TT's Lost in Tokyo

Note to Larry Lessig: Shall we amend the Constitution, but ignore possible reforms to limited liability corporation laws in the fifty states?

TokyoTom — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:18:00 GMT

[Note: Cross-posted from my HLS blog.]

When Larry Lessig launched his "Anti-Corruption Pledge" last year, I commented on the Wiki page he set up for it, and left a copy in an earlier blog post.

Larry responded the next day. I copy here both his reply and my counter-comment:

But even if Limited Liability is a more fundamental problem, which I’m not convinced it is, but if: You still need the means to address it, which you don’t have till you address the money problem first. Lessig 10:44, 5 March 2012 (EST)

Larry, thanks for your comment, but I’m not sure I follow you. I think it is a fundamental mistake to ignore that corporations are created in states, despite their tendency to accept if not push for the federalization of corporate law.

Sure, we can try to address money in campaigns at a federal level, but that’s no reason to turn our back on the leverage that we have in fighting for more responsible corporations – and corporate owners. It’s alot easier to win at least one small victory when you’re also fighting in 50 smaller fora rather than just one big one. TokyoTom 14:44, 17 March 2012 (EDT)

Yes, there's a problem with "Libertarian Wishful Thinking." But there's hope, despite Bob Higgs' clear-sighted glumness.

TokyoTom — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:23:00 GMT

Robert Higgs, Senior Fellow in Political Economy and Editor at Large, The Independent Review, has a piece up at The Independent Institute (last Tuesday, April 9), "Libertarian Wishful Thinking," that is worth a "gander".

I'd like to focus on the paragraphs excerpted below, and then give Bob and other lovers of freedom a little "goose".

Says Mr. Higgs:

As a rule, libertarians incline toward wishful thinking. They constantly pluck little events, statements, and movies from the flow of life and cry out, “Eureka! Libertarianism is on the march!” With some of my friends, this tendency is so marked that I have become amused by its recurrent expression—well, there he goes again!

Some of this tendency springs, I believe, from their immersion in abstract thought and writing. ...

One who maintains, as I do, that the existing system may crumble little by little, having heedlessly sowed thousands of poisonous seeds of its own destruction, but almost certainly will never just roll over and admit defeat, may seem to be a defeatist. But nothing is gained by entertaining an unrealistic view of what liberty lovers are up against. Even if one believes, as I do, that the existing system is not viable in the very long run, it may last in episodically patched-up forms for a long, long time. There are no magic bullets, such as abolishing the Fed. The state can use other means in the highly unlikely event that it should no longer have the Fed in its arsenal. The same can be said about most of the system’s other key elements. ...

In truth, the time for liberty lovers to make a stand that had a fighting chance of success was a century ago. But that chance was squandered, if indeed it ever packed much punch. ... Wishful thinking about the impending triumph of liberty may be uplifting for libertarians, but it avails neither them nor the world anything of real importance.

But it seems to me that while there is a great deal of truth here, simply acknowledging that vested interests are large and block change is not particularly productive and suffers from a failure to see the weak points in Goliath/Leviathan. Are there really no "magic bullets"? Are there no productive and achievable ways to "patch up" the system?? No leverage to apply to overthrow "this fascistic Rome"?

So I left the following comment; your further thoughts, here or at Bob's post, are welcome:

While I think Bob is right that libertarians should lose their wishful thinking, I also feel that the real problem is that libertarians aren't really putting on their thinking caps and thinking creatively.

"There are no magic bullets," Bob says. But there ARE pressure points on which to focus.

Like attacking the corporate risk socialization that has fuelled upset citizens to act as Baptists in the charade so well played by the Bootleggers in building the Regulatory State.

Like using the states as experiments to create many agents of Creative Destruction against the Federal Govt and the crony capitalists.

