Dusan Djukich’s Straight-Line Leadership is a no-nonsense book about his no-nonsense approach to leadership—the leadership of others and ourselves. Mr. Djukich writes with the authority of a world-class coach:

[He] is co-founder and a Senior Partner for Corporate Reinvention Associates, a global coaching firm that specializes in individual and organizational performance. He is the creator and developer of Straight-Line Coaching technologies. For the last 24 years, [he] has been privileged to work with more than 5,000 entrepreneurs, Senior-Level Executives and highly committed individuals from all walks of life in creating unreasonable results with his unconventional coaching style.

Straight-Line Leadership

What is straight-line leadership? It is getting from where we are now—A—to our objective—B, as quickly as possible, i.e., via a straight line. The core of the approach is choosing an “inner stance”—how we live, how we operate—that allows us to succeed.

It boils down to this: Where you come from determines the actions that you take in life and the actions that you don’t take in life. Your stances will always be the keys to your castle or your jail cell.

How do we free ourselves from our own mental jails? Adopting a powerful inner stance requires recognizing “distinctions.” Mr. Djukich explains:

When someone tells me, ‘I like your theory,’ I realize he doesn’t quite get it. These distinctions are tools already used in practical ways. … They are tools for escaping a circular existence.

Distinctions provide awareness:

Distinctions give you an up-close observation of the stances that you live your life from. They make these stances clear and visible. Distinctions give you the awareness you need to clear your way for choice in the matter.

The result:

Clients make distinctions that free them from the unworkable stances that they are operating from in life and then are in a position to choose stances that will allow them to take the necessary actions to get from A to B in short order.

Mr. Djukich emphasizes that it is important not just to understand, but also to “live” the distinctions.  Examples of the distinctions—opposites that are simple by design—include:

Wanting vs. creating; problems vs. decisions; dreams vs. projects; commitment vs. trying; owner vs. victim; and realistic optimism vs. unrealistic pessimism.

The straight-line approach is not one of mere positive thinking. Rather, it requires action: “Why would you have to engage in positive thinking if things were great?”

In the world of straight-line leadership, “nonsense” means “attempting to operate from a disempowered stance.” Mr. Djukich persuasively dismisses all of the excuses that are obstacles to action. What about fear, the past, uncertainty, discomfort, and incomplete knowledge? These are just excuses—forms of nonsense–we overcome through action.

Timely Lessons

The principles of straight-line leadership are timeless, and are particularly valuable now. Many institutions and organizations are starved for effective leadership. Many also need to learn the meaning of leadership, and the traits of true leaders. People who follow the principles of straight-line leadership will create their own success, serve others well, and stand as examples for others.

The poor economy in much of the world also will require people to rely on better personal tools, whether they are employees or, as is increasingly common, self-employed. Mr. Djukich observes:

We are back to our own performance as the main driver of our success. In this new world, performance is what matters.

As Mr. Djukich counsels, regardless of our circumstances, we can create our own lives—our own worlds.

Conclusion

Straight-Line Leadership will change the life of anyone who embraces its principles. Does the approach sound too simple? As Mr. Djukich warns, in explaining the need to convert dreams into projects:

The five most damaging words you could be thinking right now are: “IT CAN’T BE THIS SIMPLE.”

But it is that simple. And simplicity gives you strength.

The world needs stronger people, better leaders, and more understanding of simple truths. The straight shooting of Straight-Line Leadership hits the bullseye.

No related posts.

Live and let live—LALL–is a recipe for liberty—little or no government—and social tolerance. Can the acronym become a favorite on the Internet and help shape a freer and more tolerant world? Don’t LOL (Laugh Out Loud) at this idea. Let us give it a try.

“LALL” is a good response throughout the world to those who wish to use government coercion or social pressure to impose their beliefs or desires on the rest of us. It encourages people to live their own lives, and respect, rather than interfere with, the lives of others.

Live and Let Live

The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms defines the phrase as, “Show tolerance for those different from yourself.” It traces the expression to “the first half of [the] 1600s.”

The 1899 Cyclopaedia of Political Science, Political Economy, and of the Political History of the United States, in its piece on “Liberalism” (what we now call classical liberalism or libertarianism), connects the idiom to liberal philosophy:

Liberalism is the consciousness which a free man has of his rights, and of his duties as well; it is respect for and practice of liberty; it is toleration and freedom. ‘Live and let live’ might be taken as its motto …

The maxim is synonymous with “laissez-faire,” a concept with ancient roots in the East and West. It captures the spirit of both the libertarian political philosophy of limited government and the parallel principle of social tolerance. Limited government allows for tolerance, and tolerance encourages limited government.

 Reverence and Love

Living and letting live entails positive engagement with other people. Freedom allows this to flourish.

John Chamberlain wrote of the “the live-and-let-live quality” of the “freedom agenda” of Leonard Read, the founder, in 1946, of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE). In reviewing Read’s 1975 book, Castles In the Air, Chamberlain observed:

[I]t is the freedom to ‘flow and grow’ as human beings that is his primary concern. When people have creative freedom, they do more than eat well. They have a margin to spare for other things. Everyone has a vested interest in the other fellow’s diversity. Reverence for differences leads to reverence for life which is made up of differences.

Living and letting live is the manifestation of love, while seeking control is the use of power. Lawrence W. Reed, now the president of FEE, in “The Love of Power vs. the Power of Love–Today’s Love of Power Has Eroded Our Freedom,” wrote:

When real love is the motivator, people deal with each other peacefully. We use force only in self-defense. We respect each other’s rights and differences. Tolerance and cooperation govern our interactions.

Suppose we want to influence or change the behavior of another adult, or want to give him something we think he should have. … He is free to accept or reject our overtures.

… ‘Live and let live,’ as Americans used to say with more frequency than they do today.

Tolerance and the State

Leland B. Yeager, in addressing the dangers of redistributionism, cautioned:

The spirit of live-and-let-live, so crucial to a free society, is fragile. Any policy that dignifies and reinforces the less lovely traits of human nature, however unintentionally, deserves bad marks on this score.

The growth of government—the rise of the state—threatens tolerance, and feeds on intolerance. As discussed by Wendy McElroy, in “War’s Other Casualty–War Is the Ultimate Act of Statehood,” Randolph Bourne viewed the concepts of society and state as “antagonistic.” Bourne, known for the famous expression, “War is the health of the state,” wrote that society represented “peace, tolerance, of living and letting live.” The state, by contrast, “is essentially a concept of power, of competition; it signifies a group in its aggressive aspects.”

War is a particularly severe threat to the values of society. Ms. McElroy explains Bourne’s observation that, during war, “Instead of its peacetime principle—live and let live—Society adopts the State’s principle of a group acting ‘in its aggressive aspects.’” She notes, “The thrust of Bourne’s essays is how war leads to the moral collapse of society by kicking out the props of peaceful interaction.”

The Founders’ vision of non-interventionism was one of live and let live. The deviation from the principle has led to the creation of an empire and constant engagement in unnecessary wars. Robert Higgs, in “Are Questions of War and Peace Merely One Issue among Many for Libertarians?” warns of governments stealing of liberty through war, and argues that “the issue of war and peace … serve[s] as a litmus test for libertarians.”

