To watch this trailer, one may get the feeling that this, while sad, is remote. These are people in a distant land, practicing a different religion, wearing different cloths, living under different rule. And yet we are so close to living in this kind of state. It's happening right under our noses.
Americans love spectacle. The biggest issues of the day are secret service agents and Columbian prostitutes. People are outraged by either side of the gay marriage debate -- and justifiably so. But we need to get some perspective. Our most fundamental freedoms are being stripped away right now.
Around the world, pockets of communists still cling to power. They're either smaller regimes run by a cadre of strongmen, or they have evolved into what has come to be known as "state capitalism." In this latter form, cronyism is considered a feature not a bug. The question for me is: will these pockets of communism linger? Or will they linger for a while, but eventually evolve into another form? And is state capitalism becoming the dominant form for the globe?
Immigration is a tough issue. Ben Powell makes a strong economic case for open immigration here. After all, labor is a market. And the market mechanism has a way of reallocating labor in ways that is beneficial for everyone.
Yet we know that there are generous welfare programs in many states that mean immigants can come illegally and gain access to costly social services. If a robust welfare state is available to all comers, this is -- of course -- unsustainable (as it has been in Europe). This was essentially Milton Friedman's more pragmatic position. And he has a point. That is, he was for open immigration as long as the welfare state could be dismantled. And of course it isn't.
So how might we cut this immigration Gordian Knot?
State Policy Network has just come out with their second in a video series on the Constitution and its erosion. The production values in this piece are pretty darn good. Indeed, this piece is much better than most of what think tanks turn out. If I had any critique, it would be that the talking heads disrupt the flow of a pretty good narrative. In any case, the view count of this piece suggests it's not getting the eyeballs it deserves.
You want to work your ultra-liberal friends into a tizzy? What about your stoggy protectionist buddies? Nowhere will you find reasoned economic, and dare-I-say ethical, thinking carried out with such confidence and concision.
Most people just assume that occupational licensing protects consumers. The truth is, most licensing is a veneer. But it's really designed to create barriers to entry. What's clever about IJ's comparative analysis is that it holds up states with licensing to states without. If you can't find any trouble in the states without them, it's probably not doing any good for the states that have them. In those states, it's probably time to scrap them. But wouldn't that anger cronies?
The starting line/finish line metaphor is not perfect, but no metaphor is. It does show Friedman's gift for synthesizing big concepts. Precious few people in the liberty movement know how to use the kinds of crystallizing metaphors Milton Friedman did. So the next time you hear someone talk about income inequality, remember the finish line analogy. It helps us unpack the idea that, instead of fretting about who has what, we can ask ourselves how we can better help any given person find the opportunity to be upwardly mobile and to find happiness.
But is it "equality of opportunity" what we're looking for (if we're not looking for equality of outcome)?
What if counties were as powerful as states? And what if the power of the federal government were pushed down to the states? This is essentially what Founding Father Thomas Jefferson proposed. And if you have any illusions about how "radical" this founder was, consider that Jefferson believed these 'ward republics' should have the most power. Why in the world would Jefferson advocate something so crazy? Boy if we'd only taken his advice.
This is refreshing. When someone off camera asks John Tomasi why he's a libertarian, he says: "I value those bourgeois American virtues." Most political philosophers would say something about reason demanding it. One ought to be libertarian because the political form embodies some sort of objective truth about human nature and the good -- right? Not exactly.