Some thoughts here:

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tokyotom/2012/05/07/note-to-larry-lessig-on-his-anti-corruption-pledge-limited-liability-corporations-are-the-taproot-of-both-growing-government-and-anonymous-rent-seeking/

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tokyotom/2013/03/22/as-bob-monks-says-corporate-governance-has-failed-and-its-time-to-move-on-so-whats-next-unleash-the-hounds/

http://mises.org/community/blogs/tokyotom/search.aspx?q=limited+liability

I don't think we need to throw our hands up at all, or to lose our optimism. Rather, we need to start finding ways to rein in risk socialization and the "Other People's Money" game by requiring economic actors to have MORE personal "Skin In the Game."

Hopefully,

Tom

TokyoTom | Apr 15, 2013 | Reply

Are you bold enough to be a RebelMouse?

TokyoTom — Sat, 23 Mar 2013 09:49:00 GMT

Just stumbled upon a website offering an interesting feature: a personal page that reposts tiles/thumbnails of your tweets and RTs that contain links and favorities, as well as to your Facebook page and such blogs as you care to link to.

I logged on, and it made a beautiful page from just my Twitter activity, with the newest content on top and tabs for less recent tweets. Mine is here: TokyoTom. I added tabs that link to my Facebook page and to my LvMI blog, though I haven yet figured out how to change the tab order.

The RebelMouse Blog is here: https://www.rebelmouse.com/RebelMouse/#

The proprietor of RebelMouse describes it this way:

RebelMouse organizes your social presence into a beautiful, dynamic and social site -- in minutes. It's based on the idea that people are proud of what they share on social networks, but are starting to feel embarrassed about their websites. RebelMouse is your social front page and automatically updates as you post on social networks as well as when you blog directly on your site.

But you don't have to take our word for it; check out these articles by amazing writers:
By Sarah Lacy of Pando Daily
By Allyson Shontell of Business Insider

We've also been using our own RebelMouse to help us collect press like the above and provide updates that will help users better understand RebelMouse and how they can get the most out of it :)

But another way to say think about this is: What if you could build an awesome, social-first blog without spending on developers and designers and losing hours on your own efforts?

What if you could be active and engaging on Twitter, Facebook and other social networks, and just because of that have an incredible site too?

What if you could also mix in your original content, creating blog posts, slideshows, and galleries on RebelMouse, complete with links that support your thesis (either personal or for your business or passion)?

Making this simple, effortless, and beautiful is our mission at RebelMouse.

Ready to take the next step? Learn how you can use RebelMouse!

Best,
Paul

Guest post: Is Koch money behind a conspicuous inconsistency? Reason.com on Kelo v. City of New London versus Reason.com on the Keystone Pipeline

TokyoTom — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 01:52:00 GMT

I present a guest post by libertarian blogger "Libertarian Soup". The original post is here; I have made no editorial changes, other than some tweaks to the title. He can be found on Twitter here, and on Facebook here.

Readers may recall that I have from time to time posted a few thoughts on some the apparent objectives of the Koch brothers.

Posted on 13 March, 2013 by LibertarianSoup

Often, critics of libertarianism will point to the influence of the Koch brothers and Koch industries on various libertarian orientated projects and organizations, suggesting that this influence plays a role in the philosophy promoted by the project and organization. While, I have often been a critic of the Koch brothers and Koch industries, I have generally thought that the Reason Foundation and Reason.com, an organization and project in which David Koch is a board member and one of the largest donors, was above this influence and covered libertarianism from a principled perspective, even if I often disagreed with this perspective.

The recent coverage of the Keystone Pipeline at Reason.com, contrasted to the coverage of the Kelo v. City of New London decision at Reason.com, has made me rethink this.

Reason.com on Kelo:

Reason.com on Keystone:

Property rights and the abuse of eminent domain is central to both the Kelo v. City of New London decision and the construction of the Keystone Pipeline, however, it seems clear that Reason.com has one perspective in the Kelo v. City of New London decision and an entirely different perspective for the construction of the Keystone Pipeline.

Why the different perspectives?

Koch Brothers Positioned To Be Big Winners If Keystone XL Pipeline Is Approved

“… What’s been left out of the ferocious debate over the pipeline, however, is the prospect that if president Obama allows a permit for the Keystone XL to be granted, he would be handing a big victory and great financial opportunity to Charles and David Koch …

The two brothers together own virtually all of Koch Industries Inc. — a giant oil conglomerate headquartered in Wichita, Kan., with annual revenues estimated to be $100 billion.

