"We saw a lot of road kill and thought of you." —my sister
For more information on oil prices, click here. Podcasts of My Intro Economics lectures (in .wma format) For my 2005 Radio Economics MP3 podcasts, go to the bottom of the page that lists the lecture podcasts.
Canada
United States
Israel
My email address: [email protected] My 2005 post about the housing crisis, before it happened, is here.
I just finished reading this piece by Don Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek. It is a lengthy piece that takes on Piketty, the economist who argues for more gubmnt action to reduce inequality. What struck me most was this very insightful comment:
Piketty has a peculiarly strange “then a miracle occurs” step in his analysis. He argues that one justification for powerful efforts to redistribute incomes and wealth more equally is that the rich are disproportionately likely to abuse power for their own greedy and socially destructive ends. So what to do? Answer: increase government’s power! Qu’est-ce que c’est?! [EE: this is French for WTF?] (Piketty is like too many economists: ignorant of public-choice.)
This attitude that Boudreaux identifies is far too common among the redistributionists. Essentially it says, "The gubmnt has created policies that favour cronies and promote inequality. But I know what to do about it. Put me (and/or my friends) in charge and we'll do it right." And all the while this argument does nothing to include the real world of voter influences and public-choice economics: the sad, simple fact is that the more power gubmnt and politicians have over resources, the greater the incentive for individuals to try to influence gubmnt policy, politicians, and the behaviour of bureaucrats.
This is yet another example of Kip's Law:
“Every advocate of central planning always — always — envisions himself as the central planner.”
As most people know by now, Donald Sterling [owner of the Los Angeles Clippers of the National Basketball Association] has been banned for life by the NBA because of some remarkably racist statements he made to an ex-mistress. The other 29 owners of teams are also expecting to find a way to "induce" him to sell the Clippers.
Yesterday a friend wrote to me, wondering how libertarians would react to the NBA's decisions. Much of my reaction is probable and surmise.
On the one hand, if someone is selling a product or service I want, I am not always aware of or even interested in their religious or political beliefs.... a sort of live-and-let-live attitude.
At the same time, if I know they hold views I find abhorrent, I will assiduously try to avoid patronizing them.
Knowing that if the NBA did nothing in response to Sterling's remarks, there would be bad publicity for the Clippers in particular and the NBA in general, the NBA quickly realized that attendance would drop, sales of merchandise would drop, and the overall profits of all the teams in the league would decline if they did nothing.
And that is why they presumably have by-laws, regulations, rules, whatever, by which every member must abide if they wish to remain members of the league in any capacity.
I'm guessing the league has used these by-laws about behaviour detrimental to the league, or blatantly discriminatory, or some such to justify legally the sanctions imposed on Sterling.
If so, those sanctions are covered by freely entered contracts, which most libertarians (or quasi-libertarians like me) support.
In other words, the banning of Donald Sterling by the NBA is fully consistent with the views held by most libertarians. He joined an organization and did something likely contrary to the by-laws of the organization, so they expelled him. So long as their own by-laws are legally acceptable, no problem.
In case you missed it elsewhere, here is the link to the collection that is being put together. The early Newsweek editorials, Capitalism and Freedom, and Free to Choose all played a role in my growth as an economist. A partial list of the collection, with links:
It’s a testament to Milton Friedman’s influence and legacy that many contemporary politicians, economists, and academicians still ask, “What would Milton say?” Rather than attempting to put words into Milton’s mouth, why not let Milton answer that question himself? Click on a topic to see Milton’s thoughts on issues ranging from bureaucracy to taxes.
JAMIE WEINSTEIN: And people when they get honorary degrees, it's not like they only go to non-political people. Universities have awarded them in the recent past to people that want Israel to be wiped off the map and destroyed. Is that not right?
MS: Yeah, that's true. And that was Brandeis, a guy called Tony Kushner... I stand back and occasionally roll my eyes at the dreary left-wing hacks invited to give commencement speeches, garlanded with state honors, things that if you trend to the right side of the spectrum, you know you're going to be labeled 'controversial conservative', and you'll never get anywhere near. But this woman is a black, feminist atheist from Somalia. And so what we're learning here, which is fascinating, in the hierarchy of progressive-politics identity-group victimhood, Islam trumps everything. Islam trumps gender. The fact that she's a woman doesn't matter. It trumps race. The fact that she's black doesn't matter. It trumps secularism. The fact that she's an atheist doesn't matter. They wouldn't do this if it was a Christian group complaining about her, if it was a Jewish group complaining about her. But when the Islamic lobby group says oh, no, we're not putting up with this, as I said, these jelly-spined nothings at Brandeis just roll over for them.
I have sat through many, many convocation/graduation ceremonies. Steyn is right. Pronouncements from left wing, caring, elitist interventionists proclaiming moral superiority are common; among the most egregious at UWO was Maude Barlow. Only rarely are outspoken pundits from the right (e.g. Mark Steyn? or EclectEcon?) invited to such events.
It was a classic example of the failure of central planning.
There was an abundance of hubris by the planners, who believed they could do better than markets (sound familiar?).
There was an abundance of predictable bureaucratic behaviour in response to incentives as subordinates padded the numbers to satisfy their superiors (and out of fear for their lives if they didn't meet optimistic production quotas).
There was an abundance of force used to make peasants go along with the massive centralization that occurred (sound familiar?)
There was an abundance of stupidity (sound familiar?) as, for example, bureaucrats confiscated peasants' cooking implements to melt them down to make steel.
