The Economic Way of Thinking

Assorted Links (Italy Travel Edition)

We're back from a wonderful trip abroad, and here are a few quick thoughts:

(1) Every minute in Rome was worth it; Venice was neat for what it was but not a place I feel the need to return to at any point soon.  I'd go back to Rome again and again. 

Though, the Guggenheim in Venice had a Prendergast exhibit well worth the price of admission.  The exhibit had information on the influence Whistler (one of my favorites) and Cezanne (one of my least favorites) had on Prendergast. 

(2) There's a little Italian mom-and-pop restaurant near Stacione Termini in Rome that has to be one of Italy's best kept secrets.  It was our first meal in Rome, and we found ourselves returning there several more times.  It's named Mergherita something or another (I can't find any receipts and have had little luck on Google), and it's just two blocks from the station.

(3) The Roman Forum blew me away, made me think too much about the brevity of life, and left me wanting to read so much more on the rise and fall of Rome. 

Then, when heading home, I read more of Africa: A Biography of the Continent and really got thinking about how short life is in the context of geological time. 

(4) On the topic of Africa: A Biography of the Continent, I just passed a section that compares centralized empires like Rome to decentralized, well-functioning city empires.  I will blog more about this in the future, but I'm thinking someone from our perspective needs to do some serious research into the Jenne-jeno tribe.  (Maybe it's already been done?)

The civilization lasted 1,600 years, and from what John Reader says, they were a voluntary association of people that flourished by specializing and trading in the Niger region.

(5) I travel a lot, and that's been true since well before 09/11.  In that time, I've never seen or experienced anything close to the invasion Anemone and I experienced trying to get home yesterday at Heathrow and then again in Atlanta.  3.5 hours of additional screening were added onto our trip (i.e., normal harassment would have got us out of Heathrow two hours sooner and through Atlanta 1.5 hours sooner). 

Far more disgusting than the TSA invasion and complete waste of time was the nonsense we heard from people around us all afternoon, such as, "Well, whatever it takes to keep anything bad from happening," and "It's really not that big a deal."  Best of all, at the end of our trip, people in front of us were eager to jump into the "whole body imaging technology" machine when we arrived in Atlanta! 

Who would have thought kissing your civil liberties good-bye could be so much fun, would be something people would literally run for, and would occur for many without even a momentary pause to consider the inconvenience and immorality of it all???

Privatize, Privatize, Privatize (and a Benson Reminder!)

(1) Here's a follow up story to Dave's post from last week about Detroit.  As government fails to provide security, the market for private security in Detroit is thriving. 

(2) Here's Robin Hanson discussing the efficiency of private law

(3) Speaking of all things private, one of the best defenders of private defense and private legal systems, Bruce Benson, is visiting Mercer University this evening.  He'll be giving a public lecture at 6 pm in the Engineering School Lecture Hall (Room 110).  The lecture is titled, "The Political Economy of a Drug War." 

In Case Anyone Forgot What Day It Is

Here's to it being a good, just one.

I guess it seems like as good a time as any to remind people to also remember, remember the 9th of November.

Arrgh, matey

One of my old pals maties (or is it, mateys?), Peter Leeson, gave a great interview on Fox Business the other day.

(This is great timing, Pete!  I had just plugged you a couple of days ago in class.  While teaching Intermediate Macro, which has been a blast so far, I dragged out one of my small "r's" for interest rates a little too long and went, "Arrrrrgh."  That made for the perfect opportunity to take a break from Keynes for a moment and tell folks about my matey, Peter Leeson.  I don't think Mercerians will believe you're for real until we get you down for a visit, but this video should hold them over for a while!)

HT: Pete Boettke

He Says He Wants a Devolution

Here's a really good article from this weekend's Wall Street Journal that discusses the possibility of a break-up of the behemoth that is the United States nation-state into smaller entities, such as the Republic of New England and the Republic of Las Vegas.

The author, Paul Starobin, argues that a smaller, devolved America "is a vision faithful to both postindustrial realities as well as to the pluralistic tradition at the heart of the American political tradition."  He also thinks a devolved America would allow for greater specialization and more sorting.  Here's a map that was included in the article:

I'm sure Starobin's right about there being a pluralistic tradition in American culture, but I'm also sure there are strong nationalistic currents in the American tradition that would resist any formal steps in a devolved direction (e.g., the "Manifest Destiny" and "American exceptionalism" attitudes, for example).  In addition, I'm not so sure about the idea that there's a natural economic or technological destiny towards smaller governmental entities.  In fact, if you read books like Robert Wright's Nonzero, the opposite conclusion can be easily reached: we're headed away from many small governments towards one world government, and this is "the logic of human destiny." 

Nonetheless, the article is definitely worth a read, and it's exciting to see this kind of argument being advanced in the pages of the WSJ. 

Ask Bryan

You've, no doubt, heard of Ask Jeeves (now, simply, Ask.com).  Well, here's something even better (and nerdier): Ask Bryan. 

My good friend and co-author, Bryan Caplan, has finished his on-line For a New Liberty Book Club, and he's now taking questions.  I highly recommend some of our readers interested in anarchism, minarchism, or even monarchism submit questions. 

