Now Tyler Cowan takes a run at libertarianism

Not Losing Sight of the Classical Liberal Ideal – Richard M. Ebeling (01/07/2020) – WallStreetWindow.com:

January 7, 2020 - "Today, the media and ... public policy publications are awash in articles and essays insisting that the postwar 'neoliberal' era has finally and inescapably come to an end.... Most of these criticisms and challenges have come from 'progressives,' the new 'democratic' socialists, and a growing number in the Democratic Party.... But criticisms and rejection of domestic and international liberalism have also come from conservatives, who have called for a 'new nationalism,' that would require a more 'activist' state to serve national interests and identity....

"Now another voice has offered his view on whether or not classical liberalism and libertarianism can survive in their historical forms of defending individual liberty, free markets, and a government primarily limited to the protecting of people’s individual rights to life, liberty and honestly acquired property without interventionist regulation and compulsory redistribution. And his answer, too, is, 'No.'

"Tyler Cowen is a prominent professor of economics at George Mason University in Virginia. He has written a number of insightful books devoted to aspects of the economics and culture of a free society, and has written regular columns for both The New York Times and Bloomberg News. He also co-authors the provocative and widely read blogsite, 'Marginal Revolution'....

"The gist of his argument is that classical liberalism and libertarianism are out-of-date and passé political philosophies that had their relevance and significance in the 19th century for advancing the cause of personal liberty and freer markets, and during the first half of the 20th century as an argument against radical socialist central planning. But society and its problems have moved on and what people want from their government has become more expansive....  That’s just the way it is, Professor Cowen asserts. Live with it and give up the classical liberal and libertarian idea of prosperity and a highly limited government. With prosperity will come bigger government, he asserts.

"The 'inevitability' implied in this is, in fact, nothing of the sort. It could be just as reasonably argued that as the members of the society grow in wealth and improved standards of living, they will need and desire less government dependency and support. Rising standards of living enable more people to financially support themselves, as well as providing the means for those gaining in material comfort and ease to have the monetary means to demonstrate more willingness and generosity to assist some who may still be less well off than themselves through avenues of private charity and philanthropy; plus, having the greater leisure time to participate in such endeavors through the institutions of civil society.

"Why any such spirit of private giving and benevolence has diminished in fairly wealthy countries in Europe and in various circles in the United States may be taken as the consequences resulting from governmental redistributive largess and an ideology that has weakened the belief in or the goodness of 'self-reliance' and personal responsibility.... Ten years ago, the German news magazine “Der Spiegel,” reported that in a survey of leading businessmen in Germany, the vast majority said that private giving was not their responsibility; it was the job of government....  Where did that come from, other than an ideological and intellectual culture that presumes and persuades too many in society that political paternalism is superior to personal responsibility and the voluntary private sector....

"Why do so many people accept the notion that imposing and raising legal minimum wages are good for people at the lower income levels? Do they have some inexplicable “propensity” to demand higher wages for others through government mandate as their own economic circumstances improve? I think the more reasonable explanation is a failure to understand and appreciate all the implications of the logic and reality of supply and demand in labor markets. That is, it is the result of wrong and faulty ideas that are sometimes easier to impress upon people than the often abstract and indirect chains of causation through which market processes operate, including in the demand for labor.

"So, if we observe that as wealth and material betterment have improved in our society, people at the same time have been supporting increases in redistributive welfare programs, the more rational explanation is an educational, cultural and intellectual setting in which academics and opinion makers and writers have been successful in influencing the climate of ideas in socialist and welfare statist directions through their ability to interpret the past and the present through the prism of their collectivist ideas."

Read more: https://wallstreetwindow.com/2020/01/not-losing-sight-of-the-classical-liberal-ideal-richard-m-ebeling-01-07-2020/
'via Blog this'

Beck joins Celebrity Santas paying layaway debts

Tyler Perry paid 1,500 Walmart layaway accounts, but layaway has risks - Vox - Nadra Nittle:

December 12, 2018 - "This week, filmmaker Tyler Perry and musician Kid Rock made headlines for taking part in what’s become a holiday tradition among some wealthy people: paying off the layaway accounts of strangers. Layaway allows shoppers who can’t pay for merchandise all at once to reserve the product and pay for it in installments. While stores offer layaway year-round, it is especially popular during the fall when consumers use it to purchase holiday gifts that typically cost at least $50.

