View Sidebar

Post Tagged with: Centralized Power

Economic Freedom for Medieval Jews

Economic Freedom for Medieval Jews

I just read an interesting perspective from Zack Beauchamp about the interplay between economic freedom and discrimination.  He was responding to this piece by John Tomasi, which in turn is based on a book that Tomasi wrote, so I’m about four degrees removed from the source already, but I wanted to respond specifically to Beauchamp’s point.

Beauchamp observes that Jews enjoyed a greater degree of social freedom when they acquired economic empowerment in the middle ages, and clearly any amount of freedom for any people would be preferable to none.  But given the rise of Jewish freedom in the middle ages due to newfound economic liberty, Beauchamp then goes on to say that “We cannot be blind to the way that other forms of discrimination and power imbalances can undermine those freedoms. Sometimes, dealing with these problems requires the active exercise of state power to protect minority rights, possibly by restricting on the freedom of private actors (including economic actors) to discriminate.”

I think this is an unfounded leap to make, especially in light of the evidence he presents.  Certainly, the pogroms and expulsions of Jews throughout the middle ages were a result of “the active exercise of state power,” not in spite of it, were they not?  In fact, in the history of antisemitism, perhaps no force has been more destructive than state power, whether it be at the hands of Edward I, Ferdinand and Isabella, Stalin, or–forgive me Godwin–Hitler.  In fact, even Beauchamp makes the point that the growth of Jewish economic freedom provided the pretext that “private and public” antisemitism needed.  So although Jews were able to acquire greater freedom in spite of discrimination, the freedom led to more discrimination, thus less freedom is needed to stop it?  It doesn’t make sense.

Jews have not achieved their freedom because of laws forbidding discrimination.  In most cases, especially in the Europe, those laws have only come about after Jews have achieved a sufficient degree of freedom to lobby for and pass those laws.  Throughout history, the trend has been the exact opposite: it is a history of antisemites using their clout and influence to undermine the freedoms of Jews (not to mention others who don’t agree) to disastrous results.

The solution for the plight of the Jews in Europe was not protectionism by a benevolent paternalist, it was freedom from it.  The formation of the State of Israel, for example, gave Jews a country where their economic and political freedoms were not constrained, resulting in great prosperity for that nation.  (Sadly enough, the ethnonationalism of Israel has contributed greatly to restricting the freedom of another people…once again, at the hands of state power.)

The fact is that freedom is not provided for by power.  In those cases where freedom is greatest–free speech and free religion in the United States comes to mind–the government is constitutionally restricted from infringing on those freedoms.  These freedoms are presented in our constitution as negative rights, not a positive ones: we don’t have a right to free speech, Congress specifically has no power to infringe on our free speech.  It is for this reason we say are a nation of enumerated powers, for the purpose that our government only has those powers specifically provided for by the people, and no more.

Beauchamp concludes by saying that he’s “not sure more doctrinaire libertarian accounts than his are well-suited to thinking this sort of problem.”  The doctrine of libertarianism specifically provides for a historical account of freedom as an increased reduction of the role of the state in economic and social affairs.  The largest violation of freedom in the United States–institutionalized slavery–only could exist with the endorsement of state power, not in spite of it.  The segregation of the Jim Crow era was a state institution, whose compliant private enterprises operated in a state of recurring fear of police power and intimidation.  But suffice it to say that libertarianism has an extremely long discourse on the topic of discrimination and freedom.  As it turns out, freedom is better for minorities than government policies.  So called anti-discrimination laws cause more harm than good.

The idea that more power will lead to more freedom is almost oxymoronic, and it goes especially so for the Jews, whose very existence is testament to the ability to resist power that has sought so often in history to destroy them.

June 27, 2012Comments are DisabledRead More
Too Little Central Control in the EU?

Too Little Central Control in the EU?

