On why the Libertarian Right is only Half Right.

There is a fundamental problem with the dominant (U.S variety) of Libertarianism, alternately referred to as "small government conservatism" or "right wing Libertarianism".  The essential flaw is that it assumes that a smaller state will result in more freedoms for the individual.  The assumption rests on the view that it is The State with it's machine gun totting commandos, drone aircraft, and ubiquitous methods of surveillance, both known to the surveilled and otherwise.

The theory argues that free citizens are capable of making their own decisions in a way that leaves the society better off.  That the problems in the economy are primarily caused by state interference and collusion in the economy.  The tend to assert that the free economy would operate to the benefit of the overwhelming majority if the government were to stay out of it; that many of our economic woes and inequality is caused by a corporatist policy between the government and supposedly private companies.

These libertarians tend to argue that the economy would self regulate through the simple mechanism of supply and demand and public choice.  They further argue that this would result in more opportunity and would respect individual freedom.

Now, I agree with much of this.  But, supposing the state...let's take an example.  Let's say that the United States government were to be run by a small government libertarian.  Let's say that they followed the constitution in it's original form, in a way that is reminiscent of the way governments ran a hundred years ago.  Let's say that they were to cut defence spending, remove entire departments, like the department of agriculture; that the were to lower taxes for all, end all subsidies and begin removing 'victimless laws'.  Let's say that they were to reduce police spending, and focus policing on better policies.  And that they were to reduce public health care spending for all but the most vulnerable.

Now, perhaps this would leave the public in a position where they would be motivated to succeed by their own efforts.  Perhaps it would allow new companies and new ideas to emerge.  Perhaps it would result in better food safety and would allow prices to return to something more in keeping with true supply and demand.

But, are they seriously saying that nothing else would step in to fill the void of a reduced government?  Therein lays the flaw in the argument.  We have powerful, multinational corporations which are more than capable of fulfilling many of the actions that the state currently fulfills.  And, in many parts of the United States, the removal of the state would probably prompt at least some of these companies to take on more of these duties.  Google has gotten into the business of providing electricity, a role normally done by states.  I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, I'm just saying that they already do some of the job of the state, and with a shrinking state, they would probably do more.  Additionally, throughout the United States, there are many other organizations which already do some of the stuff which people normally associate with state action.  Some of this is governmental agencies using Twitter and other forms of crowd-sourcing to provide disaster coordination.  Again, not necessarily bad...in fact, this is the kind of private action I think we need more of.

Another example are the private schools, and private hospitals.  I know the U.S is somewhat unique in this regard and that for them this is very normal, but again these are public goods.  These are services required by the population as a whole. They go beyond the simple market mechanism that consumer goods go by.  The same could be said for private prisons and social services provided by churches.  All of these go into areas that are normally associated with governmental actions.

Now, in the case of a shrinking state in the United States, we could assume that these organizations would indeed take on more duties.  It doesn't take much to imagine Google expanding it's electricity services, or it's telecom infrastructure.  That is probably going to happen anyway.  It wouldn't take much to imagine social organizations taking on more of a role in public health.  It doesn't take much imagination to conceive that private agricultural business would take on more of a role in food inspection, distribution and technology.

Again, much of this is good.  But, is it not conceivable that at least some of these organizations and companies would have motivations which are less concerned with the public good, and more concerned with private gain?  Would it not be conceivable that a major corporation would take on actions and activities which provide a benefit for themselves, but overall have a spill-over affect with a public cost?

Now of course, few are talking about completely removing the regulatory powers of the state, but the fact that these organizations have a compelling incentive to maximum their profit and to socialize their cost creates a major problem for "right wing libertarianism".  These organizations will try to fill gaps in areas of their expertise.  And, I'd argue that very often they would behave in a manner which does harm the overall public good.  They would engage in power maximization in order to achieve maximum profits for their shareholders.

The large, multinational company responsible only to it's board and shareholders would not, suddenly, become more altruistic just because the state has stopped subsidizing them.  In fact, many of these corporations are not subsidized.  They are constrained by state action.  They would be unbound and they would attempt to monopolize, coerce and co-opt, just as they already do.

Now, I'm not saying that all corporations do this, but some do.

Is the lust for power, control, wealth and luxury only a feature of systemic forces in the modern nation state?  Certainly not.  If we look to the feudal period, before the creation of the modern nation state, we see the same motivations.  If we look to small groups of people in a gardening club, we see those motivations.  We've all met the social climber!  He or she is not a product of the system, and he or she will always find structures to use for her or his advantage.  This is not going to go away just because the state goes away.