A SolveClimate News analysis, based on publicly available records, shows that Koch Industries is already responsible for close to 25 percent of the oil sands crude that is imported into the United States, and is well-positioned to benefit from increasing Canadian oil imports.

A Koch Industries operation in Calgary, Alberta, called Flint Hills Resources Canada LP, supplies about 250,000 barrels of tar sands oil a day to a heavy oil refinery in Minnesota, also owned by the Koch brothers.

… The company’s website says it is “among Canada’s largest crude oil purchasers, shippers and exporters.” Koch Industries also owns Koch Exploration Canada, L.P., an oil sands-focused exploration company also based in Calgary that acquires, develops and trades petroleum properties.”

Could this be why?

Patrick Henry had it easy; we, enfeebled by welfare and riven by divisions, face our OWN government(s) and crony capitalist elites

TokyoTom — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 02:13:00 GMT

"The War Inevitable"
A speech by Patrick Henry
March 1775

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received?

Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.

There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, Sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.

Three millions of People, armed in the Holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Beside, Sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of Nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone. It is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, Sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable. And let it come! I repeat, Sir, let it come!

It is in vain, Sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace! -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the North will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that Gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery! Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

IF the Planet's First-Ever Human-Precipitated Mass-Extinction is Underway, So What? || A dialogue between Libertarians

TokyoTom — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 06:17:00 GMT

I just stumbled across an old post and comment thread, that I thought some might find worth pondering, so am cross-posting it here.

* * *

Planet's First-Ever Mass-Extinction Precipitated by Humans

Should we be alarmed at the current massive die-offs being noted in the animal and plant kingdoms? After all, new species arise and old species die off all the time. Its just nature taking its course, right? Not necessarily. What’s different about this die-off is that this is the only such event precipitated by a biotic agent: humans.

read more | digg story

9 Comments:

James Rothfeld said...: Wrong. One of the largest extinctions in the history of our earth was when oxygen from photosynthetic life forms began to reach levels that were toxic for anaerobic life forms. Granted, the victims were mostly bacteria and some other simple life forms, but - extinction is extinction.

So, humans are not the first biotic agent to lead to massive extinctions.; 4/23/2009 01:43:00 AM
TokyoTom said...: James, thanks for honoring me with a visit and comment.

Of course, I mainly blog at LVMI - http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/ - and I`m not really quite sure what I did that caused this post (which is the intro to a longer piece that I didn`t write) to go up, but in any case I appreciate the engagement.

You have a valid point about the great switch from anaerobic to aerobic life, which many people seem to forget about, but:

- obviously the main comparison is which other great extinction events (caused by meteors/ volcanic/ climate events) that affected complex vertebrate and other life, not archaea or bacteria;

- the event you speak of actually CONTRIBUTED to the development of more complex life;

- there is plenty of anaerobic life still around and being discovered (even in rocks miles down), and we really have very little idea as to whether the switch to aerobic life caused any kind of massive loss of anaerobic species; and

- what we are now doing to the oceans - via "dead zones" resulting from fertilizer run-off and further changes expected from warming and pH changes will result in areas not "dead", but occupied by less complex anaerobic bacterial communities.; 4/23/2009 03:20:00 AM
James Rothfeld said...: Now you are weaseling out, Tom! You did not specify that you were only referring to complex vertebrae, but only seemed to talk about extinctions in general. I think this is arbitrary and obfuscates the point: the point is that extinctions are caused by all kinds of events, and at the time of the event, they are not horrible for most life forms (horrible being a function of going extinct).

The argument that the aerobic extinction contributed to more complex life forms does not really get us anywhere, since there is no reason to assume that higher life could not emerge out of anaerobic life. What can be said is that the aerobic extinction contribute to the emergence of complex aerobic life, but that's simply proving the assumption, or whatever logical fallacy we are dealing with here. The likely reason anaerobic life is rather simple these days is that it is forced to live in rather confined environs, including the gut of aerobic life.