Dr. Higgs has also written about how Americans’ intolerance has led to government repression, including the war on drugs.  In “Puritanism, Paternalism, and Power,” he observes, “’Live and let live’ would appear to be a simple, sensible guide to social life, but obviously many Americans reject this creed with a vengeance.” Dr. Higgs concludes:

[T]he penchant for acting as self-righteous busybodies has animated the bourgeoisie of this country ever since Pilgrims set foot on Plymouth Rock in 1620. Because this proclivity provides an irresistible opportunity for politicians to promote their own interests at public expense, one must expect that we Americans are doomed to an endless procession of costly, futile, and destructive crusades.

The U.S. and every other country will benefit from greater tolerance and greater freedom. We can take inspiration from the Founders’ vision of limited government and non-interventionism, and from the country’s relative freedom, including its freedom of religion. We can also learn from the country’s departure from its founding principles, and its failure to culturally instill the tolerance needed for a truly free society.

Conclusion

Living and letting live is the decent and moral approach to life. It means engaging our fellow human beings in a peaceful manner. To encourage the idea, and to lead by example, is to encourage freedom and tolerance.

Can an Internet acronym–LALL–help change the world for the better? It is worth trying.

No related posts.

There was plenty of bad news for freedom in the U.S. last year, tempered with bits of good news. Others are offering broad assessments, but I would like to follow up on my article of July 23, 2011, “U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement,” and note the positive news on trade.

In the prior piece, I discussed attending an event in Newton, Massachusetts, sponsored by the Korean Consulate for the New England region. The purpose of the event was to encourage continued support for approval by Congress of the free trade agreement (FTA). The U.S. government ratified the FTAs with Korea, Colombia, and Panama in October, while, unfortunately, renewing the Trade Adjustment Assistance program.

Korea’s National Assembly approved the FTA with the U.S. in November. The governments of Colombia and Panama had previously ratified the respective FTAs.

Daniel Griswold of the Cato Institute, in his December 30, 2011, article, “Our Freedom to Trade Expanded in 2011,” explains, “When fully implemented, these FTAs will eliminate just about all barriers to trade with three key allies.”

Mr. Griswold discusses additional progress that was made, and concludes:

Our freedom to trade remains less than it should be. The U.S. government continues to impose an array of barriers on trade and investment, including quotas on imported sugar, regressive tariffs on shoes and clothing, unfair and economically damaging anti-dumping duties, and restrictions on foreign investment in media, inter-coastal shipping, and air travel (all of which I describe in Chapter 9 of my 2009 book Mad about Trade). But those can all be resolutions for 2012.

For now, let all of us who favor economic liberty and limited government take due satisfaction in the welcome expansion of our freedom to engage in commerce with our fellow human beings.

 Korea-U.S. Trade Partnership Event Held in December

I was honored to be able to attend the Korea-U.S. Trade Partnership event held on December 15^th, again in Newton. It was a pleasure to see friends from the Consulate, including Consul Eun-chul Lee. I also enjoyed meeting dignitaries from the Korean Embassy in Washington, D.C.; Dr. Chul Chung, Chief Economist of the Korea International Trade Association (KITA); and members of the Korean-American community of New England.

The purpose of the event was to celebrate the ratification of the FTA and to learn about ideas for members of the Korean-American community across the U.S. to continue to work together. The opportunities include engaging in social and business networking, supporting free trade, encouraging cooperation between people in Korea and the U.S., and fostering interest in Korean culture and traditions.

In socializing with the Koreans and Korean-Americans at the gathering, I was reminded yet again of the value, not only of free trade, but also liberal immigration. Immigrants enrich our economy and our culture, and should be welcomed and embraced.

Korea-U.S. Trade Partnership: Event in Newton, Massachusetts, on December 15, 2011

Free Trade

Governments and media typically focus on the economic benefits of exports, indulging the mercantilist fallacy. Free trade increases exports, but it also gives consumers and manufacturers access to lower cost goods, commodities, and services. The savings can be invested in creating or expanding businesses.

Freedom is its own virtue, and economic freedom, like immigration, should not have to be justified by the benefits it brings. Nonetheless, free trade not only leads to prosperity and improved living standards, but also promotes peace and encourages business, personal, and civic cooperation among people of different lands.

Conclusion

As Mr. Griswold observed, 2011 brought us greater trade freedom, and there is more work to be done. The goal should be for people of all countries to be able to freely trade with one another.

In the draft Preface to his Economic Harmonies (1850), Frédéric Bastiat, using the rhetorical device of arguing with himself, spoke of the importance of pursuing free trade:

Like you I love all forms of freedom; and among these, the one that is the most universally useful to mankind, the one you enjoy at each moment of the day and in all of life’s circumstances, is the freedom to work and to trade. … I approve of your devoting yourself to the defense of this freedom whose triumph will inevitably usher in the reign of international justice and consequently the extinction of hatred, prejudices between one people and another, and the wars that come in their wake.

Freedom of trade gives us a better, more prosperous, and more peaceful world. Its triumph may never be complete, and its hold never permanent, since there are always enemies of freedom. But, like Bastiat, we should devote ourselves to its pursuit.

Related posts:

1. U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement
2. President Obama: Mercantilist
3. Cato University 2011

Our secret Christmas truce with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, has ended, so it is time to respond to his Christmas Day sermon, in which, remarkably, he analogized bankers to rioting arsonists.

The Archbishop serves not only as the Bishop of the Diocese of Canterbury and Primate of All England (the first bishop of England), but also as the leader of the Anglican Communion. As the Archbishop’s website notes, the roles “give him significant influence and the responsibility to speak authoritatively for the faith and witness of the Church, the Anglican Church in particular.”

The Sermon

Given the influence of the office, the views of any Archbishop warrant a critical assessment. Consider this from Dr. Williams’ sermon:

The most pressing question we now face, we might well say, is who and where we are as a society. Bonds have been broken, trust abused and lost. Whether it is an urban rioter mindlessly burning down a small shop that serves his community, or a speculator turning his back on the question of who bears the ultimate cost for his acquisitive adventures in the virtual reality of today’s financial world, the picture is of atoms spinning apart in the dark.

We were pleased to see that we were not alone in finding the sermon obscure. Communications expert Max Atkinson characterized the sermon as “[m]ore gobbledygook.” We will try, nonetheless, to interpret the paragraph quoted above.

Dr. Williams apparently continues to imagine that capitalists are responsible for the U.K.’s economic troubles. We addressed that myth in our November 5^th article, “Foggy Thinking Occupies Leaders In London.” The item responded to the Church of England’s indulgence of the “occupier” protesters outside St. Paul’s Cathedral. As we explained, the blame for the poor economy that plagues the U.K. and much of the rest of the world lies not with capitalism, but rather with central banks and governments:

Central banks’ mismanagement of the money supply and governments’ reckless policies caused a bubble in housing. Central banks and governments have prolonged the recession by inhibiting the necessary post-bubble adjustments–including by effecting bailouts—and by creating uncertainty. Governments also have failed to make the necessary cuts in spending, taxes, and regulation.

Dr. Williams analogizes bankers to arsonists because bankers “turn[ed] [their] back[s] on the question of who bears the ultimate cost for [their] acquisitive adventures …” The analogy, even on its face, is unfair, since arson is an intentional act of destruction, while Dr. Williams supposes that bankers were irresponsible. Assuming that Dr. Williams is referring to the bailouts, the blame lies with government. Government entangled itself in banking and funded firms that should have failed. As we wrote:

[C]oncerns over banking would best be addressed by disentangling government from banking. A free market in banking would force banks to live with the threat of failure, encouraging prudence.

As may be evident in our prior article, economic freedom is not a value Dr. Williams supports. He fails to distinguish between crony capitalism and capitalism. He fails to condemn the former, but attacks the latter. He also favors greater government intervention in banking, despite the harm caused by even the existing structure of regulation.

