand Paul four months ago, where he denied any NIH involvement in gain of function research. Taking Senator Paul’s interrogation personally, Dr. Fauci scolded the Senator, saying “You do not know what you are talking about” and, “If anyone here is lying, it’s you.”

Now Senator Paul has claimed vindication and called for Dr. Fauci to be fired. While “America’s doctor” has some seeking a second opinion, many questions still remain regarding gain of function research, and its connection to the ongoing pandemic.

Did Dr. Fauci knowingly lie about the NIH’s role? What other involvement did the US government have with these projects? Did funding gain of function research lead to the Covid-19 pandemic?

We may never have complete answers to these questions. Regardless, we can learn one clear lesson from this concerning saga: we must reevaluate government involvement in funding scientific research.

In his underappreciated book, The Organization of Inquiry, economist Gordon Tullock explains how funding scientists can distort the scientific method. When scientists make a discovery, they rely heavily on the review and approval of their scientific peers to verify whether they are correct and how their discovery advances knowledge in other fields or helps benefit the public. Tullock likens this process to “the perfect laissez faire.”

However, when scientists receive research funds from the government, distortions in the process occur. First, scientists are encouraged to pursue research tied to political agendas rather than those encouraged within the scientific community or by private actors in the market. Second, feedback provided by the scientific community on the validity and implications of discovery becomes less important. Consequently, erroneous scientific discoveries stemming from public funding take longer to falsify and to remove from public use.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of examples to support Tullock’s theory.

In his book Good Calories, Bad Calories, science writer Gary Taubes reviews decades of scientific research, casting doubt that a high carbohydrate and low fat diet can prevent heart disease. Noting a large consensus that high-carb diets do not deter heart disease, and often lead to other serious health concerns, Taubes argues that the reason this dietary advice persists is because government funding bolsters this hypothesis, even as evidence against it proliferates.

From 1936 until 1972, over 50,000 Americans were lobotomised, many against their wishes and some for non-medical reasons. Even with the American Medical Association denouncing the procedure in 1941 (after about 30 were performed), public mental asylums continued to regularly use it.

As I argue in my paper published in Research Policy, much of the lobotomy’s overuse and prolonged popularity can be explained by incentives. Many state and federal asylums received federal funding to perform lobotomies, which also allowed asylum managers to increase the number of committed patients (which also increased their funding). Financial incentives overshadowed scientific consensus that the procedure was ineffective and harmful.

Not every failure of government-funded science is as pervasive as the high-carb diet, as ghastly as the lobotomy, or as controversial as gain-of-function experiments. But the risk remains as long as the government remains a major funding source for research.

As of 2013, government funding composed nearly half of basic scientific research – weakening or divorcing a considerable amount of scientific work from the scrutiny of its peers. The result is an overinvestment in haphazard and potentially harmful scientific work. And these results seem very replicable.

____________________________________________________

Raymond March is a faculty fellow at the NDSU Center for the Study of Public Choice and Private Enterprise (PCPE) and an assistant professor in the NDSU Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics, and a contributor to Young Voices. His research has appeared in the Southern Economic Journal, Public Choice, Journal of Institutional Economics, and Research Policy. He has published articles in National Interest, Washington Times, Washington Examiner, The Hill, RealClearHealth, and elsewhere.
Raymond is a research fellow at the Independent Institute and the director of FDAReview.org, an educational research and communications project on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

His post first appeared at the American Institute for Economic Research.

How to lie with unemployment stats

Various media and half the House's politicians have been celebrating the unprecedentedly low unemployment figure of 3.4%.

Some have been questioning how on earth we could have a figure so low when business is so, well, locked up.

Chart from Sense Partners, via New Zealand Herald 

[Hat tip Lindsay Mitchell[

Lindsay Mitchell has some of the answer, unearthing some "important numbers to remember whenever you hear Grant Robertson, the Finance Minister, waxing lyrical about the wonderfully low unemployment rate":

To be officially unemployed a person needs to be available for and seeking work. Just over 30,000 Maori in the North Island [for example] are officially unemployed. But over 70,000 are on a Jobseeker benefit.

And since you can be on the Jobseeker benefit with no immediate work obligation, you are not officially unemployed.

[And] in Northland, a region with a high Maori population the unemployment rate is 3.9% yet the Jobseeker rate is 10.5 percent.

In the general population the figures are:

Unemployment rate 3.4%

Jobseeker rate 6.1%

All benefit-dependent rate 11.3%

So what's the real unemployment rate? Whatever it actually is, there's no point asking Grant Robertson for the answer. 

"A Primer on Objective Journalism"

"Objectivity [in journalism] does not mean not having an opinion. It means that one’s opinion is as fact-based and as logically integrated as one can make it.
    "[It] does not mean unbiased. A bias is an automated result of one’s previous experience and thinking. A bias will be good or bad depending on how good or bad that previous thinking was. For example, one may have a bias against child-abusers or a bias in favour of clear language. 

    "Objectivity does mean that one engages in introspection to be aware of one’s biases, that one is willing to challenge and change one’s assumptions, and that one is willing to put one’s beliefs to social testing via editorial review, debate, and other types of feedback."

          ~ Stephen Hicks, from his. "Primer on Objective Journalism"

Tribalism v Vaccination

"Institutional racism in our health establishment and the grim consequences of colonisation have been given as reasons for explaining the disparities between Maori and non-Maori vaccination rates.
    "[Morgan] Godfery seems to be telling us the tribal nature of Maori society is [instead] a significant consideration."