The world's oceans seem to have passed through a number of anoxic events, and those life forms that made it through the malaise probably did quite nicely as competition was greatly reduced. I'm sure life as such will make it quite nicely through the next one as well. Whether we humans will make it through it remains to be seen, though I am actually quite optimistic (pessimistic??) that they will. In smaller numbers, but nonetheless.

I think it is too early to judge whether or not the current extinction will in fact be a disaster. I am in fact not even convinced we are really going through a particularly dramatic extinction - the claim about dozens or even hundreds of species going extinct is based on some pretty speculative reasoning.

As far as I know, there have only been about 300 or so documented extinctions in the last few centuries. I also don't think the the extinction of species limited to very small local habitats should really be counted: if the only place you can find a particular animal is a small island or a specific mountain, I suggest the species is done for no matter what.

I also don't think that anybody has yet established a relationship between species extinction and human survival (and don't start with the buffalos - the populations at First Contact were human artifacts).

But, back to the dead-zones in the oceans: I am amused that few ecologists have yet made the link between agricultural subsidies and fertilizer run-off. The link is so blatant and in your face, this oversight is almost telling.

In any case, I came by your blog because that's where clicking on your name at Crash Landing gets me.

Best,

JR; 4/23/2009 06:32:00 AM
TokyoTom said...: James, I was not weaselling out, but expanding on a point that you also acknowledged: "Granted, the victims were mostly bacteria and some other simple life forms."

The fact that remains that if there is a wave of extinctions underway as a result of the rise of opportunistic and technological man (with various man-related extinctions starting millenia ago), this is clearly different from prior catastrophic extinctions, which resulted from external physical impacts on the planet. That`s the comparison being made, and reference to the initial shift to oxic life forms is interesting, but irrelevant.

"there have only been about 300 or so documented extinctions in the last few centuries. "

This of course tells us little, since even now we have no comprehensive catalog of life.

"I also don't think the the extinction of species limited to very small local habitats should really be counted: if the only place you can find a particular animal is a small island or a specific mountain, I suggest the species is done for no matter what."

I fear you are right as to the "no matter what", but your conclusion that the extinction of localized species "shouldn`t count" is a value judgment. Good Austrians will recognize that others have equally valid preferences. Biologists and others familiar with the dimishing diversity of life express a deep sense of loss.; 4/23/2009 11:50:00 AM
James Rothfeld said...: Tom - I was just teasing about the weaseling in any case. What I am trying to get at is your last point: whether or not any of this is good or bad is in the eye of the beholder. Every activity has externalities - whether good or bad depends on the judgment of those affected, physically or otherwise, including emotionally.

So, yes, localized species extinction is certainly not good for the species affected or those who care about them. Maybe the world would be a better place with dodos and woolly mammoth in it, but maybe not. Who can tell?

I'm sure nomads think settled societies with their strict geographic borders stink, but farmers have little sympathy for dirty herders and their stomping herds.

Will the world be worse off if the only life forms to survive are those that serve human needs? Aesthetically, I would say no, but then again, those who will live in such a world will hardly miss what they have never known.

I don't lose sleep because there are no more Aurochs, even though I think they were really amazing animals. I also don't miss the dinosaurs, though other might differ.

In the end, it's all a question of preference - and who am I to say that my preferences are any more worthwhile than those of others.

Here’s another question I was wondering about, by the way, and it’s serious – if a change in technology would bring about economic ruin for a particular region and its population, simply because it would make their only product useless, would the inventor/users of this technology have to compensate the people who were damaged? Would the users of word processing software have to compensate print employees for lost jobs? Would users of the internet have to compensate newspaper workers for lost jobs? I’m not being funny, it’s an important question that is directly relevant for the question of property rights in the context of environmental change. I am sure you see the relevance. I have no real answer to this (except gut opinion). Any thoughts?; 4/24/2009 05:48:00 AM
TokyoTom said...: "Maybe the world would be a better place with dodos and woolly mammoth in it, but maybe not. Who can tell?"

I agree completely that this is a question of human judgment. However, we should acknowledge that we are bumping some species off the planet and squeezing others drastically (and many to a completely unknown degree).