Political Response

The odd comparison between arsonists and speculators caught the attention of others too. The Daily Mail reported:

Coalition trade and investment minister Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint, who is also an ordained minister in the Church of England, said bankers had changed their attitudes since the crash of 2008.

Unfortunately, this misses the point. First, Lord Green seems to have conceded that the analogy was apt as of 2008. Second, the Archbishop implied that speculators are inherently evil, so any attitudinal change would seem irrelevant. After all, even arsonists with good attitudes are still arsonists.

Lord Green’s other comments were equally unhelpful:

[He] said the Government would need to remain ‘watchful’ to stop ‘backsliding’ by the City.

But he said it was wrong to single out the financial services industry for criticism.

He said: ‘It is important not to treat banking like some special mysterious art, banking is a business and all businesses face this question – what is your contribution to human welfare and to the common good.’

Lord Green failed to address the problem of government intervention, and implicitly encouraged continued regulation. While making the correct point that banking is just another business, he failed to note that businesses can best determine their contribution to the world in a free market. If they satisfy customers (as opposed to bureaucrats, in regulated markets), they are working towards the common good.

Gary Streeter, a Conservative Member of Parliament and Chairman of the all party Christians in Parliament Group, provided a better response:

The Archbishop of Canterbury is on safer ground when he sticks to moral and spiritual issues. He would be wise to leave the politics to politicians and focus on giving us much needed spiritual leadership.

 The Church’s Confusion Towards Capitalism

An article stimulated, like our prior one, by the Church’s response to the London occupiers, appears on the website of the Adam Smith Institute. It too addresses the Church leadership’s confusion towards capitalism. In “The Church of England is barking up the wrong tree,” “Whig” notes, “It would be far more logical for the [Church] to support civil society and free markets.” He points out that this is true from consequentialist, ethical, and theological perspectives. He also observes:

From the point of view of the Church itself, it stands to gain from a reduction of the role of the state. As an institution of civil society the Church is exactly the sort of institution that ought to be filling the gaps in welfare provision, education and social capital that would arise if the state were rolled back.

The Role of Speculators

Dr. Williams used the term “speculator” pejoratively to denote “banker.” His antipathy towards speculators, and gross ignorance of markets and finance, was earlier displayed in his article with the revealing title, “Face it: Marx was partly right about capitalism.” In the piece, he decries “paper assets,” applauds bans on short-selling, and suggests that respect for markets (“mythology”) is “idolatry.”

Thus, it may be useful to defend the regularly vilified speculator. Speculators engage in voluntary exchange, and should be respected and left unfettered on that basis alone. While speculators should not have to justify their existence, they in fact benefit us all by making markets more efficient. They create liquidity, provide price discovery, smooth prices, assume risks, and help ensure supply. Whether they are “short” or “long” in positions, they play an important role in the economy.

Conclusion

Dr. Williams’ sermon is entitled, “Don’t build lives on selfishness and fear.” This is wise advice. However, the Church should recognize the common selfishness of politicians and bureaucrats, and government’s use of fear mongering to expand its control over our lives. The Church should also advocate for free markets, in which people’s self-interest requires them to serve their fellow man.

The new year is almost here. May freedom grow in 2012!

Related posts:

1. Foggy Thinking Occupies Leaders In London
2. Earth Day 2010: Protect Human Freedom as We Protect the Environment

U.S. Representative Barney Frank today announced he will not seek reelection. He has held office for sixteen terms—thirty-two years—which reminds us of the fact that the system protects incumbents.

Frank notoriously dismissed warnings about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and was the co-author of the ill-conceived Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The National Taxpayers Union, in ranking Frank from 1992-2010, gave him a grade of “F” for fiscal policy every year except for two, when he soared to a “D.”

To paraphrase the classic country music song, “Sixteen Tons”:

Sixteen terms, and what do you get? More big government, deeper in debt.

No related posts.

The Wall Street Journal reported on October 2^nd, in an article entitled “St. Paul’s Halts Legal Bid to Evict Activists’ Camp”:

Shaken by criticism of its handling of anticapitalist protesters on its doorstep, St. Paul’s Cathedral said it is suspending legal action to have the Occupy London camp evicted.

….

The bishop of London [Dr. Richard Chartres], meanwhile, invited the former chairman of UBS Europe and Lazard International, Ken Costa, to lead a new group of financial-services and church leaders aimed at ‘reconnecting the financial with the ethical’ …

The cathedral has significance as a symbol of the Church of England. St. Paul’s website explains it “is London’s cathedral and embodies the spiritual life and heritage of the British people.” The occupiers in London and in the U.S., too, have symbolic significance as protesters against capitalism.

The cathedral is indulging an irrational and incoherent mob. Contrary to the view of Dr. Chartres and Mr. Costa, the U.K.’s real problem is not with capitalism, but rather central banking, crony capitalism, socialism, and diminished economic freedom.

By surrendering to the mob, the cathedral is reinforcing economic misconceptions, and helping draw attention away from the real villains—governments and their central banks. The cathedral’s response is consistent with the misguided views of both the Church of England and the Vatican, and encourages politicians to make things worse.

Mr. Costa’s Confusion

Dr. Chartres’s reliance on Mr. Costa is misplaced. Mr. Costa’s October 28^th piece in the Financial Times, “Why the City should heed the discordant voices of St Paul’s,” refers to the “deep-seated global concern about the way the free market operates.” This erroneously assumes there is a free market. The reality is that freedom is exactly what markets need, and exactly what is missing.

Over-Crediting the Occupiers

Mr. Costa also tries too hard to credit to the protesters. In his article, he writes:

Of itself, [the protest] would be of little consequence. But its significance is that it taps into a much wider source of discontent. Astonishing as it may be, according to a recent poll, more than two-thirds of ordinary Americans support the Occupy Wall Street demonstration.

However, the linked Financial Times article of October 27 actually says that “[t]wo-thirds of New York City voters said they agreed with protesters’ views.” (Emphasis added in both quotations.)

New York City is a socialist city in a socialist state. The Mercatus Center ranks New York State as the least free in the country. What do Americans in general really think of the protesters? Rasmussen Reports noted on October 24:

The Occupy Wall Street protesters have been compared by some with the Tea Party protests that erupted more than two years ago in reaction to Washington’s big government spending plans. Americans are evenly divided in their opinions of those currently protesting against Wall Street but tend to see their own views as more in line with those of the Tea Party.

Americans’ view of one of the specific issues is also revealing, since it clashes with the entitlement mindset of the protesters. On October 25, Rasmussen observed, “One of the loudest demands by the Occupy Wall Street protesters is for forgiveness of the nearly $1 trillion worth of student loans, but Americans strongly oppose forgiving that debt.”

Accepting False Premises

Regardless of the specific level of popular support for protestors, leaders should reject their false premises. Mr. Costa does not:

We will only win the debate if we take seriously the need to reconnect the robust desire for profit and financial incentives that is core to the free market economy with the moral values that are its foundation. The price of economic freedom is moral vigilance.

Yes, it is good for companies to act morally. This has nothing to do, though, with the recession that has led to the protests. Central banks’ mismanagement of the money supply and governments’ reckless policies caused a bubble in housing. Central banks and governments have prolonged the recession by inhibiting the necessary post-bubble adjustments–including by effecting bailouts—and by creating uncertainty. Governments also have failed to make the necessary cuts in spending, taxes, and regulation.