So, the solution?  Well, that is a matter not fully in my grasp, but it would most certainly require actions that go beyond simply limiting state power.  It would require limits on private power as well.

Anarcho-syndicalists, left libertarians and "small state socialists" probably have it right that private companies pose just as much threat to liberty as big government.

The motivations that cause the state to intrude on civil liberties exist in all power structures.  Would things still be better with a smaller state without limits on other structures?  I highly doubt it.  Is there an immediate solution?  I doubt that even more.  But, let's stop pretending that the only problem in modern life is big guvament.

Before the Levy Breaks: No Stability Without Inclusion

Burmese Migrant Workers in Thailand

I've been reading The Flood, an earlier book by Ian Rankin.  In this story there is a minister who means to understand and help the people in his town who he views as hard as nails, but also bitter and lost.  The winds of the economy had shifted, but these people didn't.  Combined with their old superstitions, these people are unable to adapt to the new world they find outside of their town.  This story, and my own observations have got me thinking about the question of what Marx called:  'the opiate of the people'.  While Marx was speaking of religion, I think the metaphor can be extended.  I'm not going to do a detailed examination of Marxism here, but I would like to address the matter in the broadest and briefest strokes.

A Thai worker beneath campaign posters

Two days of the week I work in a government compound on the outskirts of the city.  As the underground is being extended out that way, and as much of my commute takes me through areas with many working poor, I often find my thoughts drawn to these matters.

The question most on my mind now is regarding the education of these people, their world-view and their aspirations.  I've heard it said by many educated people in this country that those members of the working poor "have nothing in their heads".  I've attacked this line a number of times in courses I've taken.  I once said to a graduate student at my university that I think that is a hypothesis which he would need to test before he starts saying it in an economic setting.

I'd also like to say that if it is true, than who should be blamed for that?  These people often have very little education.  Their children do not have the same access to education, even from the "public" system.  They sit in hot, non airconditioned classrooms in 40 degree weather with 50 students in a single class.  Their teachers are often overwhelmed, living on a poverty wage and working with very few materials.

These people spend all day (and in many cases all night) working to build structures which they will never be able to afford to enjoy.  They are often sinewy and underweight as they cannot afford to eat well.

The WHO Country Strategy on Thailand states that around 77% of Thai people do not eat enough fruits and vegetables.  There is also a significant iodine deficiency among these groups.  Iodine deficiency results in irreversible brain damage in adults and children.

When they do get to go home, they are blasted with absolutely banal television that teaches them to be silly and not to take things seriously.  They are told to accept their fate and wait for it to get better in the next life.  They drink cheap alcohol and  often use stimulants to stay awake the next day.

So, if they don't have anything in their heads, who do you blame for that?  Fill her full of opium until she can't see straight and then blame her for not walking the line?  Keep them docile, sleepy and unconscious that they are mere commodities.  They have no clue...there is nothing in their head.  Healthcare, education?  They don't understand that stuff.  Right?

Electrolux Workers on Strike

I may be verging on hyperbole, but I don't think so.  And, I don't think this plan is working too well.  Since the 70's there has been an undercurrent of left-wing farmer/labourer discontent.  In the 70's the official Marxist groups were driven out of all influence.  But, they form a significant section of Thailand's so called "red shirts".

I am no Thaksin supporter.  I think he bribed the working classes and filled them with propaganda to win their support.  But, at least he did pay attention to them.

These people are not going to go away.  They are going to want those flashy little items they see others carrying.  They are going to want clean rooms.  They are going to want to enjoy some of the fruits of their labour.  All political parties in this country have to recognize this and start listening to these people before they decide, once again that they are going to take what they need.

Let a few streams flow, or watch the levy break and drown us all.

Tom Drake: Whistle-blower or Spy?

Former National Security Agency Executive Turned Whistle-blower, (or spy) Tom Drake in a sketch by Michael McCutcheon.  

See more sketches here. 

We all want to be safe.  Most of us expect our government, in one form or another, to protect us from internal and external threats.  But, if Thomas Drake (read one version of the full story here and another here) is correct than the United States government has been using the excuse of the September 11 attack to, in his words: "unchain itself" than there is serious cause for concern.  

I'm sure we all have that friend who posts endlessly about the erosion of civil liberties and the coming empire (I have hundreds of them now, I think they are forming a majority), but the public facts and statements are compelling whether or not you prefer a corduroy jacket or a tin-foil hat.  