"Perry cleared the Walmart layaway accounts of 1,500 Atlanta-area shoppers, a deed that totaled $434,000. Inspired by the Madea star, Kid Rock paid off $81,000 in layaway balances at a Nashville Walmart. And last week Gayle Benson, owner of New Orleans sports teams the Saints and the Pelicans, paid off about $100,000 in Walmart layaway balances."

Read more: https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/12/12/18138124/tyler-perry-walmart-layaway-risky-low-income-shoppers

Glenn Beck's Christmas Charity is a Great Example of Libertarian Principles - The Libertarian Republic - Caleb Shumate:

December 13, 2018 - "This past Saturday, nationally syndicated political commentator Glenn Beck demonstrated to our country the beauty of private charity when he and his family walked into a Walmart in North Richland Hills, Texas and spent $27,000 paying off people’s layaways for the holidays. Glenn did this while streaming on Facebook Live and then issued a challenge to Mark Levin, Steven Crowder, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other conservative commentators to do the same.

"Beck cited that he and his family were inspired to do this by Tyler Perry, who paid off $434,000 for 1,500 people.... This ... is an excellent example of our ideas put into practice.

"We often complain about the evils of the welfare state, but if we want the government to do less, we have to do more. I believe ... that if we get the government out of the way, we not only can but will help those in need more efficiently. Instead [of] the government 'robbing collective Peter to pay collective Paul,' we can help those in need by giving them a hand up instead of a handout....

"I will gladly voluntarily give my wealth and time to help those who need it, but I cannot stand for the government taking the wealth of individuals and then giving it to other individuals creating a never-ending cycle of dependency and then having the gall to call that help!...

"I want to thank Tyler Perry, Glenn Beck, and Kid Rock, for their sincere charitable actions and for showing the country, as well as the world, that private charity is always the way to go – and of course, for reminding us of the reason for the Christmas season."

Read more: https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/glenn-becks-christmas-charity-is-a-great-example-of-libertarian-principles/
'via Blog this'

Oxfam fighting "extreme" wealth, not poverty

Oxfam Cares More About Ideology than Poverty - Foundation for Economic Education - Working for a free and prosperous world - Martin van Staden:

January 27, 2018 - "Oxfam recently published its latest report on global inequality, pretentiously titled Reward Work, Not Wealth. In the report, Oxfam not only regurgitates all the same economic fallacies we’re used to — chief among them, the labor theory of value and the notion that wealth inequality is a problem to be solved — but it goes on to make dangerous and authoritarian recommendations to governments on how they should respond to this supposed 'inequality crisis'....

"Oxfam is among that cabal of non-government organizations that love the much-touted slogan that the world’s wealth is increasingly being concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people..... In this year’s report, however, Oxfam cites research that 2017 saw the biggest increase in the number of billionaires in human history; 'one more every two days,' the charity claims. But ... Oxfam ... considers this phenomenon as indicative of 'extreme wealth' ... a problem that must be ended.

"Either wealth is increasingly being concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people ... or, as Oxfam reported this year, there has been a substantial, indeed unprecedented, increase in the number of billionaires. Oxfam should decide what its angle is going to be....

"The report makes another incredible claim: globally, billionaires’ wealth increased by $762 billion in 12 months. According to Oxfam, this 'huge increase could have ended global extreme poverty seven times over.' There is, of course, a massive problem with this claim. In 2011 alone, the United States government spent more than $668 billion on 126 welfare programs.... According to Michael Tanner at the Cato Institute, the United States has spent nearly $15 trillion on welfare since the War on Poverty was declared by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964....