"Will the world be worse off if the only life forms to survive are those that serve human needs?"

Are you confident that the species that don`t survive don`t serve human needs? Many we simply have no clue about, while others, such as whales, dodos, passenger pigeons, Steller sea cows and numerous crashed/crashing fisheries have been extinguished and are threatened not because of lack of utility, but simply because nobody owned them.

How much more shall we destroy, for want of investment in property rights/commons management?

" would say no, but then again, those who will live in such a world will hardly miss what they have never known."

Only partly true, as some of the world that we have been losing has been and will be documented.

"would the inventor/users of this technology have to compensate the people who were damaged?"

Not in a libertarian order. But I fail to see the relevance to "environmental" problems, either those that involve activities that damage the persons or property of others, or damage resources that are communally owned or are owned under regimes that fail to protect the resources. Care to clarify?; 5/19/2009 01:04:00 PM
James Rothfeld said...: My basic point is that every action has effects at least one person would perceive as injurious to their well-being, and would prefer that it rather not happen. If we were to refrain from all such actions, we would probably lose the freedom to act at all. Fundamentally, I want to argue that a 'negative externality' that cannot be dealt within a libertarian order has to be simply accepted as a given along the lines of 'shit happens'.
If we cannot find a non-libertarian solution to an environmental problem, than so be it. That's my only point. Nothing more, nothing less. Which is why I agree that in a libertarian order it's your tough luck that you lose your job because somebody else is smarter. It also means that if, for example, people using a specific aquifer cannot agree on a libertarian solution to its management simply have to suck it up. Or that if I live on a nice piece of land with a pretty view, and my neighbor erects an ugly building with garish design elements spoiling my aesthetic enjoyment, I'll have to suck it up - unless the two of us can agree on a solution.
I think some environmental problems have no libertarian solution. I don't know which they are, but maybe we simply have to accept that.
For example, there may be no libertarian solution to fighting asteroids about to hit our planet. Maybe we could collectively deal with it, but maybe not enough people can be bothered - or believe in it - and so the few who care simply have to deal with the fact that they will die, well-knowing that a solution was at hand.

To repeat the point: in my hierarchy of needs, freedom comes before security. If the price of freedom is to live in a world that will experience dramatic changes in climate, and if the only way to avoid is were to give up my personal freedom - then I'll accept the dramatic changes in climate.

That's my only point.; 5/20/2009 09:55:00 AM
TokyoTom said...: Thanks for the clarifications, James.

I`m not so far away from you, but come to different conclusions: where there are obvious commons problems, those who care about the problem should obviously work to resolve them.

This includes libertarians who are personally most interested in individual freedom, freedom that is imperilled by the state-heavy "solutions" that often underlie the problem (to the benefit of entrenched insiders) in the first place.

Far from leaving the field of battle to others, libertarian ought to be proactively trying to mediate, lest what they value most highly be trampled.; 5/20/2009 10:51:00 AM
James Rothfeld said...: Seems we ran out of disagreements :)

A few compass points on regaining control over our destinies

TokyoTom — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 04:32:00 GMT

A few compass points (thrown together in response to someone poking me at FB):

- To control our destiny, we need to bring governments, corporations and the institutionalized looting and risk-shifting they engender under control.

- We do this in part by re-asserting ourselves, and demanding accountability and skin in the game by all, and in part by disavowing, backing away from and eschewing government "protections" that serve to constrain and enervate us and our communities, while providing tools of control, wealth-extraction and market exclusion to self-interested men who are outside of our communities.

- We are not islands unto ourselves, and it behooves us to cooperate and build healthy bonds with others.

It's a bit general, but it's a start. Your thoughts are welcome.

A short Walter Block: Let's Pretend that the Problems of State-Supported Unions Have Nothing to Do with State-Supported "Capitalists"

TokyoTom — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 01:28:00 GMT

Yesterday I stumbled across the July 23 repost in LvMI Daily of Walter Block's article, IsThere a Right to Unionize?, which apparently originally appeared on LewRockwell.com, January 1, 2004.