Thomas Drake began by pointing out "fraud, waste and abuse", which government officers are required to point out, in 2005. The original incident involved a private company which he alleged provided weaker intelligence analysis at a higher cost, all paid for by the U.S public.  The story has been confirmed, according to some sources, but this may have been the first action which attracted the wrong kind of attention to him.  

Now, this action should have been protected under federal legislation protecting whistle-blowers, but as one source reports he was deliberately targeted through a misuse of the 1917 Espionage Act which was passed to target spies, not whistle-blowers.  

In an interview aired today on BBC's Hard Talk, Drake noted that President Obama has charged more people under the 1917 act than all previous presidents combined since the act was passed.  He claims that he fulfilled his duty to report waste, and also to expose misuse of government power.  He also said that he was hired from outside of the NSA under a movement to bring in new eyes and new perspectives to the agency, which by it's own admission at the time was very much unprepared for the digital age.  

This implies that he felt that it was part of his mandate to expose flaws in the NSA and to bring them forward to Congress.  But, his seniors clearly didn't agree.  Instead of just trying to charge him with leaking sealed documents, they alleged that he was retaining classified documents.  This could have resulted in a 35 year prison sentence under the 1917 act.  That case fell apart, and instead he was charged under lesser offences and only given a year's probation.  He claims that he passed on documents that were not classified and that he was acting legitimately.  

I can see both sides of this argument.  On the one hand (even by Drake's admission), security administration needs to be able to keep some information confidential.  But, on the other hand is it not the duty of public servants to point out, in the U.S government's own terminology Fraud, Waste and Abuse?  If you spent as much time watching U.S military TV as I did during my time in Korea, that slogan is deeply entrenched after countless public service messages.  

Where's the line here?  How much secrecy do these agencies need to provide security?  How should people who provide information be handled?  According to Drake, Congress must be informed, but also the Fourth Estate (the media) is the final check in America's system, to ensure that government's do not become "unchained".  Keep in mind that Drake did have his day in court, and the court did find him guilty of the lesser charges.  

It's sometimes difficult to know what to think on matters which are all behind smoke and mirrors.  It's difficult to know who to be more afraid of:  the 'bad guys' or the government.  

Temporary Foreign Workers Fill the Gap (but that's no way to build a society)

With news breaking that unemployed Canadians with relevant experience and skills were by-passed in favour of temporary foreign worker programs, my mind is drawn to the long term implications of such a program.

I'll leave the day-to day analysis of the program to others, in favour of a little examination of the possible long term effects of this program on the society as a whole.

First, let me say this.  I am a Canadian citizen, and a tax-paying resident of Thailand.  I plan to return to Canada some day, and I will always be, first and foremost a Canadian from Miramichi in New Brunswick.  My father is English and has only recently taken up Canadian citizenship in addition to his U.K citizenship.

But, let's look at my father as a picture of what real immigration does for a country before moving on.

My father has lived in Canada (which I often, warmly refer to as Soviet Canuckistan) since the mid 1970's.  Since that time, he has started several businesses, employed a number of natural born Canadians (some of them for many years), pays his taxes, is a well respected member of his church, built several houses, served as an able employee, bore three children who live on the right side of the law and contribute to their respective communities, and has been a positive influence in many many lives.

His roots in the Miramichi run deep.  His economic contribution has been notable. Though I am biased, I think he is a true role model.  My mother has often said to me, in times when I'm confused, to "do what your father would do".  He's that kind of dad.

My point is that Canada wins by having such people whether they be from China, France, Britain, the Ukraine, Somalia or any point in between. These people set their roots in the country; they build the land, and they make us prosper.

There have been darkspots.  I won't get into them here, but the abuse of immigrants from some countries, the quotas and the genocide upon the First Nations are all issues I'm cognizant of and I will start to address them at a later time.

But, it is immigration that built this country.

On the other hand, there are people like me.  My roots are not deep in this land.  I'm working.  I'm not saving any money.  I haven't any children, or a spouse and I won't stay.  I'm still fulfilling a public need.  I'm educating people and helping them to succeed.  I'm doing what the King called for when he stated in 1997 that if foreigners want to come and dig the riches of this land, let them dig for us (the Thais).

That's what I see myself as.  I dig.  I don't dig to plunder, but I dig to build the place where I live.  That fills the gap that Thailand currently has, but it isn't going to go much further.  What I do here doesn't lay down the deep routes that add strength to the soil itself.