"Poverty is ended through employment, savings, and, crucially, a political environment conducive to economic freedom and economic growth; not by throwing money at the problem. Thankfully, on the up-side totally ignored by Oxfam, global extreme poverty has fallen dramatically over recent decades. It is likely that extreme poverty will be eliminated within the current generation. This won’t satiate Oxfam, however, because it concerns itself with the rich, not the destitute....

"Among a laundry list of state-centric suggestions, Oxfam calls on governments to 'use regulation and taxation to radically reduce levels of extreme wealth, as well as limit the influence of wealthy individuals and groups over policymaking.” It is safe to assume that Oxfam excludes itself — an extremely wealthy lobbying organization, having received over $244 million from governments alone between 2015-16 — from those groups that need limiting. It further advocates that governments should set targets 'for the collective income of the top 10% to be no more than the income of the bottom 40%'....

"It is high time that Oxfam be reduced to irrelevancy, at least as far as public policy goes. Its dodgy methodology, nit-picking of facts, and ideological commitment to the non-problem of inequality – at the expense of the very real problem of destitution – make it an intellectually dishonest player in policy advocacy. To the extent that Oxfam still engages in charity work, we must wish it all the best of luck. But solving poverty will not come out of its recommendations; instead, it will only yield more despair and tyranny.""

Read more: https://fee.org/articles/oxfam-cares-more-about-ideology-than-poverty/
'via Blog this'

An anarchist rereads A Christmas Carol

Misunderstanding the Moral of A Christmas Carol | The Anarchist Notebook:

December 24, 2014 - "Ebenezer Scrooge in A Christmas Carol is an extremely well known fictional character, and one people often like to use as the stereotype of corrupt businessmen who steal from people in order to enrich themselves.

"Yet, even as a child, I understood that Scrooge wasn’t a criminal; he was a shrewd businessmen. He also wasn’t obsessed with material possessions, for he lived an austere life and ate meager meals. What made him disagreeable was his stinginess, his harsh demeanor, and his personal treatment of people such as his only nephew....

"Dickens’ solution to altering Scrooge’s conduct was not through violence, coercion, or aggression. No law is passed demanding that Scrooge hand over his money to the poor.

"The three Spirits of Christmas merely show him things that were, are, and will be. Scrooge is then left to decide what he will do with the information given, and it is here he has a change of heart. What he does from thereon out is purely voluntary; it is true charity.

"As he demonstrated previously in Oliver Twist, Dickens is making a critical point lost on so many social justice warriors who insist on using the state to redistribute wealth. True charity comes from the heart, and this can only be done through free will. If you attempt to bring out the end through involuntary means, you will fail.

"Dickens is drawing a critical distinction between what is moral and what is legal, and how to respond. Scrooge’s behavior is selfish and therefore immoral, but selfishness is a moral issue, not a criminal one. He is not violating anyone’s rights. Therefore, the use of force against him is not justified.

"The moral of A Christmas Carol, the message it conveys, is that the moral society is one in which the wealthy care for the poor of their own volition. A society which forces the wealthy to care for the poor is not a moral one because it relies on coercion rather than true charity.

"The morality of every society originates from the heart of its people. It does not come from the state.

"On that note, God Bless Us, Everyone (except the state)."

Read more: https://anarchistnotebook.com/2014/12/24/misunderstanding-the-moral-of-a-christmas-carol/
'via Blog this'

Limits to charity

Charity Is Not How We Solve Poverty | Foundation for Economic Education - Jason Sorens:

February 19, 2017 - "In a famous 1972 article, 'Famine, Affluence, and Morality,' philosopher Peter Singer compared global poverty to a child drowning in a pond: ': '[I]f it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it. An application of this principle would be as follows: if I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignificant, while the death of the child would presumably be a very bad thing.'

"If we ought to prevent something very bad from happening whenever we can do so without sacrificing anything morally significant, then we also ought to spend much of our lives and wealth on rescuing people from starvation and disease.... Instead of buying a Starbucks coffee once a week, you could save that money – about $200 over the course of a year – and give it to a charity that saves lives. It’s morally wrong to buy Starbucks coffee when there are people dying around the world. Letting someone die so that you can enjoy Starbucks is like letting a child drown rather than getting your suit muddy....