The way to foster “moral values” in business is to free the market. This forces firms to satisfy customers and maintain good reputations, rather than relying on government protection and largesse. The bailouts of financial firms in the U.S. and U.K allowed them to avoid the consequences of their poor leadership and faulty judgment, and set another precedent for imposing private losses on the public.

It is also important to focus on the matter of the morality of government. Government acts through force or the threat of force. When government exceeds its limited, legitimate role of securing life, liberty, and property, it acts immorally. When it engages in legal plunder, as by bailing out banks, this is immoral. The real price of economic freedom is vigilance to restrain government.

It is in fact bizarre that, as European socialist governments are foundering, the focus would be on the alleged moral failings of the private sector. The failure of government offers the lessons to be learned.

Cathedral’s Criticism of Capitalism

Dr. Chartres, the Bishop of London, is quoted by the Journal:

The alarm bells are ringing all over the world. St. Paul’s has now heard that call … Today’s decision means that the doors are most emphatically open to engage with matters concerning not only those encamped around the cathedral but millions of others in this country and around the globe.

The cathedral is listening to the wrong bells. Amidst the din, alarm bells warn that freedom, as always, is under threat. We need to harken to these, acknowledging the need for drastic cuts in the size and scope of government.

Missing the Cause of Poverty

The Guardian explained Dr. Chartres’s views:

[H]e points out that, as a former Bishop of Stepney [a district in London’s East End], he knows a thing or two about poverty and does come out with fairly robust criticism of the recent behaviour of bankers. ‘I think back to people I knew of a previous generation in the City of London who exercised enormous restraint. There is now an atmosphere of inordinate ambition to boost the bottom line and forget the consequences.’

He deplores ‘the way in which banking became a merry-go-round of instruments which were not properly understood or properly priced – that’s obviously a moral problem’. ‘People look in a very straightforward way, which I share, at the banks which were bailed out. They bear a measure of responsibility for the state we’re in yet they don’t seem to have shared the pain.’

Dr. Chartres apparently may have witnessed poverty, but he has not learned what keeps people poor—the absence of freedom. He would serve the cause of alleviating poverty by advocating for economic freedom, which has been in decline in the U.K. His concerns over banking would best be addressed by disentangling government from banking. A free market in banking would force banks to live with the threat of failure, encouraging prudence.

Anglican and Catholic Churches’ Call for Change

The Church of England, through its leader, and the Catholic Church, through a council, have draw faulty conclusions and made poor recommendations.

Church of England

Dr. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury (leader of the Church of England), offered his views on the protesters in London in a Financial Times piece entitled “Time for us to challenge the idols of high finance.” He wrote:

[T]he demands of the protesters have been vague. Many people are frustrated beyond measure at what they see as the disastrous effects of global capitalism; but it isn’t easy to say what we should do differently. It is time we tried to be more specific.

Dr. Williams tacitly accepts the notion that “global capitalism” has “disastrous effects.” Capitalism entails voluntary exchanges. What is the disaster this has wrought? He does not say.

We do know the good done by capitalism. This includes the dramatic rise in living standards; the great improvement in health and lifespan; the expanded opportunities for human relationships though trade and other cooperation; the increased potential for people to work in the fields of their choosing; and the wealth that allows for environmental stewardship.

Dr. Williams goes on to praise the statement issued October 24 by the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of Global Public Authority.”

Vatican

The Vatican’s statement, unfortunately, is based on economic misconceptions and an unrealistic view of government. Its perspective clashes with what we know about the world through Austrian economics and public choice analysis.

• Faulty Diagnosis

While acknowledging the benefits of global development, the statement laments that “the distribution of wealth did not become fairer but in many cases worsened.” Wealth is created, not distributed, and what is “fair” is that people can retain the wealth they create. Countries with low incomes and little wealth are those with limited economic freedom.

The statement continues:

What has driven the world in such a problematic direction for its economy and also for peace?

First and foremost, an economic liberalism that spurns rules and controls. Economic liberalism is a theoretical system of thought, a form of ‘economic apriorism’ that purports to derive laws for how markets function from theory, these being laws of capitalistic development, while exaggerating certain aspects of markets.

First, the idea that financial firms were not subject to “rules and controls” is a myth that is attractive to those who want even more government regulation. The best discipline, though, is the market. The correct direction should be, not increased regulation, but rather deregulation of firms and the closing of central banks.

Second, the council is asserting that “economic liberalism”—meaning economic freedom–has “driven the world in [the] problematic direction” of unfair “distribution” of wealth. Query, what would be “fair”? Who decides this? Is it fair for government to use force or the threat of force to take people’s property and give it to others?

Third, regarding the idea that liberalism is a threat to peace, what is the basis for this conclusion? The fact is that economic freedom promotes peace. Religious leaders can further the cause of peace by supporting efforts to liberalize economies, while condemning governments that war monger.

• Bad Prescription

What is needed, the statement concludes, is “an authority over globalization” to serve “the universal common good.” The council concludes it has the only answer: “In a world on its way to rapid globalization, the reference to a world Authority becomes the only horizon compatible with the new realities of our time and the needs of humankind.” The council sees a rosy future:

Thanks to the principle of solidarity, a lasting and fruitful relation is built up between global civil society and a world public Authority as States, intermediate bodies, various institutions – including economic and financial ones – and citizens make their decisions with a view to the global common good, which transcends national goods.

The statement goes on to suggest the reforms endorsed by Dr. Williams, the Archbishop. Dr. Williams wrote, “If we want to take seriously the moral agenda of the protesters at St Paul’s, these are some of the ways in which we should be taking it forward.”

The proposals are a “Robin Hood tax” on financial transactions (to be used for “promoting global development and sustainability according to the principles of social justice and solidarity); “recapitalization of banks with public funds making the support conditional on ‘virtuous’ behaviours aimed at developing the ‘real economy’; and a separation of commercial and investment banking.

Each is a bad idea. First, consider the tax. The world needs lower taxes, not higher. Any individual jurisdiction that imposed the tax would likely experience capital flight, and smart jurisdictions would decline to agree to a global tax scheme. The authority, like any other international government organization, would squander the money on itself and special interests, while reinforcing oppressive governments.

Second, using “public funds” to recapitalize banks means taking wealth from individuals to give to banks. This really means bailing out more banks, a form of economic fascism. Further, the idea that the authority can be trusted to define “virtuous behaviors” defies history and common sense. One suspects the authority would deem virtuous the support of favorite causes of politicians, for instance, making loans for uneconomical solar and wind power energy schemes.

Third, the concept of separating commercial and investment banking is based on the fallacy that government knows better than the market what combinations of financial service providers is best. It is also based on the myth that the repeal in the U.S. of the Glass-Steagall Act caused the financial crisis. The evidence suggests, in fact, that the combination of commercial banks had a stabilizing influence.

 Prime Minister Cameron’s Capitulation

Prime Minister David Cameron has endorsed the anti-capitalist views of Dr. Williams. The Guardian reported on November 2^nd:

David Cameron has backed Rowan Williams’s call for responsibility from top earners, telling MPs the archbishop of Canterbury ‘speaks for the whole country’.

 ….

Cameron said he agreed that corporate greed should be curbed, adding: ‘The archbishop speaks for the whole country when he says it is unacceptable, in a time of difficulty, [that] people at the top of our society are not showing signs of responsibility.’

