Tolerance

Libertarian 101

So over the last few political seasons you’ve had a few questions about this term you’ve kept hearing people mention, “Libertarian”.
Essentially libertarians are those who look at all questions regarding government and policy from the perspective of the golden rule (do unto others as you’d have done unto yourself). Although, libertarian philosophy and tradition runs much deeper.
To understand what is a libertarian and the different categories of libertarianism watch this video:

Now below I’ll link to several videos to address different issues regarding libertarianism:

(Watch all the videos below, I’ll be surprised if you don’t find yourself thinking more libertarian when you done)
Healthcare


The Great Depression

Inequality


Central Banking


Taxation


Minimum Wage

Advertisements

Debunking Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders on Trade and Immigration

The Dark Horse candidates for the republican and democrat primaries (Donald Trump & Bernie Sanders respectively) have both expressed skepticism of Immigration and Trade in regard to U.S. Wages and Wealth. To me the ignorance that this exemplifies results in promoting a xenophobic sentiment with hostility towards globalization that I find well… offensive. So below I’ve collected many articles on the topic of Immigration and Trade the benefits they bring the U.S. Economy to settle this debate.
(For those who havn’t noticed Sanders tone on immigration, read this)
(For the record I support Rand Paul for the republican nomination and in the case he does not get the nomination I support Gary Johnson for the Libertarian Party nomination.)
IMMIGRATION
http://www.cato.org/blog/immigrations-real-impact-wages-employment

http://www.hamiltonproject.org/papers/what_immigration_means_for_u.s._employment_and_wages/

http://www.nber.org/papers/w12497

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/06/01/does-immigration-suppress-wages-its-not-so-simple/

http://www.aei.org/publication/how-does-immigration-affect-us-wages-and-jobs/
TRADE
http://reason.com/archives/2015/04/30/globalization-is-good-for-you

https://www.imf.org/EXTERNAL/PUBS/FT/ISSUES11/INDEX.HTM

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/cea_trade_report_final_non-embargoed_v2.pdf

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/rising-trade-deficit-signals-good-times-us-economy

http://blogs.piie.com/trade/?p=211

Reality Shows, Market Forces, and Tolerance

by Alex Merced

I am admittedly of pretentious cultural tastes enjoying television shows with complex thought provoking writing and production values and enjoying complex and unique musical genres. Although, while my personal aesthetic often finds me raising my nose at mainstream popular culture, there is beauty in its role in the evolution of societies values and its interplay with the laws of economic forces. In particular I’m referring to my belief that the growing proliferation of reality shows has had a role to play in what seems a rapidly increasing proliferation of tolerance of groups and individuals of all types.

The Economics

First of all, the growth in reality tv is a story of economics and scarcity. While the profit margins of television shrank as more alternatives for entertainment came to existence also diluting the supply of prime advertising space driving the cost of ad space down, there was demand to create low cost programming to increase the profit margin on shrinking ad revenue. With the success of shows like The Real World, Survivor, and Big Brother it became clear reality television would fill this gap.

The Tolerance

This easy and cheap to produce culture created a rush of finding subjects that would capture the audience in this genre saturated with programming. The result is that may channels sought to display groups and individuals that many would have a  curiosity about such as polygamist, gypsies, drag queens, and more. So while these shows sensationalize and sometimes can be seen as “exploiting” (how I so dislike that word) these groups and individuals for profit, the end result often shows the humanity in these diverse groups of people which in my opinion led sometimes initial curiosity of the audience to turn into empathy and tolerance as they interact with the diverse world around them.

In short, growing scarcity led to decisions for ones own benefit that in my opinion had great social externalities. Yes, the market works, and it works well.

Why Economics, Choice and Tolerance are Inseperable

by Alex Merced

Often times people define issues into two categories, economic and social, as if there is no influence these have on each other. I contend a world with a more robust competitive economy would also be a world of greater tolerance. Many social and caste divides are born out of economic scarcity, out of a demand for a reason to justify taking more of the economic pie for “us” and leave less for “them” because the sentiment is that there isn’t enough for everyone. If anything history, I think, shows pretty clearly that wealth is more abundant when more of us cooperate and compete with each other to provide value (aka the FREE market) instead of competing over limiting market access to others (protectionism/regulated markets/no markets). Although these divisions over time get ingrained in the culture of these arbitrary groups and can lead to generations of resentment, hostility, and sometimes violence which is why a focus on robust free market policy is an imperative for wealth building but also social cohesion (if you are prosperous you’re less likely to resent other people for being prosperous, or try to prevent them from being so).

