I’m No Anarchist, But…

Posted on March 19, 2007 | Comments Off on I’m No Anarchist, But…

“The State is said by some to be a ‘necessary evil;’ it must be made unnecessary.”

-Benjamin Tucker

Comments Off on I’m No Anarchist, But…

Posted in Great Thinkers, Philosophy, Pith

Partisanship

Posted on March 5, 2007 | Comments Off on Partisanship

“The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions.”

-Plato, Phaedo.

Comments Off on Partisanship

Posted in Argumentation, Great Thinkers, Philosophy, Pith, The Partisan Mind

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Superpowers

Posted on February 13, 2007 | Comments Off on Superpowers

Editor, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

I read with astonishment your February 12 article “Doyle Wants Tax on Oil Companies: They’d be Pressed to Absorb Cost.” By thinking he can simply pass a law and forbid oil companies from incorporating their costs into the prices they charge, our governor apparently has the power to repeal certain laws of economics. I was not aware of Governor Doyle’s miraculous abilities before reading your article.

If our state’s government is truly this powerful, I propose that Governor Doyle and the state legislature take Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto’s advice and pass a law “mandating that auto makers manufacture perpetual-motion machines.”

Ryan Young

Comments Off on Superpowers

Posted in Correspondence, Economics, Political Animals

WaPo Letter

Posted on February 5, 2007 | Comments Off on WaPo Letter

My letter ran today. You can read it here.

Thanks to Don Boudreaux, who also posted it at one of my favorite blogs, Cafe Hayek.

Comments Off on WaPo Letter

Posted in Correspondence, Economics, Immigration, International, Nanny State, Political Animals, Public Choice

The Tyranny of Education Policy’s Status Quo

Posted on February 2, 2007 | Comments Off on The Tyranny of Education Policy’s Status Quo

An old friend recently asked me my thoughts on privatizing education. Here’s a lightly edited version of what I wrote to him:

My only goal for education is that it be good. I don’t care if it is provided publicly or privately. I only care that is high quality.

Economic theory tells us that a competitive market tends to deliver a better product than a monopolistic market. Let’s see if this theory works in the real world.

The current system in the U.S. can reasonably classified as a monopoly – only the rich have the option of opting out and affording a private education if they so desire. The masses are given only one option for educating their children, no matter their wishes – a classic monopoly.

U.S. students also tend to score poorly on standardized tests compared to other developed nations. This tells us that the current, monopolistic model – the only option for most students – delivers a low-quality education.

Now let us look at countries that have the highest test scores. Their high achievement tells us that they have stumbled upon a system that works pretty well. It turns out that students in the Low Countries of Western Europe – Belgium and the Netherlands – do very well on standardized tests. Their success tells us that their students receive a high quality education. ABC News even aired a story recently about Belgium ’s educational achievements.

Not coincidentally, high-performing countries all have educational systems that are different from the one we use in the U.S. – none of them are monopolies. While the specifics vary from country to country, what they have in common is that they all have competitive elements.

Belgium has something very similar to a voucher system. Parents are not told where they will send their children to school, as they would be if they were Americans. Belgian parents make that choice for themselves. The government then pays the tuition if the parents cannot afford it. If a school provides a low quality education, parents do not send their children there, and that school is eventually closed. If the market gives parents a lousy choice like that, they learn to avoid it. In time, that lousy choice is eliminated.

Such a system is not perfect. For example, it can take several years for a bad school to be closed. It is, however, better than the American system. Here, bad schools almost never close. In fact, they are often rewarded with more money! This does not provide failing schools an incentive to improve – if they did get better, they wouldn’t get the extra money. Neither system is perfect, but the American model is clearly inferior.

Since I am not a fan of letting the ideal get in the way of the good, I favor a system that allows competition, even though I know the results will fall short of perfection. It is enough that competition would significantly improve on the status quo. I oppose monopolies to the marrow of my bones. This especially holds true for the American educational monopoly where some (the rich) can opt out, but the wishes of the poor are simply ignored.

There are many policy solutions. Vouchers have been tried, if on a small scale, in Milwaukee , Cleveland , and DC. Vouchers have their flaws, but have proven to be superior to the traditional American model. Educational tax credits are the preferred policy of many libertarians. Arizona and Florida are considering policies along those lines. No doubt there are other ideas out there I haven’t yet been exposed to.