"Singer’s argument faces two main difficulties. First, he thinks it’s obvious that consuming luxuries isn’t morally significant. But is that right?... Second, he thinks saving poor people’s lives is about as simple as wading into a pond and dragging a drowning child out of danger. But in fact it might be a lot more complicated.

"Let’s think about the first point. Global poverty is a really big problem. There are millions of people suffering from extreme poverty and a very high likelihood of early death. If it were always wrong to consume a luxury whenever there were someone whose life could be saved instead, we would in fact be morally obligated never to consume any luxury, and to spend essentially our whole surplus wealth and time on saving people. It’s as if there were millions of ponds with millions of children drowning in them. To live up to a moral duty to save every life, we’d have to spend our entire lives going from pond to pond.

"That kind of life might not be worth living. You’d be turning yourself into a virtual slave of the people you save. Your life would have no value to you.... It isn’t clear at what point it becomes morally permissible for us to focus on our own desires rather than spending our resources on saving others, but it’s definitely well before the point of 'marginal utility' (when you become as bad off as someone in extreme poverty). The point isn’t that you don’t have a duty to save people – you do – but there are limits, real though difficult to nail down precisely, to the duty.

"The second point is that saving people isn’t simple. Giving money to a charity that claims to help people may not do very much good and may even do net harm. Extreme poverty in the world today is generally the fault of some human organization or institution, usually a government but often rebel groups, gangs, and other purveyors of violence.... If giving to a charity empowers some vicious gang or government that keeps people poor, you’ve just made poor people’s lives worse....

"Extreme poverty is falling around the world, mostly because governments have chosen to let their people join the global marketplace. The biggest reductions in poverty have happened in China, where post-1980 market reforms have raised 680 million people out of poverty. One of the most important things we can do to better the lives of the poor is to fight for their access to property rights and to global markets."

Read more: https://fee.org/articles/charity-is-not-how-we-solve-poverty/
'via Blog this'

Niskanen economist urges Universal Basic Income

Why Should a Libertarian Take Universal Basic Income Seriously? - Niskanen Center - Edwin G. Dolan:

February 6, 2017 - "In a recent post on EconLog, Bryan Caplan writes, 'I’m baffled that anyone with libertarian sympathies takes the UBI [universal basic income] seriously.' I love a challenge.... Here are three kinds of libertarians who might take a UBI very seriously indeed.

"[W]hat galls many libertarians most about government is the failure of many policies to produce their intended results. Poverty policy is Exhibit A.... A UBI would help by ending the way benefit reductions and 'welfare cliffs' in current programs undermine work incentives ... a worker from a poor household can end up taking home nothing, even from a full-time job. A UBI has no benefit reductions. You get it whether you work or not, so you keep every added dollar you earn (income and payroll taxes excepted, and these are low for the poor).

"But ... Why would I work at all if you gave me a UBI? That might be a problem if you got your UBI on top of existing programs, but if it replaced those programs, work incentives would be strengthened, not weakened.... Or, you might say, a UBI might be fine for the poor, but wouldn’t it be unaffordable to give it to the middle class and the rich as well? Yes, if you added it on top of all the middle-class welfare and tax loopholes for the rich that we have now. No, if the UBI replaced existing tax preferences and other programs....

"Many classical liberals, even those whom purist libertarians lionize in other contexts, are more open to the idea of a social safety net.... In his book Law, Legislation, and Liberty, classical liberal Friedrich Hayek wrote, "The assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone, or a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself, appears not only to be a wholly legitimate protection against a risk common to all, but a necessary part of the Great Society."

"Once the philosophical hurdle is overcome, the practical advantages of a UBI become highly attractive. In terms of administrative efficiency and work incentives, a UBI wins hands down over the current welfare system, and beats even the negative income tax famously championed by Milton Friedman, another classical liberal,.