So, essentially, economic performance will make people more tolerant of each other, which in turn improves economic scale. So, essentially, any discussion of promoting tolerance can’t be separated from people’s quality of life (which is partly determined by the wealth, and in other part determined by internal factors which often come from peoples ability to pursue their interests and attain property). As people’s quality of life drops, whether from losing their economic (wealth) or autonomous (choice) means to pursue their ends (goals), they begin to look for scapegoats to blame.

Bottom line: A libertarian world view which focuses on empowering peoples economic opportunities and individual choices, is the formula to having a more tolerant socially cohesive society.

The Law, Legislation, and Tolerance

by Alex Merced

As mentioned by George Mason University economist Don Boudreux, F.A. Hayek had important insights into society’s institutional behavior in his distinction between the Law and Legislation.The distinction being that legislation are rules formally instituted by a legislative body (think government) and laws are the rules we universally and informally follow.

Driving home the distinction:

– It is legislation that prohibits the sale and use of marijuana in the United States, but it’s not necessarily a piece of legislation people follow strictly because this has weakened over time as social law.

– While there is no explicit rule to not cut people in line, we all know not to and generally don’t. This would be an example of a social law.

Often times legislation is guided by law, because legislation that runs contrary to the societal laws of the time will often be difficult to pass, much less enforce, without political consequences. From a libertarian standpoint, this creates several implications that libertarians should concern themselves with.

1. Societal Law can be a barrier to Coercive Legislation: While politics is not really an ideological sphere of society (politicians use ideology to gain power successfully more so  than ideologues use politicians to shape society successfully). So if libertarians are concerned with the size of government and equality under the law (meaning legislation that does create arbitrary societal divides), then the societal law (culture, norms, ethics etc) should hold these things in high regards so that legislation that runs counter to these goals finds it difficult to exist or be enforced. Luckily, the United States has a deep historical culture of inclusiveness (melting pot), skepticism of central rule (revolutionary war, Nixon Scandals, NSA), and celebration of individual achievement (when we think of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and other entrepreneurs, we think of their individual achievement first, and barely, if ever, think of any indirect or direct government involvement in their enterprises). So the United States societal law has always been primed to keep certain lines difficult to cross more so than other nations (not that they haven’t been crossed, or that these barriers haven’t weakened at all).

2. Not participating in shaping societal law can make the fight against coercive legislation an uphill battle: If we don’t, through cultural transmission channels like family (how many laws/manners did you learn from your parents), media (how much did you learn from certain TV shows and movies), and the education system, attempt to make or keep things like property rights, non-aggression, and appreciation/tolerance of the individual part of societal law we will find legislation drifting further into larger violations of these values that libertarians hold dear.

So, distinguishing the external forces that shape our behavior and choices into law and legislation can be a very useful tool in solving the types of problems and issues us libertarians concern ourselves with. Another useful taxonomy is that of Institutions and Organizations from economist Douglass C. North. In this breakdown, institutions are the formal and informal human constructs that we allow to limit our behavior (legislation, laws, etc.) and Organizations are the hierarchies of how individuals organize to accomplish a shared goal. So if we look at a university, the distinction between the organization (the president, faculty, and their powers) and the institution (the formal school rules and informal traditions that have developed) can be broken down to help understand the social dynamics.

Libertarians making an effort to use these types of insights to improve and strengthen our understanding of society within the framework of Libertarian philosophy present a great opportunity to push forward the importance and argument for our cause.

A Landscape of Liberty Friendly Institutions

by Alex Merced

In every libertarian evolution, we go through a lot of different phases as we discover our core convictions and views. At different points in my ideological journey I’ve identified with labels such as classical liberal, conservative, minarchist, and anarcho-capitalist, and then I got to the point where I stopped worrying about all these nuances and labels and just said, “I’m a libertarian concerned more with promoting libertarian thought and libertarian means than focusing on any particular ideal power structure.” (Is there any ideal anything? If there was, would it always remain ideal?) At the end of the day, looking at issues from the perspective of, “Is there government intervention (bad), or not (good),” while totally agreeable in its implications, I feel it overlooks a great point. It’s a point which I think many more cutting edge libertarian philosophers and economists are starting to see. Our individual lives and ability to make choices regarding that life, and the property we’ve accumulated in that life, are affected by much more than just government. Institutions such as family, religion, etc. all play a role in our ability to make choices regarding our lives, property, and ability to pursue happiness. Appreciating this reality doesn’t imply any consent for the use of force, instead it just recognizes another dimension of the battle for liberty.