I left the following comment:

Funny how Walter finds not worthy of mention the coercive role of the state in setting up limited liability corporations, whose founders and owners are absolved from personal responsibility for the injuries their creatures and managers (whom otherwise would be the Agents of the shareholders) cause to others (including to workers).

These favors to "capitalists" led naturally to abuses against workers (both by corporate-hired thugs and by formally "public" policemen) and more broadly to society (pollution, anyone?), which in turn led to the pro-labor laws and vast public health and safety regulatory state that Block and others at LvMI decry.

Is libertarianism only skin-deep here? Where are the heavyweights who see that the only way to roll back Big Government is to insist on an end to limited liability and other "protections" of shareholders that have served only to generate institutionalized moral hazard, opacity and unaccountability?

One does not have to scratch very hard to see the hand of the state, via corporations, police and the military, in both initiating violence against workers and in forcefully ending it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_violence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-union_violence

BLOWBACK in Benghazi and Cairo - it's not a BUG, it's a FEATURE

TokyoTom — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 02:09:00 GMT

For those befuddled about the "Global War on Terror" and the attacks on US embassies/consulates in Libya and Egypt, perhaps this bit of fun from The Onion in 1998 might help:

State Department To Hold Enemy Tryouts Next Week (excerpts below; go to link for full piece)

Taking steps to fill the void that has plagued the American military-industrial complex since the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright announced Tuesday that the U.S. will hold enemy tryouts next week. ...

The decision to hold enemy auditions was made during an Oct. 16 meeting at the Pentagon attended by a number of top military-industrial-complex officials, including Albright, Defense Secretary William Cohen, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Strom Thurmond (R-SC) and Lockheed Martin CEO Thomas Reuthven.

"Everyone was of the opinion that an enemy was needed–and fast," said Reuthven, whose company has laid off 14,000 employees since the end of the Cold War. "Nobody wins when there's peace."

General Electric CEO Jack Welch, who was also at the meeting, agreed. "Our profits are down 43 percent from 10 years ago. We sold more tritium hydrogen-bomb ICBM/MIRV triggers in 1988 than in the last six years combined," he said. "Something had to be done." ...

Speaking to reporters, McDonnell Douglas CEO Richard Klingbell said the State Department should have foreseen the possibility of peace and taken steps to avoid it years ago.

"For decades, we took Soviet aggression and the arms race for granted," Klingbell said. "We failed to realize that one day it might all come to an end. We failed to sow the seeds of future foreign discord, for our children's sake. Thankfully, though, we're finally setting things straight. We're finally remembering that to make it in this world, you've got to have enemies."

[Earlier posts by me on "defense" issues here: http://mises.org/community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/05/27/the-ironic-success-of-the-neocon-venture-as-us-influence-wanes-progress-in-the-middle-east.aspx and here: http://mises.org/community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/11/22/war-profiteering-and-quot-parasitic-imperialism-quot.aspx.]

Note to Larry Lessig on his "Anti-Corruption Pledge": Limited liability corporations are the taproot of both growing government and anonymous rent-seeking.

TokyoTom — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 05:16:00 GMT

I refer to the very recently-launched "Anti-Corruption Pledge" here, which is the latest project by prolific Larry Lessig, now a Harvard Law prof and head of a corporate reform center there (and whom I have introduced and discussed in a number of preceding posts).

Larry further describes the purpose and motivation of the Pledge at his blog. (I note that I'm strongly in favor of pledges, as I noted in this blog post discussing the Kochs.)

I left the following comment on the discussion page of the wiki that Lessig created for The Anti-Corruption Pledge:

Larry, you aren't really attacking the chief problem, which the role that STATE-Created limited liability corporations play in centralization and aggrandizement of power in Washington, which then further attracts rent-seeking by increasingly anonymous (who owns andruns these corporations, anyway?) organizations that wish to use a bloated government to receive favorable inside deals and to raise barriers to entry in their respective markets.

Corporations drive the growth of government because their LIMITED LIABILITY aspect means government protects shareholders from liability in the event of tort damage to workers/others/society. Citizens tired of holding the bag then must continually push legislatures and courts for "reform" that perversely helps to entrench the largest firms against newcomers.