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” – Alexis de Tocqueville, misattributed

I had the extreme displeasure of reading Paul Krugman’s latest excretion today. He begins by complimenting (nay, sucking up to) the Greek people and ends by making a specious claim about the relationship between a strong central government and the success of the dollar vs. the Euro. He’s clearly not even trying to make a cogent argument anymore. I am neither a Nobel laureate nor a syndicated New York Times columnist, but I will try to respond in kind, by frothing at the mouth and seeing what comes out.

First off, I am able to begrudgingly come to common ground with Mr. Krugman on some points: One, that the Euro is responsible for Greece’s woes. Mr. Krugman, like George Soros, is right that the Eurozone is a terrible idea in the way it’s currently constructed. As a friend of mine recently emailed me, “Where were all these people 15 years ago when the Maastricht Treaty was signed? How did ANYONE think a monetary union without a fiscal union could work?”  Two, Mr. Krugman is right that austerity has been devastating for Europe. He gets no points for making obvious statements. Where he gets me every time is his continued advocacy of democratic socialism and big government spending at a time when the consequences of decades of such rampant opportunism and irresponsibility are clearer than they have ever been.

When times are good, people routinely credit whatever proximate cause they can, and for Europe for the last three decades, the cause célèbre has been “democratic socialism.” It is that wonderful post-Stalin Marxist ideal that attempts to solve the historically failed experiment of socialism by putting a friendlier face on it: we’ll do it Marx-style, but make sure we vote for it first. Thus the people retain their political sovereignty and, fingers crossed, economic productivity as well. Although, of course, we know that the economic productivity part is a joke, since it is based on the notion that people are A) fiscally responsible, B) more fiscally responsible in larger groups and C) able to spend other people’s money better than they can spend their own. But we know that when times are good, there’s no problem.  Political parties coming to power promising to lower the retirement age, shorten the work week, fund hefty retirements and guarantee low cost loans are always going to win elections against those parties that tout the boring virtues of hard work, discipline and fiscal responsibility.

But then times get bad, and the bill comes due, and austerity hits. No one wants to blame themselves, of course, so they turn to the scapegoats. The most wealthy and productive are a favorite of the democratic socialists. Mr. Krugman gets in on it when he complains about “the arrogance of European officials, mostly from richer countries.” Of course, when Mr. Krugman proposes that European governments continue to spend money they don’t have on social programs and entitlements that don’t work, where does he suggest they get the money if not from richer countries like Germany, that have not only singlehandedly funded the entitlements and social programs Mr. Krugman supports and have prevented much worse austerity which he opposes, but have kept the entire Eurozone afloat?

Europe is not suffering because of a lack of strong central government that can coerce the German people to paying for Spanish mismangement. It’s suffering preciely because it has too much power centralized in the hands of too few, a large central monetary union that has done precisely what Mr. Krugman wants it to do: increase spending in poor countries at the expense and risk of rich countries. The problem is, bailouts don’t work in the long term, and now Europe is just staving off disaster one close call at a time. The markets know the danger of moral hazard and contagion, which is why bond yields in Spain shot up well before Spain was in crisis.  And that’s why no one is surprised when Spain’s banks fail, and then Spain has to borrow more money from the EU (read: Germany) to bail out the banks. And when Spain needs to pay off those debts, they will need to borrow more. It’s a pyramid scheme to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars with the taxpayer money of productive Europeans, people who don’t deserve to have their lifestyles turned upside down by coercion into an economic and political union in which they have no voice. Why should an olive grower in Spain have to pay–dearly–when the Greeks vote for one party over another?

On Sunday, as you recall, there was an election in Greece, and perhaps no time in recent history has so much of the fate of the world economy hinged on one election in such a small country. If anything is needed to demonstrate the folly of this system, it is the idea that 50,000 votes swinging the other way in Greece could have created a global recession. Mr. Krugman wants a bigger political union–a stronger European central government–in order double down on this vulnerability. Why would anybody put power over the economy in the hands of so few? And why would Mr. Krugman, knowing full well the danger of economic collapse, advocate a system whereby economic power is further centralized making a greater collapse even more likely?

And yet Mr. Krugman wants more of that.

June 17, 2012Comments are DisabledRead More