~ Point of Order: 'Maori Ministers announce $23.5m of vaccine spending – and RNZ raises questions about the causes of disparities'

"GreenMageddon is no hyperbole." #COP26

Data on disaster deaths come from EM-DAT, CRED / UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium 

– http://emdat.be (D. Guha-Sapir)

"GreenMageddon is no hyperbole. It’s is the virtually certain outcome of attempting to purge CO2 emissions from a modern energy system and economy that literally breathes and exhales fossilised carbon. Indeed, the very idea of converting today’s economy to an alternative energy respiratory system is so far beyond rational possibility as to defy common sense."
           ~ David Stockman, from his post 'GreenMageddon, Part Five'

FURTHER READING:

"While climate catastrophists claim that our climate is less livable than ever because of fossil fuels, it is actually more liveable than ever thanks to our fossil-fuel powered climate protection..."

    Climate Crisis - Energy Talking Points

"The upcoming UN Climate Conference, COP 26, is a continuation of the celebrated "Paris Climate Accords." But these accords required, among many other evils, the senseless sacrifice of America."
    Paris Climate Accords - Energy Talking Points

The only practical way to lower global CO2 emissions is to encourage innovation that could make low-carbon energy cheap for everyone. 

    CO2 Emissions - Energy Talking Points 

" ‘What can one do?’—the answer is ‘SPEAK’ (provided you know what you are saying)."

“Today, most people are acutely aware of our cultural-ideological vacuum; they are anxious, confused, and groping for answers. Are you able to enlighten them? Can you answer their questions? Can you offer them a consistent case? Do you know how to correct their errors? . . . 

     “If you want to influence a country's intellectual trend, the first step is to bring order to your own ideas and integrate them into a consistent case, to the best of your knowledge and ability…
    “When or if your convictions are in your conscious, orderly control, you will be able to communicate them to others.
    “If you like condensations…I will say: when you ask ‘What can one do?’—the answer is ‘SPEAK’ (provided you know what you are saying)."
          - Ayn Rand, from ‘What Can One Do?’ in Philosophy: Who Needs It

Rule of Law v Rule of Men (Plague Edition)

On Saturday afternoon I watched a mob of what seemed 10,000 closely-assembled shouters, mouth-breathers and sovereign-citizen conspiracists crawl past my office window. They were chanting "freedom" -- a subject about which I do profess to know a little -- yet the only freedom about which there appeared any articulated concern seemed to be the freedom to ignore reality.

It's ironic. For years I've struggled to interest folk in freedom. I would have given my left ball to have a parade of 10,000 people marching to demand freedom. But I would really have wanted a reasonable percentage of that number to know what they were talking about. 

I was asked the other day why so many apparent libertarians themselves don't seem to know what they're talking about when it comes to dealing with a pandemic. Or freedom. I suggested it's the difference between being genuinely pro-freedom (recognising that a context-sensitive application of rights will require govt involvement, and may require quarantines/vaccines/masks etc.) and simply being anti-govt (throwing your toys out of the cot and looking for guidance from the likes of Brian Tamaki, Mother Teresa, and Princess Diana*). It's a divide that since its inception has continue to plague (ahem) libertarianism -- the division between anarchy (no govt, on its way to mob rule) and the rule of law.

Mind you, if laws are imposed, such as laws about things like quarantines/vaccines/masks etc, the proper rule of law requires they be imposed objectively. Shops, offices, factories, schools, hospitals, employers, employees should be able to see understandable, predictable, objectively-derived criteria by which they may open, and how. Governments everywhere are trying, and flailing (and failing), but this is the standard we should stick them with: that all law, when applied -- even in times of plague -- must be objective. Which means that it must be objectively defined, interpreted, applied, and enforced. This is something all freedom-lovers should be focussed on, at all times. Not just now.

What does that mean, you ask -- too focus on new law being objective? Well, you're in luck: here's a short summary from University of Texas philosopher Tara Smith (courtesy of Stephen Hicks , who's running a course on this) of what it means, and how it's different to other views.

Any questions?

* I swear, I am not making this up.

How many days left to save the planet? #COP26 [updated]

Glasgow's meeting of climate luminaries, aka COP26, is "the last best hope" to save the planet ... say the press secretaries and promoters of COP26.

They're in good company. They've been many "last best hopes" in recent decade. 

"I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate change," said NASA's James Hansen. He said that in 2006.

"We have only four more years to act on climate change," he said in 2009.

Hansen was a piker. In 2008, climate change researchers Andrew Simms and Victoria Johnson revealed we only had 100 months to save the planet. Or just 96 months! (This was Prince Charles; and this was 2011.)

These can be added to a long list of apocalyptic enviro-predictions with which the planet blithely refuses to cooperate.

And yet the planet is still here, and calamity has yet to occur. And, despite falling freedom and diminishing respect for reason and science, the human environment continues to get better, not worse. Historian Scott Powell puts this down to what he calls “The Hank Rearden Effect”—the tremendous ability of entrepreneurs, industrialists and inventors to continue producing, in the face of expanding efforts to slow them down. 

The great irony is that the race to continue proving the doomsayers wrong is between producers on one side, and ranged them on the other side are the vast mass of politicians, regulators and cultural mavens who wish to shackle them.

And still, after more than three decades of doom-saying we have still to see the predicted effects of global warming. We are however feeling, and about to feel even further, the effects of regulations to (allegedly) arrest global warming.

Expect promises of many more to spew forth from COP26.

How many days left to save the planet? Apparently exactly as many as it takes to grab another headline.

UPDATE: To keep yourself updated on the latest gloomy predictions, you really can't go past The Extinction Clock. A slice...