The Crony Doth Protest Too Much

Charles Koch and Crony Capitalism
By The Radical Propertarian

Charles Koch has written an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in which he insists that he opposes crony capitalism. But the first example he offers to demonstrate his claim is actually a crony capitalist position.

“Far from trying to rig the system, I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs—even when we benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished.

Koch Industries was the only major producer in the ethanol industry to argue for the demise of the ethanol tax credit in 2011. That government handout (which cost taxpayers billions) needlessly drove up food and fuel prices as well as other costs for consumers—many of whom were poor or otherwise disadvantaged.”

Koch characterizes a tax credit as a subsidy. If he had read and listened to his former ally Murray Rothbard more carefully (before turning on him andstealing his shares in the Cato Institute) he would know that tax credits and other loopholes are not subsidies, but simply salutary decreases (however selective) of the state’s depredations. As Ludwig von Mises said, capitalism breathes through loopholes.

It is taxation, and not tax relief, that drives up food and fuel prices, by hampering production, and thereby resulting in greater scarcity, which is reflected in higher real prices.

Repealing a tax credit is a tax hike. The tax hike Koch pushed for and got in 2011 probably hurt his competitors in the oil industry far more than his own empire, which is chiefly based on natural gas. This is a classic crony move that goes back to the Progressive Era: a market incumbent poses as an enlightened, public-minded businessman by “sacrificially” taking on burdens which just happen to burden competitors and potential upstarts even more.

The above originally appeared at Medium.com and is reprinted with permission.

Is the US Government Trying to Prevent Taiwan from Having Closer Ties with China?

Radical Propertarian emails:

Have you guys been following what’s going on in Taiwan? Have NGOs been funding media outfits there, trying to prevent Taiwan from having closer ties with China? It’s just weird that, yet again, in quick succession, a surging protest movement rapidly arose over an economic deal with a US rival. First in Kiev, and now in Taipei.

Students for Liberty and the National Endowment for Democracy Connection

Radical Propertarian emails:

Regarding this from Daniel McAdam's column...

"Speaking of regime sympathizers, the president of the Students for Liberty is also a member of Young Voices Advocates, an organization that has been honored by the US government's chief regime change factory, the National Endowment for Democracy. Young Voices returns the favor, proudly announcing that, "The National Endowment for Democracy (NED), like Young Voices, looks for ways to empower and celebrate young people who are making an impact on their world." Joining McCobin at Young Voices is Fred Roeder, SFL's marketing and communications director. Roeder is actually the Director of Young Voices.

 

Imagine the disappointment when the rank and file of the Students for Liberty find out that their leadership attacks Ron Paul, embraces neocon warmongering rhetoric, and is in bed with NED!"

Not only do SFL and Young Voices have overlapping members, according to this SFL 2013 mid-year report, Young Voices is part of SFL.

"SFL launched a new program called Young Voices, the purpose of which is to inject the libertarian voice of this generation into the mainstream media. While only a few months old, Young Voices is successfully placing op-eds in major publications such as Forbes, the Chicago Tribune, the Huffington Post, Daily Caller, among others, and booking articulate students as guests on top TV news programs. Check out the selection of media clippings at the end of this report for a sampling of placements."

-RW

Is Ron Paul an Apologist for Dictators?

Land of the Free, Home of the Belligerent

To understand U.S. involvement in Ukraine and in the world in general, you must understand the Paradox of Imperialism.

By The Radical Propertarian

Victory or defeat in interstate warfare depend on many factors, of course, but other things such as population size being the same, in the long run the decisive factor is the relative amount of economic resources at a state’s disposal. In taxing and regulating, states do not contribute to the creation of economic wealth. Instead, they parasitically draw on existing wealth. However, state governments can influence the amount of existing wealth negatively. Other things being equal, the lower the tax and regulation burden imposed on the domestic economy, the larger the population will tend to grow and the larger the amount of domestically produced wealth on which the state can draw in its conflicts with neighboring competitors. That is, states which tax and regulate their economies comparatively little — liberal states — tend to defeat and expand their territories or their range of hegemonic control at the expense of less-liberal ones.

This explains, for instance, why Western Europe came to dominate the rest of the world rather than the other way around. More specifically, it explains why it was first the Dutch, then the British and finally, in the 20th century, the United States, that became the dominant imperial power, and why the United States, internally one of the most liberal states, has conducted the most aggressive foreign policy, while the former Soviet Union, for instance, with its entirely illiberal (repressive) domestic policies has engaged in a comparatively peaceful and cautious foreign policy. The United States knew that it could militarily beat any other state; hence, it has been aggressive. In contrast, the Soviet Union knew that it was bound to lose a military confrontation with any state of substantial size unless it could win within a few days or weeks.

The above 292 words constitute one of the most important passages in libertarian scholarship to absorb in order both to become a consistent libertarian and to understand U.S. history. They are from a speech by social theorist Hans-Hermann Hoppe. If the reader has strong disagreements with Hoppe on other topics, those should not be used as an excuse to dismiss his insight on this one.

The insight Hoppe outlines above has been called the “Paradox of Imperialism.” This is the insight that is lost on prominent libertarians like Tom Palmer, on Koch-supported organizations like the Cato Institute and Students for Liberty, and on many non-American libertarians.

Such people are baffled by the positions of prominent libertarians like Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell, and of organizations like Antiwar.com and the Ron Paul Institute. The Palmerites paint the Ron Paulians as reflexive anti-Americans and apologists for dictators.