Corporations are not simply the "Health of the State", but they're created in STATES, which accordingly MUST be a main venue to seek to rein them in. States can stop creating limited liability companies, can deregulate for non-limited liability firms (where owners retain a large tail of risk), etc.

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/search.aspx?q=limited+liability

Anonymity is not per se bad - the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers were written anonymously - it's the anonymity afford to those whom have already received important government privileges (viz., limited liability) that renders them and their agents unaccountable that is the problem.

Thus I don't see that public funding or limiting and requiring transparency of your broadly worded "political expenditures" (contributions? campaign ads?) really address the root problem.

Fortunately, there are 50 states in which to start campaigning for responsibility owned businesses whose owners are NOT protected by governments from the communities in which they operate.

Large, entrenched public companies are already seeing across-the-board declines in profitability and market capitalization (ask Robert Monks); they can be brought down by Schumpeter's process of "Creative Destruction".

From Orwell, Remy and Reason.tv: "Grandma Got Indefinitely Detained Now, Trying to Come Visit Christmas Eve!"

TokyoTom — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:36:00 GMT

Christmas fun at YouTube, from Reason.tv!

Remy: Grandma Got Indefinitely Detained (A Very TSA Christmas)

In seasons past, Grandma only had to worry about getting run over by a reindeer. With "Grandma Got Run Over by TSA," web sensation Remy gets us in the holiday mood with a song about Christmas, Homeland Security, and the joys of civil rights abuses.

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Great discussion of banking and monetary issues by Larry White of the Mercatus Center at Guatemala's "University of Free Marketers"

TokyoTom — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 06:34:00 GMT

I just ran across at George Mason University's Mercatus Center a helpful video featuring Lawrence H. White, professor of economics at GMU, discussing "Thoughts on Monetary Policy, Free Banking and Financial Crisis".

In watching the video, I noticed that White's inerviewer was Fritz Thomas, head of the School of Economics at the Universidad Francisco Marroquín, an institution I hadn't heard of. A little more digging shows this to be a relatively new (founded in 1971) but highly regarded private university in Guatemala founded by a student of Austrian economics, "Muso" Manuel Ayau.

Ayau, who died on August 4, 2010, was a businessman, educator and politician, a member and President of the Mont Pelerin Society, on the board of directors of the Liberty Fund and a trustee of the Foundation for Economic Education. In Guatemala, he was a member of congress from 1970–74, a presidential candidate in the 1990 elections, and served in other public capacities. Ayau founded Samboro,the largest tile producer in Central America, was the founding president of Guatemala’s stock exchange and served on the boards of IBM Latin America and of Guatemala’s central bank. Ayau also founded the Centro de Estudios Economico-Sociales; CEES grew into UFM, but remains extant and is now housed at the Ludwig von Mises Library on the UFM campus.

UFM, which is nicknamed the "University of Free Marketers," describes its mission as "to teach and disseminate the ethical, legal and economic principles of a society of free and responsible persons." Earlier this year Reason.tv posted a brief description of UFM and a 9 minute video: "Universidad Francisco Marroquin (aka University of Free Marketeers)" Says Reason, "In other words, the people at UFM want the people of Guatemala to be free. This is, of course, no small task in a country that has been plagued by political corruption and socialist policies for so long.

These days, the same can be said of the United States, though it is not so clear how much US citizens themselves want to be free.

More on UFM and Ayau at this 2010 article in the Latin Business Chroncle and in this 2008 article in the Los Angeles Times. Here is a link to the Manuel F. Ayau Society, which has been established to honor his memory.

Lawrence White is a distinguished expert on monetary theory and banking history. More on his background here.

And here, at last, is the link to the 41-minute video at UFM!

Great Tom Woods video addressing the unconsidered, reflexive fears by some progressives of Ron Paul

TokyoTom — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:32:00 GMT

On August 29, Tom Woods posted at YouTube a 9-minute video response to an AlterNet.org article "5 Reasons Progressives Should Treat Ron Paul with Extreme Caution."

Woods' video, entitled War Is Better Than Ron Paul, Say (Many) Progressives, is below.