"The libertarian sympathies of still others arise from the conviction that all people should be able to live their lives according to their own values, so long as they don’t interfere with the right of others to do likewise. These lifestyle libertarians are drawn to a UBI because of its contrast with the nanny state mentality that characterizes current policies. Why should social programs treat married couples differently from people living in unconventional communal arrangements? Why should welfare recipients have to undergo intrusive drug testing? Why should food stamps let you buy hamburger and feed it to your dog, but not buy dog food?....

"A UBI is a policy for pragmatic critics of well-intentioned but ineffective government, for classical liberals, and for advocates of personal freedom. No wonder so many libertarians take the idea seriously."

Read more: https://niskanencenter.org/blog/libertarian-take-universal-basic-income-seriously/

Ayn Rand and altruism

What Rand Meant by Altruism | Foundation for Economic Education - Gary M. Galles:

January 31, 2017 - "February 2 is best known as Groundhog Day. But it also marks the birth of one of the most praised and criticized thinkers of the past century – Ayn Rand. Rand sold more than 30 million books. Atlas Shrugged has been ranked behind only the Bible as an influence on readers’ lives. She has also been stridently attacked for issues such as her militant atheism. But perhaps least understood has been her full-bore rejection of altruism....

"Altruism has commonly been held up as the standard for moral behavior. But Rand rejected it, asserting it was 'incompatible with freedom, with capitalism, and with individual rights,' and therefore "the basic evil behind today’s ugliest phenomena.'

"That head-on collision arises from French philosopher Auguste Comte, coiner of the term altruism. The altruists.org website says he believed 'the only moral acts were those intended to promote the happiness of others.' Comte’s Catechisme Positiviste asserts that altruism 'gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence,' and, therefore, 'cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such a notion rests on individualism.'

"In Comte’s view, any act performed for any reason beyond solely that of advancing someone else’s well-being is not morally justified. That implies taking a tax deduction for a charitable act strips it of its morality.... Something as seemingly innocuous as feeling good about doing good also fails Comte’s joyless standards. Even 'love your neighbor as yourself' fails his unlimited duty of altruism....

Rand’s 'virtue of selfishness' was a response to Comte’s demand for complete selflessness. Not only is a requirement for everyone to completely disregard themselves an unattainable ideal, it is self-contradictory. You cannot possibly sacrifice yourself fully for me, while I am also sacrificing myself fully for you. And if no one has any intrinsic value, why would the results, even if possible, be meritorious? With Comte as a starting point, more attention to people’s own well-being – more selfishness, in Rand’s terminology – is the only way to move toward recognizing value in each individual and significance in each life.

"Comte’s conception of altruism is also inconsistent with liberty, which was Ayn Rand’s focus. The duty to put others first at all times and in all circumstances denies self-ownership and the power to choose that derives from it. Everyone else maintains never-ending presumptive claims on every individual, overriding any rights they may have. In contrast, benevolence involves voluntary choices to benefit others of one’s own choosing, in ways and to the extent individuals choose for themselves.... The key distinction is between benevolence’s individual discretion, which recognizes our rights over ourselves and our resources, and altruism’s unconditional requirement to always sacrifice for others.

"An omnipresent duty of self-sacrifice also makes people vulnerable to manipulation by those who disguise power over others as 'really' a means to attain some noble goal. The desire to sacrifice for the good of others can be transformed into the requirement to sacrifice to the desires of leaders."

Read more: https://fee.org/articles/no-ayn-rand-did-not-want-us-to-be-selfish/?utm_medium=push&utm_source=push_notification
'via Blog this'

The Christian case for libertarianism

The Christian Case For Libertarianism - Brian Hawkins, The Federalist:

December 16, 2015 - "Libertarianism is the natural political ideology for Christians because it promotes individual freedom. 1 Peter 2:16 reads, 'As freemen, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God.' Men free from the chains of government can maximize our liberties to help our fellow man through private charity and evangelism.

"When government is limited, man becomes subject to the will of God as opposed to the will of man. Government weakens intimate bonds between the individual and the family, replaces individual charity with coerced redistribution, and uses the threat of violence against person and property in order to dictate the behavior of private individuals. The evils of government threaten all people, but ought to be particularly concerning to Christians....

