the forgotten man.

antitrust and the rule of man

This article by S.M. Oliva makes clear the ridiculousness and hypocrisy of antitrust law. Collusion is perfectly natural and accepted for some groups, such as NBA players, public school teachers, and manufacturing company employees. But others get sued and fined for doing essentially the same thing, because it's "price-fixing" or the like.

Collusion and cartels are not bad. If they cause pain to some segment of the population, that segment no longer has to associate themselves or their wealth with the cartel members, and the cartel will weaken.

Unless, of course, you live in the United States, you're a company owner, and the cartel you're talking about is your employee union. Then you're screwed.

But back to the main point—this is another example of where "rule of man" has replaced "rule of law," exactly as F. A. Hayek predicted in The Road to Serfdom. Where government bureaucrats (such as those at the FTC) get to pick which types of "colluders" get prosecuted and which don't, the rule of law is gone, and so is liberty.

robber barons?

Just finished reading Burton Folson's The Myth of the Robber Barons. It's a quick read (the third edition comes to 134 pages outside of notes), and contains the eye-opening stories of true capitalists like Vanderbilt, Hill, and Rockefeller.

As Folson explains, these are the kind of men whom Ayn Rand idealized in Atlas Shrugged—entrepreneurs who devote themselves to selling what the public wants at continually lower prices. In the process, such men get rich, and so does society.

Folson contrasts these "market entrepreneurs" with the "political entrepreneurs," with whom many were forced to compete. He tells the stories of Vanderbilt and Hill competing against their subsidized peers and yet surviving, a testament both to the folly of government-funded infrastructure and to the brilliance and tenacity of Vanderbilt and Hill. They implemented bold ideas, leaving well-funded competition in the dust and hostile legislators scratching their heads.

At the end of the book, Folson reviews the works of modern historians and finds that this message is either ignored or replaced by anti-corporation mantras. "Big business," these historians claim, was the cause of the corruption of the time. Folson shows that these historians ignore the crucial distinction between market entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs—that graft, waste, and corruption were primarily found in government-funded operations.

Other myths are debunked equally well: Folson argues that the war on "trusts" and "monopolies" perpetuated by politicians like Teddy Roosevelt and laws like the Sherman Act was harmful, in that they damaged businesses that drove costs down and benefited their wasteful competition. He discusses studies on "social mobility" and finds that in many cases, historians have underestimated the amount of social movement both up from poverty and down from wealth. Folson also clears Andrew Mellon's name, arguing that his tax cuts during the 1920s were beneficial, particularly to the poor.

This is clearly a well-researched book—there are copious notes, directing the reader to more information about every aspect of the subject matter. It's also an easy read—well-written, engaging, and fairly short. Definitely worth a read!

their main interest is liberty

Today I was reminded of a great quote from Barry Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative. Last time I discussed the book I was rather negative, but as far as 20th century politicians go, Goldwater was near the top. The following might convince you of that:

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

And now Rand Paul is quoting him. Can we soon expect to have one decent politician in both the House and the Senate? I hope that's not too much to ask...

terrorism in a police state

If you haven't seen this disturbing video, and you care about police powers in a free society, it's definitely worth a watch. The story can be found in an article from Reason Magazine.

Here we see the fallout of a) the war on drugs and b) the militarization of police (and one could argue that (b) is at least partially a result of (a)). One injured dog, one dead dog, and a terrorized family. All to fine a nonviolent "criminal" $300 for having a bong in his house.

And yet, the police followed all the rules: they knocked and announced themselves (twice!), barged in to the correct house and got their man, and didn't shoot any people. Nothing outside of SOP... and that's the scary part.

Instead of a face full of buckshot or multiple felony convictions, which is what a normal person would get for such actions, the initiators of violence in this case and hundreds of cases like it will not be punished.

No free society would stand for this.

For examples of less "successful" raids, see CATO's map.

And here's another one. Official response? "Sorry about that. We're investigating."

take all the time you need

Today's top story is that the feds have put aside unconstitutionality and are actually debating something within their jurisdiction: bathroom equality in federal buildings.

Congress, so long as you don't expand the scope of this investigation to include an area larger than ten miles square, feel free to spend the next six months debating this issue—every day you do is another in which we can all breathe just a bit easier.