This question was posed by PolicyMic.com:

“I’m an American underwater in debt and with a stagnant income. Which group should I support: the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street?”

I took one side, Peter Rothberg of The Nation the other. You can see the discussion here.

The first short introduction of the speaker, Gurcharan Das from India, is in Arabic, but the rest is in English, with Arabic translation. Gurcharan Das is the former CEO of Procter and Gamble India, chairman of the libertarian Centre for Civil Society, and author of the outstanding books India Unbound and The Difficulty of Being Good: On the Subtle Art of Dharma. Dr. Nouh El Harmouzi (who introduces him and translates) is director and editor of Minbaralhurriyya.org and author of the just released book Le sous-développement dans le monde arabo-musulman: Quel est le rôle des institutions informelles?

Not only intolerant and radical “Islamism,” but also military/socialist dictatorship:

New York Times: Egyptians Say Military Discourages an Open Economy

Some countries don’t allow it internally; almost no country allows true freedom of movement externally (passports are required). Most people don’t think about it, but the US has essentially required the internal passport over the past few years, as you can now be required to provide identification whenever it is demanded by a state official and in order to get on an airplane or a train you are now required to show, or be prepared to show, a “government-issued ID.” A good book to read to understand the positive benefits and the overuse of identification is Identity Crisis: How Identification is Overused and Misunderstood, by James Harper.

The Central Asian Free Market Institute, based in Bishkek, but active throughout Central Asia, has called for elimination of the propiska, or internal passport and residency permit. (China still has the same system, known as the hukou system, and Chinese libertarians are working to eliminate that, as well. It has been described as “China’s own apartheid system.”)

Text follows: link to English text here.

Elimination of Propiska for freedom of movement in Kyrgyzstan

Central Asian Free Market Institute offers its recommendations on reforming Kyrgyztan’s policy on internal migration. The current article is part of “Kyrgyzstan’s Reform Program” that was prepared by CAFMI. For all questions on this chapter and the reform program please contact the Institute.

VISION: Right of a person to free movement and choice of place of residence within a country is defined not only in natural rights of person, but also in the Constitution of Kyrgyz Republic.

PROBLEM: The registration regime, known as propiska in Kyrgyzstan and other post-Soviet countries, exposes Kyrgyzstan’s population, in particular the poor segment, to myriad difficulties. The propiska was introduced in the USSR in 1932 for the following reasons, “Accounting for population of cities, worker settlements and new buildings and unloading cities from persons not engaged in socially useful labor, as well as removal of kulaks, criminals and other antisocial elements in order to strengthen dictatorship of proletariat”.

Although Kyrgyzstan has been an independent country for 19 years now, the propiska still exists, and the political leadership seems uninterested in revisiting one of the sorest problems facing the country. According to propiska’s requirements a citizen who changed his place of residence, shall, within 10 working days from date of arrival to a new residence register with government authorities. For this purpose, one has to present:

1. passport or equivalent document proving one’s identity;
2. accommodation document, which is the basis for accommodation of a citizen (such as an order, rent contract or a statement of landlord or other document), or a certified copy of the document;
3. reference from chairman of local housing district, confirming place of residence with a street and house number;
4. proof of change of residence, in case of prior disposal of registration;
5. certificate, proving release from prison;
6. for male youth- military card (certificate of registration in draft office) with a note about removal from military account

Losses from propiska are hard to calculate in monetary terms, however, they are high and can be grouped in the following two categories:

I. Visible costs of citizen

1.1. Fiscal losses. Costs from state budget for the administration and enforcement of the propiska. These costs also includes expenses for police conducting raids named “illegal” with the aim of detention of people without a local propiska.

1.2. Individual losses. To change place of propiska one must incur real costs- the cost of a trip to home village / town and back and the time and cost of un-registering and then re-registering. This entire process requires up to six documents and.

II. Invisible costs of a citizen

2.1. Missed opportunities for citizens for a better life by making public services inaccessible without a propiska: legal system, education, health care, opportunities to register a company and to acquire and dispose of real estate.

2.2. Losses from detention:. Each detained person for lack of a local propiska incurred the following types of losses- the loss of time during the detention, the amount of fines or bribes one had to pay in order to be released, and other associated risks, such as beating and harassment.