"Compassionate conservatives and Christian progressives alike have cited the gospels as justification for the welfare state.... Yes, Jesus called us to love our neighbors, help the poor, feed the hungry, and tend to the sick; however, these are commands to individuals, not to the state.

"Compassionate justifications for the welfare state are illegitimate because true compassion is based out of one’s personal generosity. When the state attempts the role of charity, its only means of doing so is through physical force. To support its welfare state, government must tax private citizens, and quite heavily. If a citizen refuses to pay taxes, the government must resort to violence and imprisonment to force the dissenter to comply....

"One might argue that Jesus Christ’s command in Matthew 22:21 — 'Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” — exhorts Christians to dutifully pay their taxes and follow the laws of man. On the contrary, in Acts 4, state officials ordered the apostles John and Peter to cease preaching the gospel. John responded at verse 19, 'Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.' This seems to suggest that there is a point at which Christians may disobey their earthly rulers.....

"Too often government prevents Christians from doing their Christian duties. When the government levies taxes, we have less money to help the poor. When government restricts religious speech, we cannot evangelize. When government welfare policy encourages single-parenthood through financial incentives, the family is weakened. When government distributes Social Security checks, adult children neglect their responsibilities to their elderly parents. When government mandates that religious organizations provide contraceptives to their employees, we are forced to destroy God’s greatest gift — life....

"Traditional Christian theology proffers that man is inherently sinful. Man’s inherent original sin makes no person among us just, pure, or wise enough to govern other men. Too often we have found ourselves disappointed by politicians, kings, and other legal authorities. The rational response, therefore, is not to make more strict laws or to increase legal oversight. Rather, it should be to limit government power....

"Whether it is government forcing charity or banning social vices, it cannot make man better. Instead, only the grace of Jesus Christ liberates man from sinful and socially damaging behaviors. Consequently, Christians ought to be extremely hesitant and skeptical of government attempts to codify Christian morality into the law."

Read more: http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/16/the-christian-case-for-libertarianism/

'via Blog this'

Herbert Spencer's view of charity

"Charity Is in Its Nature Essentially Civilizing": In Defense of Herbert Spencer | Cato @ Liberty - Trevor Burrus:

April 17, 2015 - "Spencer writes with the peculiar verve of a 19th-century British intellectual, coming from the same milieu as anthropologists who would blithely discuss the 'savage and uncivilized mongoloid and negroid races.' Similarly, Spencer would insouciantly attack the lazy, shiftless, and incompetent.

"Post-modern relativism makes us balk at these absolute terms. In modern politics we tend to think more about the conditions into which people are born rather than their personal responsibility. Discussions of the 'deserving poor' and 'undeserving poor' are now largely uncouth.

"But to Spencer, as to most 19th-century political and social theorists, the distinction mattered. Like many modern libertarians and conservatives, Spencer was very concerned that profligate and indiscriminate assistance for the poor would incentivize bad behavior. Although many on the left loathe the idea that welfare can create bad behavior, most people understand that concern. To anyone who’s ever had to cut off ne’er-do-well friends or family from further charity in order to help them out, those concerns make sense.

"Viewing society as something like an organism, Spencer thought broadly about how laws and policies could either encourage or discourage certain behaviors. As a Lamarckian – someone who believes acquired traits are heritable – he was concerned that those bad behaviors would be transmitted down through the generations. His end goal was an affluent society based on voluntary interaction in which sympathy for fellow men thrived. If the government did too much to encourage certain types of harmful behavior, then Spencer feared that, in the long run, the pain and suffering would be greater.

"What types of harmful behavior? Spencer was surely against the cronyistic businessman who prefers to use government to extract from taxpayers rather than building an honest business that adds to the sum total of wealth in society. In a system that cultivated such people, the doctrine of 'survival of the fittest' would mean that 'the fittest' were cronies rather than honest businessmen. Under his view of social evolution, the cumulative effect of such crony-supporting policies would be a society in which innovative entrepreneurs are replaced by cronies who lack creativity and pluck and do business with an army of lobbyists. Laws that perpetuate such cronyism would be 'acts of parliament to save silly people,' to use a Spencer quote cited by Millhiser.

