A nice complement to this one on which I worked with friends:

I’m off to Las Vegas for meetings, for FreedomFest, where I’ll debate on the question of “Anarchy vs. Limited Government” and sign copies of Realizing Freedom: Libertarian Theory, History, and Practice for Laissez Faire Books (which has the lowest price, in case you haven’t bought a copy!), and then head off to Japan, Philippines, China (for meetings and a conference on “Austrian economics” in China), San Diego (for Cato University!), Athens, and Crete. Maybe I’ll see you along the way!

Johan Norberg on Book TV (from his Cato appearance)

Johan Norberg at Cato (full video of forum)

The Liberty Camp at Issyk Kul, Kyrgyzstan, is going great! The enthusiasm of the Kyrgyz libertarians is infectious.

Some scenes from the central district of Bishkek, where people are enjoying the spring weather (except for just now, as it has just become blustery!)

Just a little note to anyone with whom I might be sharing a meal: I’ve mulled over the issue of the right treatment of animals for some time and have been “sympathetic” to ethical vegetarianism (I’m insufficiently informed to have any strong opinion on the nutritional issues involved). I finally decided that being “sympathetic” to an ethical claim of this magnitude is not enough, when the point is that, if true, it should change one’s behavior, and so I’ve decided that I’m not eating meat anymore. (I know that many of those animals would never have been bred, and therefore would never have lived, were it not for meat-eating humans, but the same argument could be used to justify cannibalizing humans who might not exist — individually, not as a species — without factory-farming and if the argument doesn’t convince there, it doesn’t work with pigs or goats, either. I also recognize degrees of mistreatment, so free-range meat is less objectionable than factory-confined meat, shrimp are on the borderline, and oysters, which lack a central nervous system, seem acceptable to me. Nor do I think that animals have “rights” like humans do; I just think that we have obligations not to mistreat them. A very interesting, often moving, somewhat rambling, but insightful treatment is found in Matthew Scully’s Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy.)

My point here is not to debate anyone, but just to note that meat is off my diet. (I ought to note that I was influenced by the example of a colleague whom I admire who has avoided eating meat or otherwise promoting the killing of animals for some time for ethical reasons, despite sometimes having, as he acknowledged to me, a strong appetite for meat. If he can suppress his appetite in order to do the right thing, I can, too.)

Hat Tip: Nathalie Vogel

My colleagues at Minbaralhurriyya.org (The Forum of Liberty, one of the Lamp of Liberty projects) have announced the schedules for the 2010 Freedom Schools:

July 18 – 24, 2010 in Marrakech City, Morocco
September 26 – October 1, 2010 in Beirut, Lebanon

Registration is available online.*

*Note: all sessions will be held in Arabic.

A lot of exciting work is coming out from the team led by Dr. Nouh El Harmouzi. In 2010 they will bring out a series of new books, including the just published Islam and Modernism, introduced by Dr. Muhammed H. Abdul Wahab:

Many more books are scheduled for publication this year. Each one represents a huge investment of time, energy, and love by the Minbaralhurriyya.org team.

(Click on the Octopus….)

Come and learn from leading public choice economists, political and economic historians, leading lawyers and advocates for liberty, at Cato University.

THE FACULTY

* Robert Levy, Chairman of the Board, Cato Institute; co-author of The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom
* Tom G. Palmer, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute; director of Cato University; vice president for international programs, Atlas Economic Research Foundation; general director of the Atlas Global Initiative for Free Trade, Peace, and Prosperity; author of Realizing Freedom: Libertarian Theory, History, and Practice
* Diogo Costa, Editor of the Portuguese/Brazilian libertarian project OrdemLivre.org
* Robert Higgs, Adjunct Scholar, Cato Institute; senior fellow in political economy at the Independent Institute; editor of the Independent Review, author of Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government and other books
* Prof. Robert McDonald, Assistant Professor of History at the United States Military Academy at West Point, noted Jefferson scholar and author, Thomas Jefferson’s Military Academy: Founding West Point
* Prof. Charlotte Twight, Adjunct Scholar, Cato Institute; professor of economics, Boise State University; author of Dependent on D.C.: The Rise of Federal Control over the Lives of Ordinary Americans
* Daniel Griswold, Director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute; author of Mad about Trade: Why Main Street America Should Embrace Globalization
* David Boaz Executive Vice President, Cato Institute; author of The Politics of Freedom: Taking on the Left, the Right, and Threats to Our Liberties and Libertarianism: A Primer; editor of The Libertarian Reader

(Put the octopus into your own blog to spread the word; see the bottom of the page at www.Cato-University.org.)