Mr. Cameron apparently shares Dr. Williams’ concern regarding “still-soaring bonuses.”  As to compensation, this should be a private, not a public matter. The mistake was for the government to conduct the bailouts, setting the stage for the inevitable resentment over pay. The answer is not to hector firms over pay, and pretend officers and employees will act “responsibly” by limiting their earnings. The answer is to admit that the bailouts were abuses of government power, and that government, as noted above, has to be disentangled from banking.

Mr. Cameron’s support of Dr. Williams’ views may be politically pragmatic. However, it encourages irrational envy, avoids the real issues, and conveys the message that the U.K. is not a friendly environment for business.

Conclusion

If religious and political leaders truly wish to address concerns related to the recession, they should defend capitalism and decry governments’ theft of liberty. Capitalism is moral; it entails voluntary exchange. Government, by contrast, acts through force or the threat of force, and regularly abuses its power, acting immorally. Economic freedom fosters peace and prosperity, while unbridled government encourages war and poverty.

The world needs leaders who embrace the ideals of liberty, serving as voices against the crowd. Real leaders stand up to the mob, with its prejudice and envy, and speak of great principles. The principles of freedom need to be defended.

Related posts:

1. Christmas 2011: Archbishop Got Grinchy
2. Earth Day 2010: Protect Human Freedom as We Protect the Environment
3. Financial Reform Bill: Don’t Bank on Government Regulation
4. China Needs Freedom, Not Population Control

On October 14^th, President Obama advised Congress he was sending “combat equipped U.S. forces” to Uganda and other nations in central Africa to help remove leaders of the brutal guerrilla group, Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). While the letter stated that the troops “will not themselves engage LRA forces unless necessary for self defense,” the U.S. government is intervening in another civil war.

The White House cited the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009, enacted in May 2010. The act required the president to prepare a plan, which was issued on November 24, 2010, “Strategy to Support the Disarmament of the Lord’s Resistance Army.”

Constitutional Problems

The U.S. government’s sending of troops clashes with the Founders’ vision of non-interventionism. Gene Healy of the Cato Institute notes that missions like this one are not authorized by the Constitution:

The Obama team has embraced the U.N. doctrine known as ‘Responsibility to Protect,’ which holds that the ‘international community’ has an obligation to protect civilians from crimes against humanity — by force, if necessary — when their own governments cannot or will not.

That doctrine is at odds with the U.S. Constitution, which empowers Congress to set up a military establishment for the singular end of ‘the common defence … of the United States.’

Further, the engagement violates the constitution requirement that Congress declare war. While the act and strategy plan refer to military support, neither explicitly authorizes the sending of troops. This was reflected in Senator John McCain’s statement, “… I’m very disappointed, again, that the administration has not consulted with members of Congress before taking such action.”

The Founders recognized the importance of Congress engaging in a deliberative process before declaring war. Congress’s act of passing the general legislation, and passively receiving the general strategy plan, did not constitute deliberation over sending troops.

Other Problems

All decent people have sympathy for the suffering caused by predators like the LRA, and by dictators around the world. This does not mean, however, that the U.S. government should intervene. The intervention in central Africa is wrong, even aside from its unconstitutionality.

Bad for Africa

The intervention is harmful to Africa. It reinforces the false message that the continent cannot meet its own challenges, thus discouraging its development and self-reliance. Governmental foreign aid reinforces poor governments and poor policies. Africa should be left alone to solve its own problems. If the nations of central Africa need the type of military support the U.S. government is providing, they can seek more regional help, and retain the services of contractors.

Uganda, one of the U.S. government’s “partners” in the military effort, is an example of a troubled country that receives massive aid and needs internal reform. The U.S. government is already providing about half a billion dollars of aid to Uganda per year. The country has the poverty that is associated with limited economic freedom, including widespread corruption, weak property rights, and weak business freedom.

Freedom House ranks Uganda only Partly Free with respect to its political rights and civil liberties. The country’s president, Yoweri Museveni, has been in power since 1986.

Uganda also allegedly has itself engaged in inhumane military conduct. A UN report issued on October 1, 2010 suggests that Uganda, along with Rwanda and Burundi and rebel groups, may have committed war crimes and even genocide in the wars in the Democratic Republic of Congo between 1993 and 2003. For summary information, see this article in France 24.

Bad for the U.S.

The action encourages the pattern of the government engaging in unlimited military action. President Obama’s claim that the mission “is in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States” demonstrates that the government considers itself unconstrained by any principles as to the scope of its activities or the country’s interests.

As we see with the other wars, and with the empire, the mission serves the interests of the government, not those of the U.S. Like the intervention in Libya, the action appears intended to extend the government’s influence and to help justify the existence of the African Command.

Consider the revealing assertions in the July 2011 article in the National Defense Institute’s Strategic Forum, “Countering the Lord’s Resistance Army in Central Africa.” The author, Andre Le Sage, states that the LRA is “an indirect interest for U.S. national security planners” for reasons including that it is “a test case” for the Africa Command. He also warns that the consequences of inadequate resources for actions would include the “role of the command remain[ing] uncertain and contested …”

As observed by Benjamin H. Friedman and Harvey Sapolsky, the command is “basically useless.” It is based in Germany for lack of a home in Africa, and justifies itself as a “jobs” program. It is an answer in search of a good question.

Further, the government, already hopelessly in debt, and unwilling to cut spending, is borrowing more money to get entangled in yet another war. The resulting burdens of taxes and inflation fall on the people. While the incremental cost of this war is a small fraction of total spending, the government should be radically downsizing, not initiating new actions.

Risk of Making Matters Worse

There is only one law that is virtually always upheld, the law of unintended consequences. When it comes to government projects, including military adventures, however, the law that more often applies is that of predictable consequences for reckless actions.

The White House, in announcing the new mission, failed to mention some relevant history. The U.S. government, in December 2008, supported Uganda in an attack on the LRA, resulting in a disaster. The New York Times reported:

The American military helped plan and pay for a recent attack on a notorious Ugandan rebel group, but the offensive went awry, scattering fighters who carried out a wave of massacres as they fled, killing as many as 900 civilians.

….

No American forces ever got involved in the ground fighting in this isolated, rugged corner of Congo, but human rights advocates and villagers here complain that the Ugandans and the Congolese troops who carried out the operation did little or nothing to protect nearby villages, despite a history of rebel reprisals against civilians.

Stars and Stripes provided more information:

… U.N. envoy John Holmes was among critics who earlier this week blamed the latest slaughter in eastern Congo on the military offensive.

‘The humanitarian consequences of the operations against the LRA have been catastrophic …’

Any military action, no matter how well planned, holds the risk of doing harm to those intended to be helped. The responsibility for proper planning and action to address the LRA belongs with the countries of central Africa, not the U.S. government.

Experience in Libya Counsels Caution

The purported success of the intervention in Libya apparently emboldened the Obama administration to send the troops to central Africa, eleven months after the administration had issued its plan. Senator Chris Coons voiced support for the mission based on this factor.

However, the intervention in Libya was a mistake. Among other problems, it likely was initiated on a false pretense of the need to protect civilians; entangled the U.S. government in a civil war in which numerous civilians were killed or injured and the rebels and government forces engaged in atrocities; and created another precedent for unnecessary war. In addition, as noted by Christopher Preble of Cato:

Qaddafi’s death does not validate the original decision to launch military operations without authorization from Congress. The Libyan operation did not advance a vital national security interest, a point that former secretary of defense Robert Gates stressed at the time. Qaddafi could have been brought down by the Libyan people, but the Obama administration’s decision to overthrow him may now implicate the United States in the behavior of the post-Qaddafi regime. That is unfair to the American people, and to the Libyan people who can and must be held responsible for fashioning a new political order.