All I want is a high quality educational system. Since the current monopoly is obviously failing, I favor a change in the direction of competition. Basic economic theory has been proven correct by real-world educational policies on multiple continents. This means that if one favors a high quality education for everyone, one must favor a competitive system. This would probably include a mix of private and public schools. Again, I don’t care if schools are public or private, only that they be good. There is more than one way to effect positive change, and I am open to any proposal that would break the current monopoly.

Comments Off on The Tyranny of Education Policy’s Status Quo

Posted in Economics, education

Holy Overreaction, Batman!

Posted on February 1, 2007 | Comments Off on Holy Overreaction, Batman!

You’ve probably heard about the recent bomb scare in Boston.

In a guerilla marketing scheme gone awry, some crudely made lightboards featuring poorly drawn cartoon characters from Aqua Teen Hunger Force were mistaken for bombs. The media coverage of the scare has been wall-to-wall. Predictably, most media outlets have missed the most important part of the story – the Boston government’s epic overreaction. We’re talking gross incompetence here.

CNN dutifully notes the following facts:

-The Boston city government shut down a major bridge and a section of the Charles River.

-The light boards were not bombs. They were, in fact, light boards. One witness described them as “Lite-Brites,” which are toys for children – not bombs.

-The Lite-Brites were also put up in nine other cities. None of them thought they were under terrorist attack.

-Boston’s police commissioner called the incident “unconscionable.” If he had been talking about the city’s overreaction, he would have been absolutely correct. Sadly, he was instead being absolutely stupid.

-Most humorously, the mayor of Boston – without a trace of irony – blamed the incident on “corporate greed.” Huh?

If anything, the “perpetrators” should be suing the governments of Boston and Massachusetts for gross incompetence. After all, if this is the state of homeland security in Boston, nobody is safe. Today we have witnessed absolute failure in what is perhaps government’s most important responsibility.

As a fan of Aqua Teen Hunger Force, I am pleased that this unexpected attention will boost the show’s popularity. Even so, stories like this tend to diminish my faith in the goodness and rationality of my fellow man.

Comments Off on Holy Overreaction, Batman!

Posted in General Foolishness, Political Animals, regulation, Security Theater

Immigrants and Charity

Posted on January 31, 2007 | Comments Off on Immigrants and Charity

From today’s Washington Post:

“RICHMOND, Jan. 30 The Virginia House of Delegates approved a far-reaching proposal Tuesday to strip charities and other organizations of state and local funding if any of the money is used to provide services to immigrants in the country illegally.

“The proposal, one of nearly 50 immigration-related bills under consideration by the General Assembly, could force such groups as the Salvation Army and the Virginia Association of Free Clinics to verify immigration status before offering assistance to those in need or risk losing funding.”

Legislation like this is one reason why I sometimes feel a bit uncomfortable that I now live in a state that was on the wrong side of the Civil War.

Good old fashioned Southern xenophobia aside, we also have here a reason why charities should not accept government money. Sure the money can help, but it can also be like making a deal with the devil. In this case, charities would no longer have control over who they can help. Good for the bottom line, bad for freedom of association.

I wrote a letter to the editor making this point to the Washington Post. If they run it, I’ll post a link.

Update: The Post emailed me this morning (Feb. 1). They want to publish my letter. I’ll post a link when it runs.

Comments Off on Immigrants and Charity

Posted in Immigration

More than Left and Right

Posted on May 2, 2006 | Comments Off on More than Left and Right

As it has done with presidents of both parties, the Cato Institute has just released a study critical of the president’s consitutional record – Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush (23pp plus footnotes).

Now, as a libertarian who frequents Capitol Hill, a lot of republicans I talk to are skeptical of me because they think I’m liberal, and a lot of liberals won’t talk to me at all because they think I’m conservative. When a libertarian organization publishes something that breaks those conceptions, it’s pretty fun to watch, as Radley Balko points out. Since this new study is critical of a Republican administration, our progressive friends who think libertarians are Republicans are confused, even though they understand and largely agree with the study.