"Similarly, Spencer would also oppose the person who resides on the dole without working, the kind of person the British press, in particular, loves to highlight. Spencer believed, not irrationally, that facilitating such behavior will only breed more of it. Most importantly, in the long run there will be great suffering in societies that massively facilitate such behavior, whether it is cronyism or welfare dependency.

"Does this mean that Spencer wrote seemingly hard-hearted things like 'widows and orphans should be left to struggle for life and death?' Yes. To Spencer, the laws that categorically try to prevent such suffering would only result in long-term suffering. For those who refuse to help themselves, and for those who persist in patterns of bad, self-destructive behavior, it is true that he thought many should be allowed to die. Again, however, this belief is not as radical as it sounds. Both law and charity can only do so much, and human beneficence can only be stretched so far for those who are unwilling to change their behavior. Ask a social worker how much patience he has for the clients who don’t even seem to be trying, whether they are heroin users or morbidly obese diabetic smokers. 'I can only do so much,' the social worker would probably say. But for those willing to change their behavior, or at least to try, Spencer had great sympathy.

"He also believed that laws that try to solve suffering merely reorganize the goods of society without solving the underlying problem, namely, the conditions that produce and exacerbate poverty. As he wrote, 'If it gives enough to some who else would not have enough, it must inevitably reduce certain others to the condition of not having enough. And thus, to the extent that a poor-law mitigates distress in one place, it unavoidably produces distress in another.'"

Read more: http://www.cato.org/blog/charity-its-nature-essentially-civilizing-defense-herbert-spencer
'via Blog this'

No, Herbert Spencer did not advocate genocide

Will the Real Herbert Spencer Please Stand Up? | Cato @ Liberty - Trevor Burrus:

April 13, 2015 - "In a hit piece on Rand Paul posted on ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser has taken guilt by association to new heights, and, in the process, fundamentally misrepresented the views of Herbert Spencer.

"In 'Rand Paul’s Favorite Philosophers Think Poor People Are "Parasites,"' Millhiser attempts to connect Rand Paul to 19th-century classical liberal philosopher Herbert Spencer.... Millhiser offers no direct evidence that Rand Paul himself is a fan of Herbert Spencer.... Despite this bit of journalistic malfeasance, Millhiser marches bravely forward with further misrepresentations about Spencer’s ideas.... Millhiser is joining a long, if not admirable, tradition of people misrepresenting Herbert Spencer’s ideas in order to attack proponents of capitalism. As usual, those critics are wrong about what Spencer himself actually wrote and believed.

"Modern misrepresentations of Spencer can be largely traced back to Richard Hofstadter, famed historian and dogged opponent of capitalism.... In Social Darwinism in American Thought, Hofstadter, a one time member of the Communist Party, uses a type of warmed-over Marxism to argue that Americans embraced the idea of 'survival of the fittest' because 'dominant groups' were 'able to dramatize this vision of competition as a thing good in itself.' Herbert Spencer, Hofstadter argues, was at the heart of this transformation. Fast-forward seventy years and through countless misrepresentations by people like Millhiser, and Spencer is now nearly synonymous with the idea of 'social Darwinism,' that is, the idea that social programs and government actions to help the worst off should be rolled back in order to cleanse the race of undesirables....

"Millhiser calls Spencer’s philosophy 'genocidal libertarianism'.... Spencer’s most notorious statement, that if someone is 'not sufficiently complete to live, they die, and it is best they should die' is dutifully trotted out by Millhiser as an example of Spencer’s monstrous beliefs. As with most critics of Spencer, he ignores the opening sentence of the next paragraph: 'Of course, in so far as the severity of this process is mitigated by the spontaneous sympathy of men for each other, it is proper that it should be mitigated.'