Further, the crass triumphalism of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton after Qadafi’s death (“We came, we saw, he died”) captures the danger of allowing presidents to launch wars without congressional approval. As Louis Fisher has explained, “The Framers understood that executives, in their search for fame and glory, had a dangerous appetite for war.”

Conclusion

The mission in central Africa to counter the Lord’s Resistance Army is unconstitutional and unwise. It serves the interests of the U.S. government, not those of Africa or the U.S.

Related posts:

1. President Obama’s (Chico) Marxism

The junta in Burma recently has been taking steps that appear intended to manipulate international opinion, and to provide false hope within the country of a move towards freedom. History suggests, and prudence dictates, that friends of freedom for Burma should remain wary.

 Background

1988 Uprising and 1990 Election

Last month, demonstrators in Burma and around the world commemorated the twenty-third anniversary of the “8888 uprising.” The uprising is named after the mass demonstrations that began on August 8, 1988. During this period, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi emerged as a leader for democracy.

September 18^th was the twenty-third anniversary of the military retaking power in Burma, in 1988, which ended the country’s “democracy summer.” The Irrawaddy discussed the significance of the uprising:

Nearly two and a half decades later, ‘8-8-88’ still echoes in the ears of Burma’s oppressors like a death knell. To drown out this sound, the military has tried everything, from bullets to ballots, to reassert itself as the sole holder of power. To the extent that it still holds that power, albeit now from behind a civilian guise, it has succeeded. And yet, the drum beat of the Burmese people’s desire for genuine democracy remains, as insistent as ever.

In 1990, the junta held an election, in which Daw Suu Kyi’s party won overwhelmingly. The government rejected the results, and kept Daw Suu Kyi jailed or under house arrest for most of the next two decades.

2007 Saffron Revolution

Yesterday marked the fourth anniversary of the junta’s crackdown on the “Saffron Revolution,” led my Burma’s Buddhist monks. The Frontline Rough Cut video, Burma: Inside the Saffron Revolution, discusses the revolution; the junta’s brutal reaction, including the killing and imprisonment of monks; the flight of many monks; the government’s continuing attempt to restrain the monks; and the monks’ dedication to freeing the country.

The anniversary was commemorated by demonstrations around the world, including by Burma Democratic Concern at the Burmese Embassy in London. BDC explained the purpose of the demonstration: “To remember our fallen heroes, and to show our support for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s call for peace, dialogue, and national reconciliation …”

In Burma, police dispersed about 200 protestors in Rangoon. An organizer reported, “[The police] said that section 354 of the 2008 Constitution that says every citizen can assemble peacefully has not been approved by the Parliament, so we could be arrested under existing laws that say an assembly of more than five people is against the law.”

The legacy of the Saffron Revolution is the enhanced international recognition of the oppression in Burma, and the monks’ continued commitment to freedom for Burma. Buddhist monk U Agga Nya Na, who took part in the demonstrations and now lives in exile in the U.S., wrote in January 2010,

After 2007, the international community is more aware about the brutality of the Burmese military regime. I am happy to speak out and raise awareness. When in Burma we could not talk freely. As long as I am alive I will struggle for freedom and justice in Burma wherever I am and however I can.

2010 Election and 2011 Events 

The junta held a sham election last November, and then released Daw Suu Kyi from house detention. The purported civilian government remains dominated by the military.

In the past months, the government has taken steps that appear intended to create a false impression of liberalization. The junta seeks approval by the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) to chair the organization in 2014. It also seeks an end to the sanctions imposed by the European Union and the U.S. and other countries.

Additionally, the government seeks to avoid the UN acceding to the longstanding call for a commission of inquiry to investigate possible crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by the state in its armed conflict with ethnic minority insurgents. The UN special rapporteur on human rights, Tomas Quintana, repeated his call for a commission after visiting the country in August.

The junta’s steps have included:

• The president, U Thein Sein, has met with Daw Suu Kui.

•  The government had Daw Suu Kui attend a conference in August on economic development.

• The president has spoken of values such as the rule of law and the rights of citizens.

• He also has invited political exiles to return to the country.

• The government allowed the UN’s Mr. Quintana UN to visit the country in August.

• At Mr. Quintana’s recommendation, the government has established a new human rights commission.

• The government unblocked some banned websites.

Assessing the Developments

The junta’s actions have not changed the reality of continued oppression.

 Analysis of the Steps Taken

 Each of the steps listed above is cosmetic, intended to suggest the appearance of change, while the junta clings to power.

• As I have previously written, the government’s ideas on the economy generally are misguided, and fail to include what Burma really needs—economic freedom coupled with political and civil freedom.

• It is hypocritical for the government to talk of the rule of law and individual rights, while continuing to hold over 2,000 political prisoners; engaging in violent conflict with ethnic minority insurgents, and committing abuses against civilians; opposing a commission of inquiry; and pressing on with the construction of the Myitsone Dam project on the Irrawaddy River despite widespread opposition.

• The government has not provided amnesty for political exiles, so they risk imprisonment if they return to Burma. The fact that the government has not released the political prisoners demonstrates the risks to returning exiles. Among the prisoners, for example, is the popular comedian, Maung Thura, known as Zarganar, who is serving thirty-five years in prison after criticizing the government’s response to the devastating Cyclone Nargis in 2008. The government not only has failed to commit to releasing political prisoners, but also denies there are any political prisoners.

• Regarding the human rights commission, Aung Myo Min, director of the Thailand-based Human Rights Education Institute of Burma, “said it was doubtful that a human rights body led by former officials who have defended the country against criticism of its human rights record in the past would act independently of the government.”

• While unblocking of some websites, the government can still prosecute people who access the sites. Freedom House, in a special report, “Freedom on the Net 2011,” ranks Burma as the second worst of the thirty-seven countries assessed, behind only Iran. The report estimates Internet penetration at only one percent, meaning that even any real liberalization would currently affect few people, at least directly.

• In addition, the government continues to imprison about twenty-five journalists. In fact, the same week the government unblocked the sites, it also sentenced a journalist to prison for ten years for circulating material online. In addition, it still heavily censors newspapers and subjects journalists to surveillance. It even censored an article by Daw Suu Kyi about her pilgrimage to the ancient city of Badan in July.

Positive Reaction

Nonetheless, some people within and outside Burma have reacted positively to the junta’s steps. Daw Suu Kyi spoke of “an opportunity for change” in her speech on International Day of Democracy on September 15^th. Daw Suu Kyi apparently sees hope for change through cooperation with the junta, while avoiding the bloodshed that has come from nonviolent opposition in the past. The risk is that the junta will use her to gain credibility, only reinforcing its power. An article in The Irrawaddy reflects the concern of imprisoned leaders of the “88 Generation Students“:

“[They] have pledged their continued support for … Aung San Suu Kyi but warned she should treat her new friendly relationship with the Burmese government with caution.

….

‘One thing Suu Kyi should be cautious about is the other side misusing her benevolence,’ said a source closed to [imprisoned leader] Ko Ko Gyi.’

The International Crisis Group, on September 22, issued a report remarkably entitled “Myanmar: Major Reform Underway.” The report discourages skepticism (p. 15), calls for ASEAN to grant Burma’s government the chair, and opposes calling for an UN commission of inquiry (p. 12). The ICG is obtuse in failing to acknowledge the likelihood the junta is simply trying to manipulate international organizations.