2.3. Propiska has become a hotbed of corruption, which thrives on the despair of the poorest of the poor. According to research 56% of those arrested, get away with bribes. At the same time, 26% of those arrested, were physically attacked. According to research by Social Research Center at the American University of Central Asia, migrants with lower income are also more likely to have their documents checked and detained.

2.4. Not everyone is ready to pay the expenses to obtain a propiska and those without it experience lower quality of life, social stability and increased illiteracy, thus, pushing them to criminal activities.

SOLUTION

The system of registration like that in Kyrgyzstan is not only outdated but not used anywhere, except in some post-communist and communist states. In countries such as England, France, Germany, Italy, USA and Brazil propiska does not exist. Russia and China do have a propiska but are looking at abolishing it. Georgia, Latvia and Estonia have long ago understood the economic and moral benefits of free movement of citizens and eliminated propiska.

In some countries utility bills are used for confirming people’s residence. In Greece residence is determined by the workplace, while in Italy according to the individual’s own will. In Brazil, the state is interested in the citizens place of residence only at the time of tax collection or at the point of opening of their business. The United States operates an electronic system of registration of citizens, where each citizen has the right to receive information stored on him/her and has the right to correct it.

Kyrgyzstan should not repeat the mistakes of Russia and Belarus, in which registration system was replaced with a bit more simplified registration system but the problems arising from root cause remain intact. It is necessary to follow in the footsteps of developed countries, which remain true to the cause of freedom of movement and abolish propiska.

RESULT

By abolishing the propiska, Kyrgyzstan’s government would ensure:

* => Fulfillment of all international and constitutional norms that call for respect of the rights of citizens to freedom of movement within the country;
* => Labor mobility, which is an essential tool of modern economics;
* => Stopping discrimination of immigrants in regards to private and public services;
* => Maximum integration of citizens across regions;

Save citizens’ time and money that can be directed to other activities that bring concrete value to their living standard.

Author: Central Asian Free Market Institute

The great lawyer/economist Ronald Coase is cruising into his 101st year. His 100th birthday was a few days ago (December 30, 2010) and he is still at work teaching economics, helping us to understand the world, and spreading gentlemanly good behavior and the spirit of liberty. Recently a number of my Chinese friends took part in a conference in Shanghai (organized by the Fudan University department of economics, which is chaired by the distinguished economist Prof. Li Weisen).

Coase is among the founding parents of “law and economics” and a truly great thinker and scholar. (I had the privilege of meeting him and enjoying his insights at a conference I organized years ago in Aix-en-Provence, where we talked about “intellectual property rights”; the papers presented were published in the Summer 1990 journal of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, including my own paper, “Are Patents and Copyrights Morally Justified? The Philosophy of Property Rights and Ideal Objects,” available here. His comments were insightful and during meals I learned a lot about the history of economic thought, including that his teacher was Arnold Plant, whose teacher was Edwin Canaan, and back in a line of teachers and students to Adam Smith.)

Coase’s essay on “The Nature of the Firm” revolutionized the understanding of institutions by focusing attention on transaction costs in structuring organizations. (It’s nicely summarized by Bob McTeer here: “Ronald Coase: The Nature of the Firm and their Costs.”) In 1960 (23 years later!), he revolutionized economics again with his essay on “The Problem of Social Cost,” which is nothing short of brilliant and has changed completely how serious social scientists consider human interaction. (Terry Anderson of the Property and Environment Research Center sheds some insight on the nature of social cost in “Coase’s 100th Birthday: No More ‘Externalities,’” [hat tip to Don Boudreaux for the link].)

There’s so much sheer ignorance floating around about Coase’s views on the role of property rights in “internalizing ‘externalities’” (sorry, Terry, but I did put “externalities” in double quotation marks), that it’s well worth reading Coase. He doesn’t say what some crackpots say he says, but he does help us to understand institutions, notably property. A short and very clear explanation can be found here.

My opening remarks (limited to no more than 5 minutes!) on the case against the state at FreedomFest: The Case for Ordered Liberty Without States

Just got in to my hotel in Tokyo. Very exhausted after the FreedomFest and then the travel!

The Washington Post: “Marriage equality for all couples,” by John Podesta and Robert Levy

Washington Post: “Is health-care reform unconstitutional?“

Thanks, Reason.tv, for a clear explanation!