"Like most libertarians, Spencer was a big believer in private charity. As George H. Smith wrote over at Cato’s Libertarianism.org:

Spencer opposed coercive, state-enforced charity, but he favored charity that is voluntarily bestowed. As a matter of justice, one should not be forced to help others; but as a matter of personal or religious ethics, one may be obligated to help others ...  he observed that it was becoming more common for the rich to contribute money and time to the poor, and he praised this trend as “the latest and most hopeful fact in human history”....

One must read Spencer’s extensive treatments of poverty and the poor to appreciate fully the outrageous misrepresentations of his critics. That Spencer was offended by such lies is dramatically illustrated by the fact that he broke off a close friendship of some forty years with Thomas Henry Huxley (“Darwin’s Bulldog”), after Huxley had written that, according to the Spencerian individualist, a poor man should be left to starve because charity interferes with “survival of the fittest.”

In reply to this accusation of “reasoned savagery,” Spencer wrote: “For nearly fifty years I have contended that the pains attendant on the struggle for existence may fitly be qualified by the aid which private sympathy prompts.”

"Spencer also believed that beneficence was an essential element of an advanced and evolved society.... '[T]he highest form of life, individual and social,' he wrote, 'is not achievable under a reign of justice only; but … there must be joined with it a reign of beneficence.' To this end, he devoted large parts of his Principles of Ethics to arguing that a fully evolved society would need more than merely the 'avoidance of direct and indirect injuries to others,' it would need 'spontaneous efforts to further the welfare of others.'"

"This little post is only the latest attempt to correct the record on Herbert Spencer."

Read more: http://www.cato.org/blog/will-real-herbert-spencer-please-stand
'via Blog this'

33% of Americans think charities would use tax money better than government

76 Percent Say Charities Would Have Spent Their Tax Dollars As Well or Better than Government - Hit & Run : Reason.com - Emily Ekins:

April 15, 2013 - "The latest Reason-Rupe poll finds that only 17 percent of Americans think their tax dollars improved society more than had they given that same amount of money to charity or invested it in private businesses. A third say their tax money improved society less than had private charities or businesses spent it, while 4 in 10 say it really makes no difference. In sum, over 70 percent of Americans say private charities or businesses would spend their tax dollars as well as or better than government....

"Part of the reason so few Americans think their tax bill improved society more than had they given that money to charity or private business, is that they believe government wastes 50 percent believe government wastes 50 percent of its tax revenue....

"Those with higher levels of education and income were considerably more likely to say charities would improve society more with their tax dollars than government. For instance, those with college degrees (44 percent) were nearly twice as likely as those with high school diplomas (25 percent) to say charities would have better spent the amount they paid in taxes in 2013.

"Younger people are also more likely than older people to say private charities would have improved society more with their tax money: for instance, 40 percent of 18-24 year olds say [government] improved society less compared to 22 percent of seniors (over age 65)."

Read more: http://reason.com/blog/2014/04/15/76-percent-say-charities-would-have-spe2
'via Blog this'

"Cowboy Libertarian" talk-show host promotes “Horses for Heroes” chairty

Saddle up: Cowboy Libertarian on a unique “Horses for Heroes” mission — for the vets | Politics Blog | an SFGate.com blog: - Carla Marinucci, "The Spin Cycle", San Francisco Chronicle:

July 9, 2013 - "Cowboy Libertarian radio talk show host Patrick Dorinson is ... driving cross country to help out a great organization called Horses for Heroes, a non- profit which aims to provide a unique therapy to members of the military who have sustained combat injuries.

"The horsemanship and wellness program based in Santa Fe is free to veterans and active military who have sustained physical injuries or combat trauma (PTSD) during service.

“From day one, veterans are hands on with our horses beginning with groundwork and progressing to riding, as well as participating in other aspects of ranch life, including working cattle and more importantly experiencing the camaraderie with cowboys who are Veterans themselves,” according to the organization which is staffed 100 percent by volunteers."

Read more: http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2013/07/09/saddle-up-cowboy-libertarian-on-a-unique-horses-for-heroes-mission-for-the-vets/
'via Blog this'