A Wall Street Journal editorial, “Caution on Burmese Reform,” noted, “The ICG’s call prompted a resounding ‘huh?’ from Burma-watchers—not least because there is little evidence of the regime making reforms worth the name.” Whatever the positive or negative effect of sanctions, supported by the Journal, its  recommendation of caution is well-grounded.

Skeptical Reaction

Many others, however, have urged skepticism. Yeni, the news editor of Irrawaddy, cautioned:

[A]t this point, a Burmese renaissance is a wish rather than a reality. It must be remembered that the same men running the current government ran the previous regime, and during their reign often paid lip service to reform without taking any meaningful and lasting action.

Mark Farmaner, director of Burma Campaign UK, also noted the junta’s history, while encouraging the international community to exert pressure for real change:

The dictatorship has successfully engaged in lies and delaying tactics for decades. They take superficial actions designed to present the impression that change could be round the corner, but that corner is never turned. All the evidence so far is that we are seeing more of the same. But what is taking place does present an opportunity. Now is not the time to adopt a wait and see approach, or for the usual softly, softly dialogue. A concerted international effort needs to be made, setting the dictatorship clear benchmarks and timelines for change. The international community has what the dictatorship wants, it has leverage. It is time to use it.

The organization The Best Friend, founded by Buddhist monks, warned:

Even though they have labeled themselves a ‘democracy’, Burma’s rulers are up to their same old tricks – playing another round of their favorite game – the ‘wait and see’ game.

They have become very skilled at this game.  When Burma’s rulers want something from the international community — such as the ASEAN chairmanship for 2014, or for the UN not to establish a Commission of Inquiry into human rights abuses in Burma — they make a few cosmetic changes and make vague promises of ‘reform’ to charm the world into thinking Burma is on the path to positive change. Apologists for the regime then say, ‘We should wait and see if the generals will keep their promises, this time may be different. Now is not the time to push for change.’

Kelley Currie of the Project 2049 Institute, in an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, cautioned:

After years of abysmal economic policy and severe political repression, it is tempting to believe it is sufficient that the Burmese regime is moving toward slightly greater political and economic openness. But Burma’s democrats have higher aspirations for their country, and their supporters should too.

Finally, U.S. Campaign for Burma characterized the junta’s moves as merely a public relations campaign:

Almost more than military equipment, public image and information are major tactics in any struggle. Recently, Burma’s new ‘government’ has been taking steps to paint a public facade of democratic reform. Reading the headlines it might be easy to hope, but looking at the full situation of Burma it seems to us the same old charm offensive the regime usually takes when they want to alleviate pressure.

Signal of Truth from Junta’s Words

It is not only the junta’s continuing oppression, and its failure to make real changes, that should cause skepticism. It is also the junta’s own brazen words.

Consider the junta’s response to an August 8, 2011 article in the Wall Street Journal, “Myanmar Considers Foreign-Exchange Overhaul.” The article included these observations regarding whether the government would really make economic changes:

Adding to the uncertainty is ongoing confusion over who actually runs the country. Although a former military commander named Thein Sein became the country’s president earlier this year, it is unclear how much power he holds. Many residents believe that military figures including former strongman Than Shwe, who controlled Myanmar from the 1990s until the latest election, continue to pull the strings behind the scenes.

People familiar with the matter say they believe a power struggle is developing within the new government between hard-liners connected to the military and ministers who are pressing for more economic changes. These people stress it remains unclear which side will win.

In a letter to the editor, U Ye Htut, director general of the Information and Public Relations Department at Myanmar’s Ministry of Information, responded as follows:

Since 1988, there have been many rumors and speculations about splits and power struggles within Myanmar’s leadership, which were mainly spread by opposition groups and Western media outlets that are happy to quote them. But nothing happened.

As I noted in my online comment, “The letter betrays the junta’s intention to maintain power, despite the pretense of democracy.” I continued:

The junta is not a “leadership”; it is a dictatorship. With democracy, governments can be held accountable, and true leadership is subject to change. The junta taunts that “nothing happened.” This is false. The people of Burma have sought change, but the junta has held on to power by brutal means, including imprisoning dissidents and massacring demonstrators. There have been defectors, but they have had to flee the country.

Despite the junta’s cruel efforts, something will indeed happen: Burma will be freed.

Conclusion

Friends of freedom for Burma should remain wary. The junta does not have solutions for the future of the country, because the junta itself is the problem. For progress to be made, and for Burma to establish the freedom that will allow for the happiness and prosperity the Burmese people deserve, the junta must relinquish its illegitimate power.

It is wise to recall the fable of the frog and the scorpion, popularized in the movie The Crying Game and included in the book, First Break All the Rules: What the World’s Greatest Managers Do Differently.

The frog agrees to carry the scorpion across a pond after the scorpion assures the frog he will not sting him. But halfway across, the scorpion nonetheless stings the frog. The frog asks why he has done this, which will result in the frog dying and the scorpion drowning. The scorpion replies that this is his nature.

In the world of humans, the outcome is worse. The scorpions among us sting those who trust them, but usually live to sting another day.

The junta has long demonstrated its nature. Let us not get stung.

Related posts:

1. Burma: Freedom Will Bring Prosperity

On Tuesday, September 11, 2001, I was in Washington, D.C., at the annual conference of the Enforcement Department of NASD. NASD, now known as FINRA, regulates the securities brokerage industry, and I served as Chief Counsel of the New York Region. Our office was at One Liberty Plaza, half a block from the World Trade Center. Most of the staff was with me in Washington, but we had two assistants scheduled to be in the office that morning.

I spoke with one assistant by telephone as the second plane crashed into the South Tower. She escaped the area and made it home safely. The other assistant was in the area, heading to the office, when the devastation began, and she too made it home safely. The building was damaged, and remained closed for several months.

I have always regretted that I was not in New York that day. I was friendly with the security personnel of the NASD who were based in the building. One was formerly with the FBI, and the other was ex-NYPD. Both of them aided in getting people from all the buildings in the area to safety, and I would have joined them in the effort.

We all returned home by train from Washington two days later. On Monday, a few of us began working out of temporary space. Downtown New York was hellish. The air was barely breathable, thick with smoke and ash and the stench of burning. We had to navigate police and military lines.

Within a week or so, our full staff was able to move into other temporary space. We made several trips back to the ghostly One Liberty Plaza to retrieve files, carrying them in trash bags. We ultimately got a wheelbarrow for this purpose. Several people worked out of the Long Island satellite office, helping us with projects that were impossible in our New York space.  A couple times, we were ordered to vacate the building because of concerns regarding possible anthrax.

My role was to endeavor to provide the leadership needed to maintain morale and help the staff function with limited resources. I urged courage, and discouraged fear. When the anthrax scare began, I volunteered to open the mail.

I was proud of the staff, the way they overcame their grief and fear and coped under the difficult circumstances. When One Liberty Plaza was ready to reopen, our department returned immediately. The staff hummed away at work as soon as we moved back, and we were happy to be home.

In December, we met with the staff before the region’s holiday party. I gave awards to the people who had been particularly resourceful in keeping the mission going. We all felt the bond that comes with working together for a common purpose, and succeeding. We were glad to be alive, and glad to be together. It was my privilege to serve the group, and I did so for three more years.

……..

I cannot think of September 9, 2011, without anger at the terrorists, and sorrow. I mourn for the poor people who died that day, at the World Trade Center, at the Pentagon, and in the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. I mourn for the brave firefighters and police officers who sacrificed their lives trying to rescue others. And I mourn for all the people who lost loved ones that day.