It’s sketchy (since I talked and explained the terms, etc. ), but here are the graphics: Presentation1

Should there be limits on the federal government? Yes. Should there be pluralism and competition in policies? Yes. Should those ideas be advanced by advocates of the cause of what was once known as “the slave power“? No, because that cause was not the cause of liberty, but of oppression. Here’s an example of how good ideas such as federalism and decentralization of power are poisoned by truly bad messengers: “Convention With A Fringe On Top.” When you’re singled out as the craziest person at CPAC, you’ve really got to be crazy. Congratulations, Tom Woods.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and the Students for Liberty have filed a joint amicus brief for freedom of association in the case of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. Both groups deserve support from believers (whether “believers” or not) in the right to freedom of association.

The issue has some complications, but I think that the FIRE and SFL brief makes the case well against attempting to dictate the views of groups that receive official recognition at state universities.

Biden Criticized For Appearing In Hennessy Ads

Chait’s Response to the criticism offered below.

And a Little More: Now We Know What Real Humor Is….Or at Least Real Jokes

An old friend, Veronique de Rugy, has been slimed for her defense of some fundamental moral principles. I’ve known her for at least 19 years, since we organized the first English-language IES-Europe seminars (modeled on the IHS seminars in the US, which I had organized for some years before) in Szirak (Hungary) and Dalarö (Sweden). (I also stayed in her flat when she would leave Paris for weekends during the hottest Paris summer since Charlemagne; that was in 1995, and I was living in a one-room garret at 35 avenue Mac-Mahon near the Etoile. The heat was suffocating, even at night, and there was no running water, other than a tap in the hallway, so I would go to her place on those weekends when she visited her family to immerse myself in cold baths to survive the heat.) But I digress.

Vero recently criticized a proposal by Rep. Barney Frank for a special tax on high compensation and concluded “This anti-capitalist and anti-wealth mentality is scary and very anti-American.” (I suspect that what Vero was searching for was “un-American,” but you’ll understand why that may not have come to her as quickly as it might to some.) That did not sit well with two lefty bloggers. Jonathan Chait thought it clever to respond, “Hey, you know what else is anti-American? Being named ‘Veronique de Rugy.’” How very sophisticated. But, not to be outdone, Matthew Yglesias added some icing to the cake,

Veronique de Rugy is So Anti-American That She’s Not Even an American!

Jon Chait and I both likes it when Barney Frank dismissed concerns that a bank tax would drive talent out of the industry by quipping “I don’t know where people would go for comparable salaries, I guess perhaps they could star in major motion pictures.”

Veronique de Rugy begs to differ, saying “This anti-capitalist and anti-wealth mentality is scary and very anti-American.” Chait retorts “Hey, you know what else is anti-American? Being named ‘Veronique de Rugy.’”

My Googling has, however, revealed something even more disturbing — Veronique de Rugy is literally not an American. She’s French. She holds a PhD from the University of Paris-Sorbonne and is the author of an un-American book with the suspiciously French title Action ou Taxation. It’s true that she agreed to betray her native land by making this France-bashing video, but that doesn’t change the basic facts. Barney Frank is as American as an actual American.

Now, let’s unpack this. On the one hand, Chait and Yglesias just might think that people who are not from America should shut up, in which case they’re idiots. Or maybe they’re trying to be ironic, in which case they’re idiots. Or, if that’s too harsh, either they’re dim, or they’re dim.

Option one:

Yglesias and Chait are idiots (or just dim). They think that mocking people for unusual names is funny, or that only authentic Americans (perhaps native-born, so I don’t qualify, either, or citizens, or whatever) can or should ever make statements about what it is to be an American. That would qualify them as knuckle dragging neanderthals, that is, as idiots.

However, it’s worth considering whether Chait and Yglesias are attempting to be ironic. (I am going to be very careful here, as I recently criticized two dunderheads for their failure to understand the use of irony by a colleague).