The Daily Kos, probably the biggest and best of the so-called “Angry Left” blogs, posted an excellent summary of the study. The comments are the fun part for me, though. It’s interesting to watch readers’ minds explore the idea that there are political persuasions besides hard left and hard right. A few astute commenters noted that it is possible to hold liberal positions on some issues (anti-war, pro-gay marriage, pro-immigration), conservative opinions on others (lower spending and lower taxes), and be philosophically consistent. In other words, what I call classical liberalism, and what most people call libertarianism.

Hat tip to Radley Balko for bringing the thread to my attention.

Comments Off on More than Left and Right

Posted in Executive Power, Philosophy, Political Animals, The Partisan Mind

Rep. Moran’s Response

Posted on December 1, 2005 | Comments Off on Rep. Moran’s Response

Rep. Moran’s office sent a form letter response to my Nov. 4 letter regarding eminent domain. Looks like the congressman and I will have to agree to disagree on this one:

November 21, 2005

Dear Mr. Young,

I thank you for contacting me regarding the Property Rights Protection Act (H.R. 4128).

As you know, H.R. 4128 was crafted in response to the Supreme Court’s Kelo v. New London decision. That ruling, in deference to state government, affirmed Connecticut law that authorized local governments to offer due compensation to private landowners and transfer taken land to private enterprise to promote carefully considered private redevelopment plans that serve an inherent “public purpose.”

H.R. 4128 is the hurried reaction by some in Congress that was rushed to the floor of the House of Representatives without the benefit of thorough legislative hearings. As proposed, the bill would withhold federal economic development funding from any state or locality that takes private property for the purpose of private economic development While I understand the legitimate concerns this legislation seeks to address, the legislative remedy was so broadit would have undermined state and local authority to undertake legitimate eminent domain activities such as road and transit improvements, affordable housing developments, and server line upgrades. In all 3 instances, localities would not be able to join in public-private partnerships to offer these public goods.

I offered a compromise amendment that would clarify that eminent domain that would be outlawed only in instances where private economic gain was the primary objective. unfortunately, this amendment was rejected and the was passed the these wide sweeping provisions.

The United States is unmatched in its value and protection of private property rights, and I intend to uphold that tradition. I could not support legislation, however, that will eliminate local flexibility. As the former mayor of Alexandria, I understand that local governments need tools to develop regions where the free market has failed. If the citizenry objects to these local decisions, it is up to them to hold their elected officials accountable.

Thank you again for contacting me on this important matter.

Yours truly,
Jim Moran

Comments Off on Rep. Moran’s Response

Posted in Correspondence, Political Animals

Eminent Domain

Posted on November 4, 2005 | 1 comment

Yesterday the House passed a bill curbing the use of eminent domain in federally funded projects (H.R. 4128). Better still, it passed by a whopping 376-38. The Senate will take it up early next year. Surprisingly, the bill actually follows federalist principles and lets state and local governments make their own rules where they have jurisdiction. Good news all around.

Unfortunately, my Congressman, Rep. Jim Moran (VA-8), voted the wrong way. In fact, he also put forth an unsuccessful amendment to gut the bill and made quite the impassioned speech on the floor.

I wrote Rep. Moran’s office a short note. I encourage you to do the same if your representative also voted the wrong way.

Representative Moran,

I was disappointed by your vote on yesterday’s eminent domain bill (H.R. 4128). I appreciate your federalism concerns, and I am glad the bill does not touch projects that do not receive federal funding. Such projects are properly state and local issues. But for projects that do involve the federal government, you passed on a golden opportunity to affirm your commitment to property rights.

This issue is not about tax revenues or urban development. It is about a basic principle of civilized conduct: it’s wrong to take other peoples’ stuff. Whether the thief is an individual or a government is irrelevant; stealing is still wrong. Exceptions can be made for public goods such as highways or schools, and courts have long recognized that. But the Kelo v. New London decision went further and essentially legalized theft from one private party to another. H.R. 4128 is an attempt to right that wrong, and I am sorry you decided not to play a part in it.
Thanks for your time,

Ryan Young

As a disclaimer, I do not believe roads and schools to be true public goods. The private sector is perfectly capable of providing both, and where allowed, has a better record than the government.

A list of the 38 who voted “nay” is here.

1 Comment

Posted in Correspondence, Political Animals