Woods has also posted a few "resource pages" with videos and extensive links that respond to various other attacks on Ron Paul's purported positions:

http://www.tomwoods.com/democrats/

http://www.tomwoods.com/motherjones/

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/where-to-send-ron-paul-newbies/

For more videos, subscribe to Woods' YouTube channel, and keep up with hiswriting and other activities via Facebook and Twitter.

(Please visit the site to view this media)

A movement to amend the Constitution is ALREADY underway. See Harvard Law School's Larry Lessig on why we need to call for a Constitutional Convention

TokyoTom — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 16:40:00 GMT

HLS Professor Lawrence Lessig delivered his "Keynote from the Left" at the Conference on the Constitutional Convention on Sept. 24-26, 2011. The conference was co-sponsored by the Tea Party Patriots.

Lessig presented his speech again at Google on November 16, 2011; this is the speech/presentation posted below.

Lessig is the director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University and the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He co-founded RootStrikers (originally Change Congress (2008) and Fix Congress First!), which aims to reduce the influence of private money in American politics. Lessig is very well known for his work on maintaining an open Internet, but since joining Harvard several years ago has focussed on corruption and politics.

Lessig has joined with a new organization that just launched called United Republic. It is another coalition of people from the right, center, and left tackling the problems of money in politics.

Lessig is the author of a new book, REPUBLIC, LOST; How Money Corrupts Congress — and a Plan to Stop It. The NYT reiew of his book is here; here is another review at Bloomberg

Lessig's collection of his speeches is here. His blog is here.

More on the movement to call for an Article V Convention to amend the Constitution is here.

For more, see "How to sober up Washington"—an essay by Lessig and Mark McKinnon on corruption in Washington, voters' disillusionment, and the need for an Article V convention.

(Please visit the site to view this media)

What if Cato held a conference on how the War on Drugs was a massive FAILURE, but no one noted that the Feds and others BENEFIT SPECTACULARLY from all the costs?

TokyoTom — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 06:50:00 GMT

It might be unfair to judge just from the short clip below (put together by Reason.tv) that's making the rounds, but it appears to be the case that no one at Cato's Novermber 15 conference ("Ending the Global War on Drugs") - law enforcement, politicians, journalists, liberals, conservatives, libertarians and foreign officials, all presenting a litany of damning evidence about the tremendous costs of the "War on Drugs" - little attention was paid to what should be a sad but very evident fact:

the War on Drugs has been a smash hit for our Federal government, in its 230+ year battle to wrest power from the states, fo the politicians who campaign and parade around on "Law and Order" issues, for a host of government agencies (not the least our CIA and Defense and State Departments) and for, of course, a deep pool of contractors.

How can anyone with any understanding of regulatory capture, moral hazard and "public choice" understandings of the workings of indivuduals' incentives and institutional dynamics fail to see that, for those benefitting from the steady expansion of the War on Drugs that the need to ramp-up in response to its disastrous consequences are not failures or "bugs", but "features"?

The erosion of civil liberties after 9/11 that has been justified as necessary to keep us safe during a long "War on Terror" were all already well-underway as a result of our War on Drugs.

But a Police State is not a simple necessity, but something that benefits certain groups of people, at the cost of others.

If we ever hope to rein in policies that are destructive to most of us, we need to focus on naming, blaming, shaming and otherwise standing up to and imposing costs on those who benefit from them.

We used to think that we needed a Constitutional Amendment in order to federally prohibit the use of and trade in alcohol - note that tobacco, pot, cocaine and heroin were all untouched at that time. That the Constitution now provides essentially NO check on the Federal government is a good indication of how far we've come from those days, and leave one wondering -- do we now need a Constitutional Amendment not only to overturn the ridiculous and radical Citizens United (states can create "corporations" but not limit their ability to finance elections) decision (Senator Bernie Sanders has introduced such an amendment; Larry Lessig thinks a state-convened amending process is needed), but also to prevent the Federal government from regulating certain parts of the economy?

Clearly the Federal Government and those benefitting from it have no intention to relinquish policies that enhance its power.

Here's the clip:

(Please visit the site to view this media)