So, Option Two:

Chait and Yglesias are trying to turn the tables on those who charge that X or Y is “un-American” (or “anti-American,” in Vero’s phrasing) by returning the favor. Ha ha, some may think. How clever. Yet, upon reflection, it would seem that, if that is their intent, they are too dim to understand the difference between A) calling, say, unequal treatment by the law “un-American” for violating the Constitution and the best core principles of the American tradition, and B) calling the serving of “saucisses et choucroute” “un-American,” in contrast to, say, “hot dogs and sauerkraut” [note the double irony, guys]. Vero criticized special laws punishing people for high incomes as un-American, in the way that one might call censorship “un-American” (Think! Think! The First Amendment is an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America); she did not remark that Hindus, or Catholics, or Scientologists, or sauerkraut are un-American, or use the term in any of the other ways in which the epithet “un-American” is slung around by knuckle-draggers, who confuse “America” with cuisine, or religion, or other inessential matters, rather than with principles of government, of liberty, and of justice.

Or maybe they’ve just put their feet in their big mouths and owe Veronique an apology. I doubt it would erase the embarrassment they should feel, but it would be the decent, French thing to do.

P.S. A note I got from Vero this afternoon: “Thanks also for correction my English. My french brain can’t totally get the difference between Anti and un- american but I can see that it was a mistake. Oh well.” I don’t see them as having any substantive distinction relevant to this smear of her. “UnAmerican” is what she was searching for, but “anti-American” is merely a matter of context; it’s usually used in the context of foreign activities (“anti-American riots,” for example), whereas the domestic context (which is obviously the context for Vero’s remarks about tax policies) would normally require “unAmerican.” In any case, the smear of her for being French and having a French name is disgusting. And the nativist comments from the defenders of Chait and Yglesias support my point. They are disgusting.

UPDATE: It turns out that Mr. Chait is guilty of accusing advocates of tax cuts of being “deeply unpatriotic” after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. As usual, he could not wrap his mind around the idea that any actual taxpayers favor cutting their taxes, so he directed all his bile toward “K Street,” apparently unaware that normally “K Street” refers to DC lobbyists, who normally have their hands out for more subsidies. But here’s what Mr. “How Dare You Call Barney Frank’s Policy Positions UnAmerican” Chait wrote about advocates of tax cuts in The New Republic: “There is something deeply unpatriotic about K Street’s rush to turn the tragedy into quick profit.” Now we get it, Mr. Chait. People who want to limit government are “unpatriotic,” but referring to “the mentality” of punitive taxation (and that is the most appropriate term for Barney Frank’s proposal) as “scary and anti-American” is cause for mocking the name of the “Veronique de Rugy.” I suspect there would have been tears if someone had responded to his smear by mocking the name of “Chait.” (Some might say a foreign name like that doesn’t really sound very patriotic to them!) Grow up, little Jonathan.

Updates here and here.

Walter Block and Tom DiLorenzo, neither known for his subtlety, seem to think that “irony” is what you do to get the wrinkles out of your shirts. My colleague David Boaz wrote an essay for the Washington Times (“We miss you, Bubba“), in which he compared the last two administrations to the “good ol’ days” of the Clinton administration, using a well known device to highlight the horrible policies that have been pursued since. Poor Walter Block thought that Boaz was “supporting” Clinton’s policies, including his foreign policy, since David wrote that under Clinton “Government spending was growing only slowly, the bad ideas were mostly small, and we bombed a lot of countries but didn’t put American troops at risk.” Thinking that Boaz was endorsing bombing a lot of countries, Walter Block jumped into action and denounced him as “no libertarian.” Just to emphasize that rhetorical devices other than the denunciation are not to be found in his repertoire, Block informed his readers

The executive vice president of the Cato Institute makes some good points (I’m being tongue in cheek here, for those whose sense of sarcasm is less well developed than my own).

It is hard to imagine anyone whose “sense of sarcasm” (or, to be more precise, any form of indirect expression) is less developed than Walter Block’s, but he felt, nonetheless, compelled to warn any such who might have been reading. He concluded that he now feels “physically ill.” Poor man.