Yours truly in today’s Washington Post: “Plaintiff in handgun case is suing D.C. for right carry firearms in public”

It was a good chance to head out to the shooting range in Virginia!

I took off a few hours from my work today for something a little different. I went out to the Blue Ridge Arsenal shooting range today with a reporter from the Washington Post for some practice. He’s writing a story on the “right to carry” case in the District of Columbia (He had written a story earlier on the difficulties of obtaining a firearm legally in the District: “Get a Gun in D.C. — Do You Feel Lucky?: Not Just Strict Rules Test Your Decision“)

I let him shoot two of my firearms: the .38 caliber Smith & Wesson handgun that was the basis for my involvement in the initial lawsuit against the gun ban and then the 9mm Glock 26 that is the foundation of my involvement in the current case. He rented a .38 and was loaned another by a manager. It was good to get back on the range, not to mention to be able to buy some ammunition.

The outstanding lawyer Alan Gura, who won the case before the Supreme Court that struck down the ban on ownership of firearms in the District of Columbia today argued our case for the right, not only to “keep,” but to “bear” arms, i.e., to carry them in public. Alan’s smart and focused and we’ve got a strong case.

Cato Chairman Robert A. Levy, who funded the previous case entirely out of his own pocket, made the case for the right to carry in an article in the Washington Post last year: “Gun Owners’ Next Victory in D.C.” That’s the same Robert A. Levy who wrote “The moral and constitutional case for a right to gay marriage” for the New York Daily News earlier this month. Bob is neither a gun owner nor gay; he’s just a decent person who believes in liberty and the rule of law. Oh, and he’s brilliant, too.

From NPR: “Opponents Threaten Court Battle on Health Mandate”

Yes, if done according to the law. (Richard Nixon was certainly impeachable, and would have been impeached had he not resigned; the articles of impeachment were drawn up and voted by the House Judiciary Committee.)

Here’s the analysis in the case of the removal from office of the former Honduran president José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, prepared by the Directorate of Legal Research of the U.S. Library of Congress:

Conclusion:

V. Was the removal of Honduran President Zelaya legal, in accordance with Honduran constitutional and statutory law?

Available sources indicate that the judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in the case against President Zelaya in a manner that was judged by the Honduran authorities from both branches of the government to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system.

However, removal of President Zelaya from the country by the military is in direct violation of the Article 102 of the Constitution, and apparently this action is currently under investigation by the Honduran authorities.

Hat tip: Daniil Gorbatenko

CNN: “Johns Hopkins student kills apparent burglar with sword”

Authorities are determining whether the student will face criminal charges, Guglielmi said.

Naturally, there should be some investigation of the nature of the incident, but if someone breaks into your home and you confront him with a sword and he attacks you….just what should he expect? (And yes, it’s logically possible that the college students kidnapped a burglar who was recently released from prison, trapped him in the garage, and then attacked him for fun. But not likely. So ask questions and determine what happened, but if the student was defending himself, he’s not the one who’s legally or morally responsible for the death of the intruder.)

The text of the legal filing in the case in which I’m a plaintiff to vindicate the right to bear arms in the District of Columbia.

CBS Correspondent Declan McCullagh on the CBS Blog: “New Gun Rights Suit In D.C. Tests 2nd Amend Limit”

The legal sponsor is the Second Amendment Foundation.

I think that Radley Balko basically gets the issue right: “‘The Henry Louis Gates ‘Teaching Moment’”

The conversation we ought to be having in response to the July 16 incident and its heated aftermath isn’t about race, it’s about police arrest powers, and the right to criticize armed agents of the government.

With Professor Nasrullah Stanakzai after our presentations to his law class at Kabul University Faculty of Law

I had some great meetings with the deans of law and political science and of economics, a number of faculty members, and the chancellor of Kabul University, where I gave a brief lecture on the role of property law in economic development (the “3 D’s”: Definable, Defendable, and Divestible) to the law class of Professor Nasrullah Stanakzai, who then gave a remarkable presentation on Afghanistan’s law of landed property.

….from the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy

Read their final report: “Drugs and Democracy: Toward a Paradigm Shift”

It is long past time to end the destructive, wasteful, and unjust policy of prohibition. It fuels terrorism, empowers and funds the most violent criminals, and ruins the lives of millions of people. Enough!