And there was an abundance of death: executions, murders, starvation, and cannibalism. Somewhere between 20 million and 36 million people died because of Mao's "Great Leap Forward".
I have been saving this piece from the NYTimes for over a year. It is a painful summary of the death and devastation that occurred from 1958 - 62. Some of the Amazon reviewers claim the author of Tombstone, which is summarize in the NYTimes piece, is lying, but for the most part it seems well-regarded and factual.
THIRTY-SIX million people in China, including my uncle, who raised me like a father, starved to death between 1958 and 1962, during the man-made calamity known as the Great Famine. In thousands of cases, desperately hungry people resorted to cannibalism.
The toll was more than twice the number of fallen in World War I, and about six times the number of Ukrainians starved by Stalin in 1932-33 or the number of Jews murdered by Hitler during World War II.
The horrors of life after central planners' decisions went awry are well-documented in many countries. Bureaucrats falsify numbers, higher-ups believe someone is hiding something, and those at the top set impossible goals, wanting to believe the padded numbers and biased information provided to them and dismissing anything contrary (sound familiar?).
At the same time, the higher-ups suffer little. The granaries are well-guarded, and the centralized crop is used to generate foreign exchange to fund larger projects.
How can people write about the evils of capitalism when there are so many horror stories about the evils of centralization in the 20th century? How can people write about the evils of capitalism when we see the failures of central planning in Venezuela, North Korea, or even in otherwise well-functioning markets?
Here's how: As one of my friends says, “Every advocate of central planning always — always — envisions himself as the central planner.” This statement, known as Kip's Law, was first enunciated by Kip Esquire. Too bad he stopped blogging.
Sure, markets are not perfect. But we can look around and see how much better they are than centralization.
To read more about the tragedy in China, begin with the Wikipaedia entry "Great Leap Forward". It sets the death toll at between 18.5 and 42 million.
I am a journalist. I am a semi-retired economist. I am a sometime actor/musician. But I am a journalist. That means I have protections guaranteed to journalists by the US Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights.
I am prompted to remind you of this position because of this report. Apparently a US Senate committee is struggling to define what a journalist is, and I do not like their definition(s):
The protections would apply to "covered journalist," defined as an employee, independent contractor or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information. The individual would have to have been employed for one year within the last 20 or three months within the last five years.
It would apply to student journalists or someone with a considerable amount of freelance work in the last five years. A federal judge also would have the discretion to declare an individual a "covered journalist," who would be granted the privileges of the law.
The compromise also says that information is only privileged if it is disseminated by a news medium, described as "newspaper, nonfiction book, wire service, news agency, news website, mobile application or other news or information service (whether distributed digitally or otherwise); news program, magazine or other periodical, whether in print, electronic or other format; or thorough television or radio broadcast . or motion picture for public showing."
While the definition covers traditional and online media, it draws the line at posts on Twitter, blogs or social media from non-journalists.
This definition more than cheeses me off. In other people's eyes, I am a journalist. Despite the fact that EclectEcon is a small-ish blog, it has more readers than some small weekly newspapers. And that doesn't include anything else I do as a journalist. I deserve protection, and I assert that I am entitled to it. Just try to get me to reveal my sources! As I wrote last June,
Here are my media credentials:
Blogging since November 4, 2004, probably averaging more than a post a day, including live-blogging several conferences and events.
Teaching economics for journalists between 1979 and 1994.
I really resent the tone of this article about genetically modified organisms [GMOs]. It says, in essence,
GMOs are safe.
Trust us. We know.
But the European experience shows that food processors won't use GMOs if they have to label their products as containing GMOs because
consumers are ignorant and think GMOs are harmful.
Therefore (?) we shouldn't have to label them.
I'm inclined to agree that GMOs are most likely safe. I have no problem with consuming them myself or letting, even encouraging, my family use them.
But someone who says they should be allowed to hide the contents of their products because consumers are too ignorant to know the truth is just an elitist interventionist. If indeed, foods using GMOs are cheaper and safe, let consumers who are savvy buy them and save money while the ignorant consumers suffer from paying too much.
I resent all attempts by politicians and anyone else from all political persuasions who try to tell us they know what is best for us.
Elitist snobs. And potentially dangerous demagogues.
Last Friday (two days ago) when I returned to my apartment in student residence, I found this note attached to my door:
What??? A "contracted company" will come through my apartment with a DOG to look for health and safety issues??? Since when do they need dogs for this? Colour me deeply suspicious.
And when did "preventative" supplant "preventive" as a word?
I have given fair warning. I scribbled the following on the notice:
Update: several friends have suggested these dogs might be brought in to search for bedbugs in the beds, furniture, carpets, etc. From Wikipaedia,
Bed bug detection dogs are specially trained by handlers to identify the scent of bed bugs.
With the increased focus on green pest management and integrated pest management, bed bug detection dogs are gaining popularity in North America. Dogs are a safer alternative to pesticide use as a management strategy. If operators can find out exactly where bed bugs are located, they can minimize the area that needs to be sprayed. Dogs smell in parts per trillion, something a human cannot do, and detect bed bugs through all life cycle phases from eggs to nymphs to adults.
Bed bug detection dogs are quickly becoming mainstream. In 2011 The National Pest Management Association[13] released their Bed Bug Best Management Practices [14] which outline the minimum recommendations regarding not only treatment, but the certification and use of bed bug detection canines. The NPMA Best Management Practices emphasize the importance of having a bed bug detection dog team certified by a third party organization with no affiliation to the trainer or company that sold the canine.