I mourn for the country’s losses that day, and I damn the state. I damn the state for having created enemies through intervention abroad, and for having bungled the opportunities to prevent the attack.

I also damn the state for its responses in the past decade. I damn it for occupying Afghanistan for ten years, long after toppling the government in just two months. I damn it for the war in Iraq, and for still occupying the country eight years later. And I damn it for the unnecessary deaths of thousands of U.S. military personnel in these wars, as well as for the unnecessary injuries to thousands more.

I damn the state for creating new enemies through these wars and the war in Libya. I damn it for the loss of hundreds of thousands of people in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. I damn it for wasting trillions of dollars in these wars. And I damn it for continuing to support dictators around the world, including the monarchies of the Gulf States.

I damn the state for stealing more of our freedom in the name of war. I damn it for creating bureaucratic monsters in the name of security, wasting billions without purpose. And I damn it for taking over airport security, requiring all of us to endure a gauntlet of idiocy and intrusion.

I damn the state for fear mongering. I damn it for not telling the truth to the American people–the truth that terrorism is ineffectual unless government overreacts.

I damn the state for overreacting. And I damn it for letting the terrorists win by doing so.

……..

I mourn for the losses the country endured on September 11, 2001. I mourn too for what the country has since lost. And I damn the state for this loss.

No related posts.

Teamsters Union President Jimmy Hoffa spoke before Pres. Obama at a Labor Day rally in Detroit, Michigan yesterday:

We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They’ve got a war, they got a war with us and there’s only going to be one winner. It’s going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We’re going to win that war.

President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let’s take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong.

When Pres. Obama spoke, he praised Mr. Hoffa and the other union leaders who were present:

We are proud of them and we’re proud of your congressional delegation who are working every single day with your state and local elected officials to create jobs and economic growth and prosperity here in Michigan and all across the country.

At the White House today, Press Secretary Jay Carney responded to questions about Mr. Hoffa’s remarks by stating that Pres. Obama had not heard these, and that Mr. Hoffa speaks for himself. While thus trying to distance the White House from the language, Mr. Carney did not condemn it.

Mr. Hoffa’s aggressive speech has resulted in criticism, particularly in view of Pres. Obama’s call for civility after the shooting in Tucson, Arizona in January. The Teamsters responded with a media release:

Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa today said he stands by his criticism of corporate-funded conservative politicians who are out to destroy the middle class.

‘We’re tired of seeing good-paying jobs shipped overseas. This fight is about the economy, it’s about jobs and it’s about rebuilding America. As I said yesterday in Detroit, we all have to vote in order to take these anti-worker politicians out of office.’

Politics

The fact that a union leader speaks in threatening terms is natural. As I wrote last year on Labor Day:

Unions endeavor to project the impression they are voluntary associations, peacefully protecting the interests of their members. This is a false image. Thomas J. DiLorenzo explains that, in addition to unions owing their existence to the threat of violence implicit in government coercion, “violence and coercion are integral to the existence of unions.” Unions use these tools to intimidate prospective and current members, employers, and other firms.

Even if unions were perfectly peaceful groups, their ability to compel employers to deal with them is based on violence. Unions’ privileged status is a creature of federal law. Governments claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, and they use violence and the threat of violence to compel obedience to their laws. Unions substitute the threat of their own violence with the threat of government violence to force firms to collectively bargain and comply with the terms of agreements they would prefer to avoid.

As discussed by David Boaz, sociologist Franz Oppenheimer wrote about the two ways people could acquire wealth, through work—“economic means”–and robbery—“political means.” The political means explains not only the origin of the state, but also the seeking of favored treatment by the government.

Unions utilize the political means to survive. They are dependent on politics, and are a favored special interest of politicians.

Protectionism

As noted above, Mr. Hoffa said he is “tired of seeing good-paying jobs shipped overseas.” This is an implicit call for trade protectionism, using the power of the government to block people from voluntarily buying and selling what they wish, on the terms they wish. As I wrote in an article on mercantilism, protectionism is plunder:

Tariffs and other trade barriers are immoral. They are an abuse of government power, used to transfer income from one group, consumers, to another, exporters. Bastiat, in The Law, referred to protective tariffs as a form of government plunder, explaining: ‘The protective tariff is a violation, by law, of property.’

Unions thus use government coercion not only to compel firms to deal with them, but also to protect them from competition from workers in other countries. Daniel Griswold of the Cato Institute observed:

In the past three decades, labor union leaders have emerged as among the chief critics of trade liberalization, while the economic evidence has grown that labor unions compromise the ability of American companies to compete in global markets.

 … Labor leaders have opposed virtually all legislative initiatives since the 1980s to reduce barriers to trade, including the North American Free Trade Agreement, China’s entry into the World Trade Organization, presidential Trade Promotion Authority, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and pending trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia.

Pres. Obama has not yet submitted to Congress the trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Columbia to Congress. Unions indeed oppose the agreements, which were negotiated during the last administration. Pres. Obama has accommodated union concerns in obtaining concessions from the three countries.

He has further accommodated unions by tying the agreements to renewal of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program. As I wrote in discussing the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, “On its face, the [TAA] program should simply be abolished, since it is just another welfare scheme.”

Another example of union obstruction of trade relates to Mexican trucks being allowed into the U.S. Just last week, the Teamsters filed suit against the U.S. government to try to block a pilot plan, after a delay of almost two decades. The Wall Street Journal explained the disgraceful history:

The North American Free Trade Agreement, signed in 1994, called for allowing Mexican truckers into the U.S., but the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and Democratic allies in Congress repeatedly used legislation to block access. Nafta ruled in the late 1990s that Mexico could impose punitive tariffs, which it did in 2009, affecting $2.4 billion in U.S. goods annually.

Patriotism

Mr. Hoffa, two days ago, implied that firms that invest overseas are unpatriotic: “I think the president should challenge the patriotism of these American corporations that are sitting on the sidelines.”

Mr. Hoffa called for “incentives,” really meaning favorable tax treatment for firms that hire in the U.S., and unfavorable tax treatment for those that invest overseas. This would amount to indirect central planning for the sake of more protection of unions.

Firms should have the freedom to invest where they see fit, regardless of the desires of unions. On the other hand, making the U.S. a better environment for business, and boosting employment in general, would require greater economic freedom, including deregulation of labor.

Since unions are cartels, they demand compensation higher than market levels. This creates unemployment and hurts firms’ competitiveness. Unions thus give businesses a reason to invest overseas, while at the same time seeking more government interference to counter this result.

Lawrence W. Reed, president of the Foundation for Economic Education, has a sound and inspiring view of the true meaning of patriotism, based on reverence for the principles of liberty:

I subscribe to a patriotism rooted in ideas that in turn gave birth to a country, but it’s the ideas that I think of when I’m feeling patriotic. I’m a patriotic American because I revere the ideas that motivated the Founders and compelled them, in many instances, to put their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor on the line.

Unions, in demanding that government provide patronage and protection, help erode the country’s liberty. They depend for their existence and survival on government’s abuse of power. They encourage the weakening of moral restraint on government, and the diminishment of economic freedom. They are a force against the ideals of liberty, voices against the spirit of patriotism.

Conclusion

Mr. Hoffa is correct that there is a “war.” It is a longstanding war on liberty, including economic freedom. Mr. Hoffa and the unions are on the wrong side.

Related posts:

1. Labor Day 2010: Let’s Not Labor Under Misconceptions