Take, for example, the recent crisis over Ukraine. The Palmerites swooned over the cause of the Euromaidan protesters in Kiev who rose up against the regime of president Viktor Yanukovych after the latter rejected a diplomatic arrangement with the European Union in favor of one with Russia. The Students for Liberty Facebook page made several postsexpressing solidarity with the protesters. Learn Liberty, the educational venture of the Koch-supported Institute for Humane Studies, evenreposted the “grassroots” viral video “We Are All Ukrainians,” whose title has been echoed by Senator John McCain.

In contrast, Antiwar.com (especially Justin Raimondo) and the Ron Paul Institute (especially Daniel McAdams) have worked tirelessly to point out the deep involvement by Washington in what has been painted as a “local” and “organic” movement of freedom fighters.

As made plain by Antiwar.com and RPI, the key figure in U.S. meddling in Ukraine is the neocon Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. She hasbragged about the U.S. spending $5 billion on bringing “democracy” to Ukraine.

Cato Institute and Atlas Economic Research Foundation Helping to Plan the New Bankster/Crony Order in Ukraine

The Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine jointly with European Business Association, Kyiv School of Economics, Atlas Economic Research Foundation, Free University of Tbilisi and Cato Institute are holding an International “Emergency Economic Summit for Ukraine,” today.

The Summit will take place in Kiev at the : InterContinental Hotel, 2a Velyka Zhytomyrska Street.

From the EBA notice announcing the Summit:

The time for the changes of the Ukrainian economy is now and undoubtedly things cannot go on the same way as before! Today Ukrainians have a unique opportunity to join the ranks of the prosperous and growing economies of Central and Eastern Europe.

Therefore, the summit has been organised with the purpose of finding out the best solutions and ideas regarding financial stability, energy policy, fight against corruption, as well as trade and capital flows. And of course, these important reforms should take into account the best practices and experience of our neighbor countries and other countries, which will also be presented during this event.

Prominent Speakers:

- Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Prime Minister, Ukraine;
- Pavlo Sheremeta, Minister of Economic Development and Trade, Ukraine;
- Einars Repse, Former Prime Minister, Latvia;
- Ivan Miklos, Former Minister of Finance & Deputy Prime Minister, Slovakia;
- Kakha Bendukidze, Former Minister of Economy, Georgia;
- Sven Otto Littorin, Former Minister of Labour, Sweden;
- Jacek Rostowski, Former Minister of Finance, Poland;
- Andrei Illarionov, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute, USA;
And many other experts will join the discussion.

EBA Top card holders are welcome to register and not more than 1 person from the company is able to attend the meeting.

It would be nice if the Summit explored what happened to Ukraine's gold reserves (See: Is This How the US Plans to Give Germany It's Gold Back, By Stealing Ukraine's Gold?, however, I don't think this group of apologist for bankster domination will go near the topic.

(ht Radical Propertarian)

A Rand Paul Presidency Would Be Long-Term Disastrous for Liberty

By Radical Propertariana

Rand Paul’s recent blow out victory and well-received speech at CPAC his position as a serious contender for the US presidency in 2016. Contrary to what one may think, this does not bode well for the prospects of liberty. A Rand Paul presidency would be long-term disastrous for liberty.

Damned if he Doesn’t

This would clearly be true if he was perceived as failing in office. A Paul presidency would be widely considered as a trial run for libertarianism. A failure of a Paul administration would be seen as a failure of libertarianism.

This would be true in spite of the fact that he has tried to distance himself from the term, and frame himself as a conservative. His connection to his father Ron Paul, who is the world’s most prominent libertarian, indelibly paints him as a libertarian in public perception.

And this would be true regardless of whether Paul is faithful to libertarian principles while in office. If a big-government president like Ronald Reagan can be remembered by history as small-government, then surely Rand Paul will be.

Libertarianism is getting a hearing right now. After an unpopular Paul presidency, that hearing will be over; perhaps never to be resumed.

And it is fairly likely that he would indeed fail. He has shown a willingness to sell out for political expediency, as repeatedly documented by Robert Wenzel. He will not likely have the nerve (or the ability, for that matter, considering all the vested interests and political opposition involved) to do the pruning of the state (abolishing the Federal Reserve, dismantling the empire, disestablishing the welfare state) that is necessary to avert a crisis.

Damned if he Does

It’s less obviously true that liberty will be set back if his presidency is considered successful. But it still is indeed true.

The imperial central state based in Washington, D.C. is on the ropes now. It has suffered failure upon failure, and exposé upon exposé. “Isolationist,” localist, and anarchist thought are all increasingly popular. If the U.S. Federal government keeps letting everyone down and outraging the world with its crimes, its power will evaporate, and a much more decentralized and liberalized world will emerge.

A successful Rand Paul presidency would be Washington’s savior. Washington will then be seen as “not so bad, provided that a good person is at the helm.” Any movement for a radical devolution of power in society will have the wind completely taken out of its sails.

A successful small-government administration in Washington may give big-government philosophy a black eye for the time being. But this will just be kicking the can down the road. The Washington apparatus of centralized power will have survived. And it will only be a matter of time before it is manned again by people who want to run it at full-throttle.

Don’t give leviathan a new lease on life. And don’t risk the prestige of libertarianism by wedding it with power. Oppose the presidential campaign of Rand Paul, or of any libertarian.

The above originally appeared at Radical Propertarian.

n