The other dullard in the stable, Tom (“a travesty of historical method and documentation“) DiLorenzo, quickly jumped up and denounced David for apparently endorsing the Republicans, as well as the Democrats!

Now you don’t have to be very clever to understand David’s point, because he made it v-e-r-y s-i-m-p-l-e for everyone, even the irony-challenged, to understand: “Of course, what I’m really nostalgic for is divided government.” Economist William Niskanen (i.e., an actual economist), who was then Chairman of the Cato Institute, pointed out in 2003 that

The prospect of a major war is usually higher with a united government, and the current war makes that clear.

Each of the four major American wars in the 20th century, for example, was initiated by a Democratic president with the approval of a Congress controlled by Democrats. The war in Iraq, initiated by a Republican president with the support of a Republican Congress, is consistent with this pattern and has already proved to be the only use of U.S. military force lasting more than a few days that was initiated by a Republican president in over a century.

DiLorenzo further displayed his skills as an analyst by denouncing the thesis of the superiority of divided government over unified government (formulated as a desire for “gridlock”) on the grounds that “Bush expanded the welfare state as much as any president with his prescription drug welfare legislaition [sic],” somehow missing the fact that the “Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act” was passed when the GOP controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, thus being a rather weak counter-example to Boaz’s point about the relative virtues of divided government over unified, single-party, government.

But it’s been a long time since facts would have stopped Tom DiLorenzo from making a point. I realized that DiLorenzo had dropped off the deep end when he wrote a denunciation of David years ago for urging the voters of Mississippi to vote in a referendum to remove from the state flag a symbol that many people find, rather understandably, ugly and offensive. “Don’t Put Slavery in the Flag” was a temperate call for the voters to put the state’s history of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, and lynchings behind them and to remove from the flag a symbol under which such evils had been carried out. But DiLorenzo accused him of “calling for the eradication of the Confederate battle flag from public places,” which was, of course, simply false. David encouraged voters to remove it from the the state flag, not from “public places,” an equivocal term that may mean “all places open to the public.”

But what’s a little confusion and misuse of language for Mr. DiLorenzo, compared to the masses of errors that characterize his recent works? Mr. DiLorenzo would have us think that the reason for the secession of the southern states was, oh, tariffs and such like. His sole evidence is the erection of a straw man: that Boaz and “a small band of Marxist historians” claim that “the war was caused by slavery alone.” Now note the rhetoric: Boaz claimed quite rightly that without slavery, there would have been no secession, not that “the war was caused by slavery alone,” which is a view few could hold, if for no other reason than that “the war” followed the secession and was not necessitated by it. To dispense with the canard that slavery was not the overriding reason for the secession, one need but read the “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union,” which makes it quite clear that the process was very, very, very much about keeping people in chains. I strongly encourage anyone who supports the secession of the southern states — which is quite different from the subsequent decision to wage war on them; either might or might not be justified, but they are very different acts — to read that document. They may not be made “physically ill,” but if they are decent human beings (and more so if they are serious libertarians) they will be repulsed by the sentiments that motivated those who took the south out of the union.

But back to the rhetorical and literary poverty of Block and DiLorenzo. I will write this very slooowwwlly and very clearly, just for them:

David Boaz was using the contrast with Clinton’s terrible policies to emphasize the enormity of the folly and criminality of the foreign policies that followed, not to endorse those of Clinton, which the language suggests were repulsive in their own right. If I did not know that Block and DiLorenzo have all the subtlety of a brick, I would suspect that the reason for the publication of their blog posts was to smear David.

(P.S. A friend pointed out that I had placed a quotation mark in the wrong place ["all public places"--the quotation mark should have been around "public places" only], with the implication that the article to which I linked contained that phrase. It did not. It did necessarily imply it, however, as the phrase “the eradication of the Confederate battle flag from public places” contains the implicit quantifier “all,” rather than “some,” in the same way that the phrase “the eradication of life from oceans” implies “all life” and “all oceans,” rather than referring to, say, the killing of one fish, or of several fish, in the Pacific ocean. In order to avoid confusion among careless thinkers, I have moved the quote mark. The meaning remains unchanged.)

Speeches and Interviews

….to 2009. It is hard to imagine that 2010 could be worse. Overall, one of the worst years of my life. (With one major exception.)