Bed bug detection dogs are a viable and scientifically-proven alternative to traditional methods of pest detection. A 2008 report by the University of Kentucky Department of Entomology endorsed bed bug detection dogs by stating that the “reliability of the dogs has been impressive provided they are properly trained.”[15] Scientists at the university reviewed studies on the dogs and concluded that although expensive for operators, canine detection dogs were promising.
Bed bug detection is complicated by the fact that the insects can hide almost anywhere. Bed bug detection dogs solve this problem because they are small and agile, finding bugs in places humans cannot such as wall voids, crevices and furniture gaps.
With the increase in global travel and shared living accommodations, bed bugs have become more prevalent. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency held a bed bug summit[16] in April 2009 to address the ongoing problem of bed bugs and how to eradicate them.
When the US Federal Reserve increases the money supply, in the short run that puts downward pressure on the nominal rate of interest. The lower rate of interest induces investors to shift out of US Treasury bills and bonds into something else, seeking more preferable risk-return combinations. Some of that money will eventually find its way into investment spending, but in the meantime many investors look around for some other financial investment that will offer better risk-adjusted returns.
That is what happened, in part, with the financial crisis as people snapped up those inappropriately rated AAA mortgage-backed securities via the shadow banks.
Nowadays, this short term money (sometimes called "hot money" because it is moved quickly in response to changes in interest rates, exchange rates, and expectations) is flowing into and out of the financial markets in other countries. It is, after all, a global market.
Catherine Mann (Brandeis University) presented numerous charts showing some tendencies in the market for this to happen. Unfortunately I'm not able to find a link to the charts; I'm hoping they will become available soon here.
Her emphasis was on the problems faced in emerging markets that result from quick and sudden short-term cash flows into and out of their economies. I wasn't entirely convinced by her graphs and data, but I'd like to have a closer look at them at some point. All the same, her point is one I hadn't considered before: short-term movements of very large amounts of financial capital into and out of a country can play havoc with that country's attempts to control its own monetary positions.
A priori, this position makes some sense. One of the reasons for the phenomenal growth in the MSBs was the massive inflow of financial capital to the US pre-2007. At the same time, though, emerging markets face different problems. Massive inflows of financial capital can distort the local economy, putting considerable downward pressure on short-term interest rates. When that financial capital moves elsewhere, there is then pressure that causes the short-term interest rates to rise.
I viewed this phenomenon with less of an "ain't it awful" perspective than was hinted at both by Catherine Mann and in this piece by Patrice Hill, a media bench partner at the Rocky Mountain Economic Summit. Instead, I see it as a healthy flow of capital. It is this ebb and flow of capital throughout the world markets that tends to equalize the risk-adjusted interest rates and which sends signals to investors about the global cost of capital.
If the large-scale movement of short-term funds can wreak havoc on a local economy, the players in that economy are not adequately accounting for these potential movements in their decision-making. If you get a bunch of short-term money injected into your economy, there is no guarantee it will stay there for long. Counting on those funds as being anything other than short-term funds can lead to bad decisions.
My attendance at the summit was supported by several sponsors, including the Department of Economics at The University of Regina.
I just ran across these photos of events at the 5th Annual Silk Road Festival in the Afghanistan highlands. A description of the event from Foreign Policy Magazine:
This past weekend, at the 5th Annual Silk Road Festival, Afghans gathered to celebrate the heritage and relative security of the country's isolated highlands (Guardian). Key activities of the festival included buzkashi - a game similar to polo that uses a dead goat instead of a ball - jousting, horse racing, and a tug of war. There was also a poetry contest. See photos of the event here.
For a woman from Lebanon now living in the US, a symbol of her freedom is "I have a key". She is free to choose so much more in her life than she had been under Lebanese Muslim rules. This is a beautiful piece. It is compelling and revealing about so many things we read about. And yet I somehow fail to comprehend the enormity of the lack of freedom until I read first-hand accounts like this one. I highly recommend reading it (via Steve Horwitz).
... I have keys to my front door, now, and I can open my front door and walk down the street whenever I want to.
In the first weeks when I was in the United States, I had so much fear and trembling at this freedom. I stayed in my apartment alone during my first two days in my new home, and when I did finally venture out, I checked to make sure my keys and ID and wallet were in my purse a thousand times. I wore long, flowing dresses and tied my hair up in a scarf even though it was August and very hot, even though I am an atheist who happens to find no personal value in modesty, even though I was not going out to meet anybody and knew not a single man in town, even though I tried to convince myself that in this land it wouldn’t matter if I was. I looked around every corner and checked over my shoulder in case my father was somehow watching, lurking.
This piece is reminiscent of the work by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Other links about Ayaan Hirsi Ali are here.
The clashes and demonstrations in Egypt may very well have less to do with ideology and more to do with failed gubmnt policies. As I wrote back in April, the Egyptian gubmnt simply cannot continue to provide bread, for example, at such substantially subsidized prices.
When prices are set below the equilibrium price, the quantity supplied declines and the quantity demanded increases, leading to shortages. This is basic stuff that politicians cannot overrule or legislate out of existence, no matter how much the voters might want them to.
When politicians fail to deliver, it isn't surprising that their citizens are upset, as is happening now in Egypt. Central planning, especially an attempt to subsidize low prices without having a huge source of revenue (e.g. oil in Venezuela and Iran, two countries that have used oil revenues in just this fashion) is doomed to fail.