Here are my questions:

"Bryan, what in your work do you think of as being consistent with the research project Rothbard is developing in FANL?  If possible, let's talk about your Myth of the Rational Voter versus FANL.  The policy implication often taken from MRV is an elitist one: the world needs constraints from the mob through franchise restrictions, etc.  While Rothbard had his elitist moments (and there's plenty in the Austrian oral tradition to support the Rothbard as elitist position, too), I've always thought of him as a "people's libertarian."  That is, we need a lot of "buy-in" from the mob before we can enjoy a new liberty.  It's unclear if he means 100% buy-in, but his number seems larger than yours.

So, I guess I'm wondering: Do you think of your major project as one consistent with Rothbard?  Or, is this is a case of the two of you slaying different dragons (e.g, he's trying to popularize libertarianism; you're addressing a major issue in public choice--voter ignorance/irrationality)?  Given that it was such an influential book on you, I'm just wondering if Rothbard's influence is showing up at all in MRV?" 

I'm An Anarchist, You're An Anarchist, He's An Anarchist, too

I'm a libertarian anarchist when I'm optimistic and apolitical when I'm pessimistic.  Most of the time I'm pessimistic.  Nevertheless, I've called myself an anarchist here on the blog, on my Facebook page and also over at The Austrian Economists blog.  I'm quite sure my close friends and colleagues over there haven't used the "anarchist" term to describe their own political stance, nor have they done so on their Facebook sites. I wonder why. 

Is it a career-killer to state you're an anarchist explicitly on a widely-read economics blog?  Might it alienate family and friends to call yourself an anarchist on Facebook?  I'm ultimately asking rhetorical questions.  Why the hesitation?

Anarchy All Around

In addition to a couple of EWOT co-bloggers, John Hasnas was one of the first scholars sympathetic to anarcho-capitalism that I ever met.  I met him in the summer of 1998 at an Institute for Humane Studies seminar at Bryn Mawr College in Philadelphia (Steve Horwitz was also there).  11 years later, John and I still keep in touch, and we both can recall a discussion we had about the "Caution: Hot" controversy involving McDonald's coffee.  (I was the kid saying, "What about all of the people who prefer to have their coffee scalding hot?"). 

In a private e-mail earlier this week related to my previous post about anarchism, John reminded me of another important paper of his titled "The Obviousness of Anarchy."  This more recent paper of his grabs the reader right from the beginning with the following: "In this chapter, I have been asked to present an argument for anarchy.  This is an absurdly easy thing to do.  In fact, it is a task that can be discharged in two words--look around."  Hasnas continues and attempts to prove anarchy's viability through concrete examples of its existence. 

Along with Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty and David Friedman's Machinery of Freedom, the Hasnas articles I have mentioned this week are highly recommended reading for those wanting  a good introduction to the philosophy of anarcho-capitalism. 

It's Gotta Be the Shoes

While preparing for Pete Boettke's upcoming visit in my "Readings in Political Economy" class last night and discussing his "Anarchism as a Progressive Research Program," students were formally introduced to anarcho-capitalism.  At one point in my discussion, I borrowed from John Hasnas's "The Myth of the Rule of Law" and said, "We wouldn't want the government to produce one shoe for all people, so why should we be content with it producing one legal code?"

When I got back to my office after class, it occurred to me that one of the more important essays in methodology also involves shoes.  The essay is by Donald McCloskey, and it's titled "Kelly Green Golf Shoes and the Intellectual Range from M to N."  

That got me thinking: what is it with libertarians and shoes???

Exit Options and the Coming Generational Storm

One of the highlights of my semester will be teaching an upper level Public Choice class to a talented and fired up bunch of students (syllabus here).  Last Thursday I began the course with a discussion of government growth in America and our “coming generational storm” (here’s an excellent book with that title).  I present a lot of data, most of which can be found here. 

Near the end of my presentation, one student asked, “Is there any way we can avoid this future?”  I said, “Not without significant benefit cuts, tax increases, and creative reforms like allowing more immigrants to come…”  At that point, one of my more hard-core students (and a loyal EWOT reader), Corey, spoke up and said, “We can opt out!”  I let him explain himself for a minute or two more, and he described how people will live on boats and rafts to escape Leviathan.  While I’m deeply sympathetic to what Corey was saying, at some point I cracked a joke and said, “Yeah, I’m sure that’s going to work out real well…”  The fear I have is that Leviathan wouldn’t leave Corey’s water communities alone and would annex them or shut their project down as soon as things began to go badly on the mainland.  If Corey and his band resisted, things could get really ugly. 

For those, like Corey, who will worry about the sustainability of their communities later and only want them to exist for now, the Free State Project (FSP) and the concept of “Seasteading” are two nice places to start.  The FSP was founded by a friend of mine, Jason Sorens.  It now has more than 8,000 people committed to the movement, and its members have chosen to make New Hampshire their own Galt’s Gulch.  The Seasteading Project is being developed by Patri Friedman, who is the grandson of Milton Friedman and son of David Friedman.  According to their website, the sea needs to be homesteaded “[b]ecause the world needs a new frontier, a place where those who are dissatisfied with our current civilization can go to build a different (and hopefully better) one.”

Two Murrays and a Man Named Noam: Anarchists

See Murray Rothbard here, delivering a presentation at the Texas State Libertarian Conference in 1989.

See Murray Bookchin also at a Libertarian Party conference (yes the LP)  here. 

Also see this interview with Bookchin back in 1981. 

They stand on opposite sides of the anarchist fence, although I was a little surprised how far Bookchin championed individualism at the LP conference. 

Noam Chomsky has been quite influenced by Bakunin (as I recall) and also Bookchin. Here's the first of a five part Chomsky interview.  You can easily navigate from that to the remaining parts.