Should Canada allow temporary foreign workers?  Absolutely.  But, the answer to a better country is to do what we've done in the past:  Encourage real immigration with the full opportunities for citizenship.  The NDP's Once in a Life Time bill to allow anyone to sponsor, a family member, once in a life-time to come to Canada would help accomplish that.  Focusing more resources on family class immigration would help to accomplish that.

Let's get back to nation building rather than short-term stop-gap measures.

Printable, Working Guns: Why You Shouldn't Panic

As BBC is reporting, U.S group, Defense Distributed plans to publicly release blueprints for a working 3D gun.

Perhaps this is one of the unintended consequences of 3-D printing.  Any product imaginable could, eventually be replicated by a consumer in her or his own home. If your like me, your first though might be...oh, shit.

But, think about this for a moment.  Is this really a game-changer?  Stay with me here for a moment.  I don't want to disturb you, but indulge me for just a moment.

Take a look around you right now.  Yes, I mean really.  Just physically turn your head to your right and tell me if you can see at least one object that you could use to harm another human being.  Can you see any?  What about that water glass?  The vase?  What about your kitchen knives?

 Now, stay with me for just another moment.  Look around again.  Is there anyone around?  What about your husband calmly cooking dinner while you read my rant? Children doing homework?  They wouldn't see it coming, would they...I bet you wouldn't see it coming, would you?

Do you see where I'm going with this?   Deadly object+human=murder.  Right?  For most of us, thank God this is not the case.

 Now, I'm sorry to have put your mind in a dark place like that, but can you explain why it is that you are not going to harm that person with that object? Can you explain why you are not looking over your shoulder right now?  (By the way, if you are, there is medication that can help)

 In my own case, I don't live with any other humans, but I do live with two beautiful kitty cats.

  As I looked around my apartment, I realized that my iron could easily be used to kill my kitties, I have several lighters which could be used to light them on fire.  I have pots and pans which I could clobber them with.  All of this is entirely possible if the will exists.

Konja, my talking cat enjoying a murder-free afternoon

I was walking back from dinner with a good friend.  He's a scientist.  We talked about some of his current and recent research.  I ranted on and on about how much I love my job.  I never once suspected that my delicious salad could have been poisoned by the workers...I never once even thought that the floor cleaner may have been added to my balsamic vinegar by a sinister cook.

Lynette on the ledge of floor nine.  I didn't push her off. 

The sun was warm and I had some time, so I walked back home.  It's a busy road.  Not one person tried to run me down...it came close (I do live in crazy Bangkok after-all), but no one intended to kill me.  On these narrow lanes full of maniacs, I would have been an easy target.  Now, I know what you are thinking.  You are thinking that they just didn't want to damage their cars...har de har.  But seriously...as much as we might fantasize about ramming the daily news paper down that rude guy in the shop's throat, we never do it.

Folks, we don't walk around killing people or kitty cats because we don't have the tools to do so. It's not lack of opportunity either.

Hopefully, you don't live in a community where many people want to cause you harm, where crazed crane operators are dropping sewer pipes on your head, where old ladies are throwing rocks out of window, where waiters are putting methyl alcohol into your g&t (methyl alcohol is highly toxic and wouldn't be noticed in many cocktails and also is difficult to trace if the person has already been drinking)

Perhaps a few of you do, and my heart goes out to you...but, that's not the normal way people live.  I'm not contesting that bad things happen...but, not as often as you might think if you watch too much TV.

I also live in a city where night markets, on the side of major roads, sell tasers, serrated long knives, ninja stars, swords and other objects which would kill so easily.  I've never heard of anyone grabbing one and then slicing up a shopper.


Has it ever happened?  Maybe...but out of the millions and millions of people...have a sense of perspective.

But, I contend the natural state of humans is to live in peace with other people.  Just because the gun is there, does not mean you need to walk around shooting people.  Will this plastic gun, printable by anyone result in murders?  Probably.  But, it's not going to really change how the overwhelming majority of us live.

Murder is very rare in almost any part of the world at any time.  There are many ways a person, who has decided to cause someone's death can do so.

If people have opportunity for success, love in their lives, the basics for life and affirmation, they will mostly live in way that causes no harm to others.  If you have a large amount of violence in your area, you have to think about what causes that violence.

I think we have a mental health problem more than we have a gun problem. Young people feel displaced.  Older people feel they are not appreciated.  We have a social illness.  That's what we need to focus more on.

 Let's look a little deeper, be a bit more introspective, a bit more understanding and heck, while we are at it... be more optimistic.  Help other people, take some time to enjoy life.  Go shoot a target or a clay disc.  You'll like it.