I realize that many people believe much of the protest in Egypt is also against the Muslim Brotherhood and its attempts to further restrict the freedoms of Egyptians. To some extent it surely is, and deep in my heart I hope that the desire for more freedom is strong. But I really don't know how strong these protests would be if there weren't at the same time so many shortages throughout the economy.
This excellent summary includes some mention of the economic struggles in Egypt. It is hard to know, though, the relative strengths of the two forces for change.
Massive Anti-Morsy Protests Grip Egypt
Top news: Hundreds of thousands -- possibly millions -- of Egyptians poured into the streets on Sunday to protest the Islamist government of Mohamed Morsy, the country's first democratically elected president. Frustrated by lack of security, economic malaise, and what many see as Morsy's authoritarian tendencies, the Tamarod, or "rebel," movement gathered more than 22 million signatures of no-confidence ahead of Sunday's protests -- more than the number of Egyptians who voted the president into office. By nightfall, many thousands of protesters had gatheredoutside the presidential palace in Heliopolis, demanding that Morsy step down and hold early elections.
Across the country, clashes between opponents and supporters of the president left at least seven people dead and hundreds injured. (There were also numerous reports of sexual assault overnight in Cairo's Tahrir Square.) On Monday morning, anti-government protesters looted and burned the Moqattam headquarters of the Muslim Brotherhood, briefly sparring with armed Brotherhood members who fired birdshot from inside the building.
While there certainly seems to be a political element to the protests, Juan Cole points out that, as with the protests that began in January 2011 and eventually led to the downfall of the Mubarak regime, there is an economic element to these protests as well ...
At the same time, though, one should make no mistake that there are elements driving these protests who see this as a full-on attack against the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood, as The Atlantic’s J.J Gould finds in the person of activist Mona Eltahawy:
Don Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek nails it. I was young, a borderline socialist, certainly a wannabe elitist interventionist. And then I realized that giving more power to politicians and their appointees not only could but would lead to implementation of policies I abhor. I began to back off my more interventionist views. But Boudreaux says it all so well:
If you are a modern “Progressive” and cannot abide the notion of conservatives, Christian or otherwise, having a say in who you sleep with and who you may marry, when and why you may get an abortion, what sorts of scientific research and artistic projects should be funded, what school curricula should and shouldn’t include, or when and why Uncle Sam goes on world-policing ventures, then why do you wish to expand the scope of government authority? Doing so in a society with a wide franchise, such as the U.S., inevitably invites those rubes to intrude their antediluvian superstitions and dogmas onto you and onto all that you hold dear and sacred.
Indeed, much of politics seems like a battle between opponents vying for the right to control other people. But there is more there; the above is just an excerpt. Here is his conclusion:
The more expansive is the scope of government authority, the more my life is subject to commands issued in part under the influence of people who read Us magazine.
Scary.
Not exactly. But the Teachers' Union of Ireland has unanimously passed a motion urging their members not to work with scholars who have Israeli affiliation. And that includes EclectEcon. From Engage:
A motion, calling for all members of the union to end work with Israeli counterparts, was passed unanimously at the TUI annual conference in Galway on Thursday.
The union called on the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to increase its campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions against “the apartheid state of Israel until it lifts its illegal siege of Gaza and its illegal occupation of the West Bank”.
The passed motion requests TUI members to “cease all cultural and academic collaboration with Israel, including the exchange of scientists, students and academic personalities, as well as all cooperation in research programmes”.
The motion doesn’t bother to maintain the fiction of the “institutional boycott”. This is a boycott of scholars and students on the basis of their nationality. This is a boycott of a significant proportion of the world’s Jewish academics and students for reasons which are nothing to do with anything that those academics have said or done. Nobody but Israelis are to be boycotted.
This is disgusting, outrageous, an affront to academic freedom, and anti-semitic. They do not go after China for its occupation of Tibet; they do not go after North Korea for its human rights violations; they do not go after Saudi Arabia and its neighbours for their treatment of women; etc., etc. Nor do they go after scholars from those countries.
Instead they single out Israel, a democracy, a country which has had to fight three wars to ensure its existence - a country which must continue to take measures to protect itself from formal declarations that they should be annihilated. And what is more, they go after scholars affiliated with Israel.
Long-time readers of EclectEcon will know my position. I am so upset by such views and single-country stances, that quite a few years ago I sought and obtained affiliation with two different Israeli academic institutions: Haifa and Bar-Ilan. As my email signature reads,
Member, Int'l Advisory Board for Academic Freedom, Bar-Ilan Univ
Affiliated Professor, University of Haifa
Berlin in the late 1920s and early 1930s was a hotbed of exploration and experimentation. Communists and socialists were strong, and at the same time sexual freedom was at an apex. Clubs abounded to present and/or satisfy nearly every sexual fantasy. Suppliers of these services were often young people (and their families!) who had lost their savings either in WWI or in the hyperinflation of the early 1920s. Others were simply young people who loved the sense of freedom and exploration.
It was against this backdrop that Christopher Isherwood visited and revisited Berlin and wrote his stories and short novel that led, eventually, to the musical "Cabaret". Any performance of Cabaret that does not capture both the ecstatic freedom and the depressing near-slavery of this era misses the mark. To see what I mean, take some time to look at the documentary "Berlin - Metropolis of Vice" (broken into three parts for posting on YouTube) below [h/t Paige Miller, our director/producer].
In our upcoming performance, one of my roles is Max, the creepy owner of the Kit-Kat club, a small seedy nightclub where anything is possible and for sale.
The second part of the documentary explicitly mentions Isherwood. And the third part shows the puritan-like views of the Nazis and the impact of their rise to power in the early 1930s.
Now put all this to music, singing, dancing, and acting; then throw in a substantial secondary love plot involving a Jew, and you have "Cabaret".
This past weekend I attended the annual meeting of SAFS (Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship). I'm a lifetime member of the group. This year's meeting consisted of numerous ivory-tower-type discussions of the meaning of academic freedom and how it can be preserved. To me it was a big yawn, even though I strongly believe that academic freedom, by some definition, is extremely important.
And today I see the Trono Globe and Mail has a column about academic freedom. The G&M column makes explicit what was an underlying theme at the weekend conference: concerns about funding affect people's decisions and behaviour. As an economist, my reaction is.... "well, duh."
I love the idea of competition in the marketplace of ideas. I love the notion that better ideas will eventually conquer less-good ideas. I realize this is a long, painful, costly process, however. And I realize that universities, taxpayers, donors, parents, and students are not terribly eagre to fund the process.
In economics, neoclassical thought gave way to the Keynesianism of the 50s and 60s, which gave way to monetarism of the 70s and 80s, which gave way to rationalized expectorations rational expectations, which has now given way to ???
Each time the prevailing orthodoxy was challenged successfully, it was because scholars have felt free to challenge it, to explore, to learn, to create, to develop. I'm grateful there is funding available to support scholars who challenge the orthodox.
At the same time, I can assure you that if I had a cool $20m to donate to a university, I'd want to attach some strings to it. I'd want to be able to name the majority of the people who would oversee the stewardship of my donation. I would not want my money "squandered" (as it would be, in my view) on supporting a centre for the study and dissemination of, say, mathematical game theory (certainly a worthy endeavour, but not with my money, thank you). And I wouldn't want my money to be used for things that would ordinarily come out of the general budget so the funds from the general budget could be used to support such a centre.
In my mind, academic freedom is not the same thing as open funding of whatever I want to study and teach. And once others acknowledge this distinction, we can begin to talk about what it should mean.
Salim Mansur has recently published a book on multiculturalism, The Delectable Lie, published by Mantua Books. He was in Regina, Saskatchewan, last week, speaking about and debating the topic with Khurram Awan. Salim Mansur is a professor of political science at The University of Western Ontario and, as regular readers of Eclectecon know, a good friend. Khurram Awan is an attorney who worked for a group of Muslims in their human rights cases against Rogers Communications, Maclean's magazine, and writer Mark Steyn.
The deck was clearly stacked against Mansur, who has been described as a modern, moderate Muslim. There was virtually no advertising of the event at the university, despite my pleas that the event be advertised widely. And it appeared that about 80% or so of the audience was made up of friends of Awan.
Mansur's presentation focused on the contrast between 19th-century liberalism and many different cultures. He relied heavily on political philosophy, John Stuart Mill, and catch-phrases from the U.S. Declaration of Independence (probably a strategic error in presenting to a left-leaning, anti-US audience). He also cited incidents of honour killings in Canada and Pierre Trudeau's reported regrets about having supported multi-culturalism.
Awan focused on legal aspects, essentially saying that all cultures must abide by the laws of the land.
I found the entire event extremely disturbing.
Questioners were clearly hostile to Mansur and were allowed to make inappropriately long speeches themselves attacking him. One, in particular misquoted Mansur, misrepresented Mill, and attacked his reference to the US Declaration of Independence, all to audience nods and wild applause.
In response to all these questions, Mansur continued to emphasize that they would not be able to have these discussions in a country that doesn't value freedom as much as we do in Canada, and that is his concern. This point seemed to fall on deaf ears.
When I asked Awan how to reconciled the freedoms of expression and religion when they come into conflict, he launched into a discussion of "hate speech", which was appropriate, and then mentioned "competition in the marketplace for ideas", a view to which most classical liberals subscribe. His only criticism of this view was that he thought Rogers had an obligation to provide a venue for opposing views so that this competition could take place. Afterwards, I took him to task for that position (not being allowed follow-up questions and not being allowed to make a speech myself). He admitted that he, himself, would feel no obligation to provide equal time for Mansur's views in his own speeches, but argued that Rogers had/has an obligation to provide equal space for people who oppose views like those of Mark Steyn.
Of course this is incorrect. When I called him on it, he alleged that Rogers has a monopoly in the media. Nonsense. The CBC and many other media outlets certainly provide support for views counter to those of Mansur or Steyn (or Ezra Levant, for that matter). Also, if the issue is one of monopolization of the media, that should be a Competition Policy issue, not a human rights issue.
A Muslim woman complained that Corner Gas doesn't hire female comedy writers but that she is a writer for CBC's "Little Mosque on the Prairie." She somehow attributed her freedom to be a comedy writer in Canada to her Muslim faith, but the logic of that escaped me. Nevertheless, the audience applauded wildly. Once again Mansur's response essentially said that she is lucky to be in Canada, for surely Muslim women in other countries, where Muslim and Arab cultures dominate, would not have the freedom to pursue such interests. Again, the pithiness of this type of response seemed to slip right past the audience.
In Mansur's book, I am especially enamoured of his work on the clashes of freedoms. For example, on p119, he approvingly cites Dworkin's piece, "The Right to Ridicule."
The theme throughout his book is well-stated on p134:
Multiculturalism was promoted as a policy that would make for a tolerant, accommodating and peaceful society tending towards increased diversity as a result of open-door immigration policy. But tolerance of the intolerant, the accommodation of those who push extremism of one sort or another as the Islamists or the Khalistani Sikhs have done, under the cover of multiculturalism [EE: and, I would add, under the cover of "freedom of religion and charter guarantees] has amounted to the undermining of liberal democracy from the inside. This is the paradox of liberal democracy, its vulnerability resulting from its concerns to improve the conditions of living for its citizens and its commitment to remain true to its principles of freedom and individual rights even as some might want to subvert them.
As I blogged many years ago, when the freedoms conflict, freedom of expression must take dominance over freedom of religion. Otherwise intolerant religions will dominate.
Update: Here is yet another example of the clashes that can result as we try to work our way through the conflicts between various freedoms [h/t Jack].
I tend to think of myself as a libertarian or at least as having strong libertarian tendencies. What this means, I think, is that I recognize the gubmnt has important roles such as law enforcement, provision for contract enforcement and the common law, and (dare I say this) the provision of some sort of social safety net. But the problem with this last gubmnt activity is that it creates distorted incentives and opens the door for lobbying for increased gubmnt actions to raise the height of the social safety net. This is a problem, potentially, because the higher the social safety net, the lower are the incentives for people to prepare for and plan for different contingencies in their own lives.
Unlike many libertarians, I am willing to tolerate this problem to some extent. I am willing to use the force and power of gubmnt to require that we all become "our brothers' keepers" to some extent. But not much, especially when individuals choose to take risks of serious personal loss that they ought to know about and ought to prepare for (yes, this is a normative statement).
[C]ritics of libertarianism will never run out of empirically plausible "hard cases." When faced with these hard cases, the best response we'll ever have is, "Charity can probably provide for the deserving poor. Everyone else should live with the consequences of their actions - and stop blaming total strangers for failing to help them."
This conclusion of his posting captures my views pretty well. At the same time, I have little objection when the gubmnt provides some basic family welfare (e.g., beans have high protein content and will keep people from starving).
Having said this, though, I'm not at all in favour of using gubmnt to force us all to help out all people who suffer calamatous losses. For example, consider those who lose their homes to hurricanes, floods, etc. These are clearly insurable risks, and it is beyond me that people choose to live in high risk areas without having adequate insurance. If the answer is that the insurance premia are "too high" (whatever that means), then I still see their choice to live there as a voluntary decision; they could have lived elsewhere.
In these instances, I support the role of (and indeed have contributed to) private charity to help people through the transition after natural disasters, and I have offered assistance to people who have maxed out their deductibles and co-pays for various unexpected calamities. And that is an important part of my quasi-libertarianism: private charity must step up, especially to the extent that gubmnt doesn't always do a very good job.
I hope I have made it clear in my previous postings on this subject that I do not oppose free and open inquiry into any religion. The concern we raised in our initial letter, and which we continue to emphasize, is about the source of the funding for the proposed chair in Islamic Studies at Huron College, which is affiliated with The University of Western Ontario.
Because I was the primary signer of the initial letter, my name appears in this article quite a bit. Let me make clear, though, that even the initial letter was a group effort.
From the article,
The UWO-affiliated college is caught in the crossfire of a decision to accept money from Muslim groups -- one local, one international -- to help fund a new chair in Islamic studies. Critics say there's a link to violent jihadism there and the $2 million could influence school courses and choice of chair. Huron College insists neither is true.
Based on numerous items, I am concerned about the quality of the "due diligence" performed by Huron College in their investigation into the nature of the source of funding for this endowed chair. I really hope they will re-open the question for discussion and additional input.
Geert Wilders, outspoken Dutch critic of Islam and producer of the (in)famous film, Fitna, spoke in London, Ontario, last evening, under a cloak of secrecy and surrounded by a wall of security.
Wilders is a well-known public figure who sees Islam as more of an ideology than a religion. During his talk, he lambasted multiculturalism. Two quotes:
Multiculturalism is the biggest disease in Europe today.
And the reason for that?
Multiculturalism would not have been such a catastrophe if it weren't for Islam.
Because of his views, his public statements, his film, and his policy proposals, Wilders' life is constantly in danger. The organizers of the evening event, the International Free Press Society, refused to advertise the dates and locations of his talks while he is in Canada. Instead, we found out about them through word-of-mouth and then had to register before receiving the information [he does have two more talks planned while he is in Canada, in case you are interested; the information is available at the IFPS website].
Accompanying Wilders were about 10 security personnel from The Netherlands; also the RCMP had a large security contingent on hand. We all went through a security check before being admitted to the place where he spoke.
This is just plain wrong. People speaking about religion and ideology should not live in fear for their lives and the lives of their friends and families.
Geert Wilders:
The warm-up act for Wilders was a dialogue between Ezra Levant (of human rights and freedom of the press fame in Canada) and Sam Solomon, a noted scholar of Islam and Sharia Law; it was mostly an interview of Solomon by Levant. During that interview, Solomon (who converted to Christianity and was at times quite coy about his past) proclaimed,
If you do not hate, you cannot be a complete Muslim.
Both Wilders and Solomon are very outspoken critics of Islam.
Here is a photo I took of Solomon and Levant ( all my photos from the event: twelve-times optical zoom, no flash, from about 50 feet away):
The session was introduced by Bjorn Larsen, who recently filmed a documentary about Caledonia, freedom, and property rights and who heads up the IFPS:
One more photo of Wilders, who was extremely engaging and compelling as a speaker:
The truly sad aspect of his visit is that because of concerns about safety, the organizers are not willing to advertise the dates and locations of his visits. However, by clicking on the link above, you can find the cities he is visiting and you can register to attend the talk. From that site,
Since 2004, Geert Wilders has been living under 24-hour police protection because his life is threatened by extremist Muslims. In 2008, Mr. Wilders gained international attention when he wrote and commissioned Fitna, a short documentary that explored Koranic inspired motivations for terrorism, Islamic universalism, and Islam in the Netherlands.
Mr. Wilders travels the world in defense of liberty and freedom of expression.
I'm planning to attend the session, which will also include a presentation by Ezra Levant. The get-together is organized by the International Free Press Society.
Even if you don't agree with Wilders (or Levant, for that matter), I hope you agree they should be free to say the things they say. Competition in the marketplace for ideas is both valuable and powerful.
Last evening I attended a talk by Preston Manning, founder of the Reform Party in Canada and former leader of the opposition. He is a very engaging speaker.
While his talk was about grass-roots democracy in the prairies, I was delighted with the point he made both during his talk and in speaking with him afterward, namely that the essential elements of freedom (from his perspective) comprise freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. He does not include freedom of religion with these freedoms for the same reason that I don't: namely concern about the clashes of religious beliefs with the freedom of speech in theocracies.
Addendum: For those interested in a detailed summary, see the "dead blogging" done by John Klein here. He and I attended the event together, and he graciously took the above photo using my iPhone.
In my mind, freedom of speech/press must trump freedom of religion. If my saying or publishing something controversial contravenes the tenets of any religion or organization, those tenets must give way to my freedom to express those views.
In my mind, that is what Geert Wilders is fighting about. Here are some excerpts from his opening remarks, defending himself for allegedly having engaged in hate crimes.
This trial is not about me. It is about something much greater. Freedom of speech is not the property of those who happen to belong to the elites of a country. It is an inalienable right, the birthright of our people. For centuries battles have been fought for it, and now it is being sacrificed to please a totalitarian ideology.
Future generations will look back at this trial and wonder who was right. Who defended freedom and who wanted to get rid of it.
The lights are going out all over Europe. Our freedom is being restricted everywhere, so I repeat what I said here last year:
It is not only the privilege, but also the duty of free people — and hence also my duty as a member of the Dutch Parliament — to speak out against any ideology that threatens freedom. ... I hope that freedom of speech will emerge triumphant from this trial. I hope not only that I shall be acquitted, but especially that freedom of speech will continue to exist in the Netherlands and in Europe.
Notice that by careful editing, I have removed any reference in these remarks to the nature of his alleged hate crime. I've done so because it doesn't matter whether he offended Jews, Catholics, Muslims, sociologists, or even graduates of York University. He's right.
Whether you like what Lars Hedgaard said or not, and whether you like the reason for the acquittal or not, the very fact of the acquittal is an assist in the support of freedom of speech.
When I see the political abuse of "hate speech" laws, these laws cause me great concern. I'm not sure where to draw the line, if one must be drawn, but I certainly prefer the concept of "competition in the marketplace for ideas" to legislative and judicial control.
For more specifics on the Lars Hedgaard case, see this and this.
Let's get one thing clear: WikiLeaks is not entirely about freedom of expression. It is also about publishing stolen information. It does, however, raise an interesting question about who should have what legal entitlements to do what with intercepted or stolen diplomatic communications. This point is made quite forcefully by Janet Daley in The Telegraph.
In its self-contradictory maintenance of its own untraceable operations, it [WikiLeaks] effectively declares itself to be the only agency in the world that is entitled to secrecy. Its insistence that it is somehow a voice of open and transparent “freedom of expression” is simply absurd: there is no issue here of any individual or group openly expressing an opinion that would otherwise have been suppressed. The only opinion that is implicitly conveyed by WikiLeaks’ exposures is the boringly prosaic anti-Americanism of the average Guardian comment writer.
All that WikiLeaks has done, as its name suggests, is to publish stolen documents that were purloined by a malcontent within the US defence network. As it happens, the leaked material has been almost entirely unsurprising, apart from one rather spectacular own goal in WikiLeaks terms: it turns out that a number of Gulf states have been urging the US to strike at Iran before it succeeds in producing nuclear weapons, and that the US has been resisting this pressure. This tends to undermine both the image of America as trigger-happy warmonger and the idea that the entire Muslim world is united in hatred and distrust of the Great Satan.
There are, of course, at least two parties involved in the WikiLeaks: those who "stole" the documents and provided them to WikiLeaks; and WikiLeaks itself. WikiLeaks is probably more like a publisher than anything else and will quite possibly be protected under freedom of the press. At the same time, I'm not sure that freedom of the press protects disclosure of "official secrets"; my recollection from The Pentagon Papers escapade of 1971 is that it does in at least some instances (for example, see this); but even if it doesn't, if the only relief is injunctive, it's too late now -- the cat's already out of the bag.
Freedom of speech is not absolute. When the costs of competition in the marketplace for ideas outweigh the benefits (e.g. shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre), that type of speech is not allowed.
Freedom of speech does not mean that others must provide scarce resources for you to exercise this right. We have no obligation to provide you with a radio station, a newspaper, or any other venue to present your views. What we do have is an obligation to let you use your own scarce resources to promote your views (so long as doing so does not violate the first point, above).
I'm writing about this because recently I was accused of violating someone's freedom of speech.
The situation was this: there has been a huge debate on the campus of The University of Regina about whether the students should remain members of the Canadian Students' Federation. As is usual in situations like this, students often approach professors, asking if they can have a few minutes at the beginning of class to address the students in that class.
I have never allowed presentations like this (or about job opportunities, etc.) in my classes. And so when I was approached outside one class by someone from one faction I replied, "Absolutely not!" And later that day, when I was approached by someone else from the opposite faction outside a different class, I again replied, "Absolutely not!"
I then informed the students in both classes not to ask to address their classmates on matters not directly related to the coursework, explaining that in my 64 years of teaching, I have never permitted my classroom to become a forum for political debate or entrepreneurial activities.
I was quite surprised that evening to receive the following e-mail message:
John,
I am sure you have received an email from URFA [University of Regina Faculty Association] announcing that should be allowing students to engage in the freedom of speech. They support the allowance of students speaking about the referendum. Today you disallowed me from speaking in your class, but we will most likely be sending someone again as we think it is vital for students to be aware of the referendum and becoming engaged university citizens. Please re-consider your decision.
Thank you,
I responded that I had not received any such e-mail and that I had checked with colleagues who informed me there is no university obligation to let students address the classes on such topics. I also pointed out the difference between freedom of speech and freedom to use other people's scarce resources to promote an idea. And I noted that both sides of the campaign use pamphlets, posters, tables in the corridors, etc. to promote their views to their fellow students; there is clearly no abrogation of "freedom of speech" taking place here.
And now, several days later, I am still bothered by the incident. It turns out the Faculty Association at The University of Regina has been debating whether faculty members should say anything or allow the students to say anything about the CFS. They have not issued any e-mail obligating us to do anything.
Also, as one my colleagues discovered, allowing students from one side of an issue to make such a presentation leads to demands for equal time from students supporting the other side; classrooms become debate forums, taking time away from what should be going on there. If students want the university to provide debating forums, I'm sure the university would oblige (and probably has). But there is no plausible argument to cut into class time to provide those forums.
Update: no student approached me prior to any of my ensuing classes, asking to address the class.
That sentence was uttered, not by a terrorist suicide bomber, but by a child actor in the notorious video "No Pressure". [see this, h/t Jack]
The parallels are disturbing: Children and young people from different walks of life being brain-washed into being willing to sacrifice their lives for a cause.
For another parallel, see this, about some veiled threats against atheists from some Christians in Oklahoma [from Ted Frank, no link available].
I understand and agree with the need to teach children and youngsters the importance of principles and morality. But killing and threatening to kill those who disagree with you is rarely, if ever, defensible (I was a pacifist for much of my life). I much prefer competition in marketplace for ideas.
Gerry Nichols tells of his work for a more-libertarian and less social-conservative candidate for the Republican nomination for the Senate in New Hampshire. His column in the National Post reminds me of the difficulties that often ensued when the more-libertarian and more-social-conservative folks formed a shaky coalition in Canada called "The Reform Party".
Once again in the US, it looks as if the social conservatives are tending to dominate and are making life very difficult for those candidates with more libertarian views. Bill Binnie, the candidate for whom Gerry was working, wrote,
To me, if you’re a Republican, it means you stand for the very principles which made America great, principles such as freedom, individual rights and tolerance … Yet elements within my own party have a different vision of what it means to be Republican. They are more about imposing moral values than individualism, more about allowing government to dictate decisions on issues that should be a matter of personal conscience.
The fact is: Social conservatives have come to dominate the Republican Party and they will simply not tolerate social moderates in their midst. That’s too bad because they are driving away good candidates. In the process, they are making the Republican Party weaker, narrower and less electable.
And let me add that if the social conservatives are driving the libertarians out of the Republican party, I cannot wish them well. I resent the anti-freedom, big-gubmnt views and policies of both major parties in the US, and I worry that we are facing a similar situation in Canada.
Here is yet another disturbing story about female children in Yemen being treated as chattel to be sold off as brides to willing bidders. In this case it was a swap, a trade in kind: my sister for your sister [h/t Gary]:
The practice of marrying young girls is widespread in Yemen and drew the attention of international rights groups seeking to pressure the government to outlaw child marriages.
Legislation that would make it illegal for those under the age of 17 to marry is in serious peril after strong opposition from some of Yemen's most influential Islamic leaders...
More than a quarter of Yemen's females marry before age 15, according to a report last year by the Social Affairs Ministry....
Last month, a group of the country's highest Islamic authorities declared those supporting a ban on child marriages to be apostates.
Okay, I guess I am an apostate. News stories like this one highlight the importance of understanding that freedom of religion cannot be and should not be absolute. There are far too many religious practices and dictates throughout the world that impinge on and threaten other personal freedoms that I consider more important.
Mark Steyn, outspoken as usual, has some interesting comments about the policies from YouTube and other places concerning items that are pro-Israel (compared with some that are definitely anti-Israel). His concluding remarks reveal the biases:
Their [YouTube's] technological iconoclasm is, alas, all too often accompanied by soft-left squishiness on broader philosophical points such as freedom of expression. I long ago lost count of the number of places, from Toronto Airport to Marriott hotels, that have SteynOnline blocked as a "hate" site. Oddly enough, jihadist networks calling for death and destruction of western civilization, including the crappy Marriott round the back of the airport, never seem to fall into the "hate" category.
"I really enjoy your site, and I'm planning to assign your blog to my students. I love to find "real world" examples to supplement the text, and your blog is terrific for that. Thanks for writing it!" -- J.A.B.