This dimension is molding institutions (social norms, laws, family, etc.) in ways that are conducive to a  view that respects an ability for an individual to make choices about their life and property.  This goal does not need force, but instead participation in social discourse through participation in these institutions so they can be reformed from the inside, through education, so others may make voluntary choices that reform these institutions, and through research so that we can learn more about how these institutions can be improved. (Are there better governance or management systems we can voluntarily adopt? What dynamics make successful families work that other families can adopt?)

In helping understand what reforms and institutions are liberty friendly, I’ve defined four characteristics of institutions that are liberty friendly and liberty hostile (notice how government often encompasses many of these features in the latter category):

Open (Friendly) vs. Closed (hostile): an open institution has very low barriers to participation. Due to this, the market/choice mechanism allows the institution to evolve. A closed institution has high barriers to entry which limits participation, giving the participants an over sized share of power in the institution which they often use to keep others out, slowing down its ability to evolve with other institutions.

Dynamic (Friendly) vs. Static (hostile): a dynamic institution has the flexibility to evolve with changing situations and circumstances while a static institution does not. This eventually will lead to its fighting liberty to protect itself from becoming obsolete.

Transparent (friendly) vs. Opaque (hostile): An institution that is transparent and allows a more free flow of information will enable people to make better choices. While an opaque institution hides information, often not allowing individuals to make proper assessments and choices of different situations (think the NSA).

Voluntary (Friendly) vs. Compulsory (hostile): A voluntary institution has a better feedback mechanism in peoples choices to determine if it’s providing value. A compulsory does not have this mechanism at all, which often leads to the development of the other three hostile characteristics.

So, to make the world more liberty friendly, as libertarians we should discuss how to make institutions more libertarian friendly and take the appropriate non-coercive methods to achieve these reforms.

A Discussion of the Civil Right Act of 1964

by Alex Merced

Having started an organization dedicated to building tolerance in a libertarian framework, I might as well go ahead an attack the elephant in the room when it comes to libertarians and issues like these. Often times when libertarians take on the mantle of social progress absent of government by discussing things like marriage equality or ending the drug war, progressives attempt to dismiss us libertarians by arbitrarily bringing up the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its public accommodations clause. In order to show why this dismissive argument is unfair and a distraction from modern discussions, let’s first learn about the contents of the 11 articles of the civil right act and see what libertarian reservations would be.

Article I – Banned unequal application of voting laws. I can’t imagine any libertarian having a problem with this particular clause. It’s the epitome of “equality under the law.” Although, all this did was end unequal application of current laws, it didn’t end other forms of voting disenfranchisement. This was later done in the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was weakened in 2013 by the Supreme Court. I personally think the voting rights act was a reasonable law. It’s not about state or federal rights but preventing oppression by government and any tool that can prevent any oppression is fine with me. (From my understanding the VRA doesn’t violate any property rights, instead it restrains state governments from limiting the participation of it’s citizens in democratic elections.)

Article II – Often referred to as the public accommodations clause, it prohibits discrimination in hotels, restaurants, etc. engaging in interstate commerce (exempting private clubs, so essentially you can create an establishment only open to private members if you really want to be discriminatory). I will discuss the controversy over this particular clause and my take on it after I finish all the articles of the CRA.

Article III – This banned discrimination in public institutions like public parks and restrooms. While libertarians are generally for privatizing most public property, anything that is publicly owned should be open to well, the public. In other words, this is a no brainer for libertarians. It’s like marriage. While many libertarians don’t think a marriage license should exist, as long as it does it should be available to everyone.

Article IV – This enabled the desegregation of public schools. For libertarianism this is perfectly fine by the same logic as Article III.

Article V – Strengthened the Civil Rights Commission that was created in 1957, which only investigates and makes recommendations. From a libertarian perspective this is mild since it can’t really compel anything but it costs taxpayer money to maintain such a commission. I understand the need of a feedback mechanism for issues like these, but like them or not, don’t organizations like the NAACP and ACLU kind of serve this purpose with mostly voluntary donations?

Article VI – Bans discrimination by agencies that receive federal funds. While libertarians aren’t really big on public funds in the first place, I don’t see why regulating the use of public funds and public institutions would bother any libertarians. You’re not messing with anyone’s property that wasn’t already confiscated via taxation.

Article VII – Bans discrimination by employers of 15 or more (also exempts business where the trait you’re discriminating against is vital to the job). Myself along with most libertarians don’t think people should segregate their business or be discriminatory in hiring based on things like race. But, it’s always uneasy with libertarians when you set a precedent for telling people what do with their property (for many their business is their property). So this along with clause II is what usually gets us libertarians in trouble with the orthodoxy.

Article VIII – required the collection of race and gender data in voting. Aside from the cost to the taxpayer, I can’t think of anything to really complain about here. The data can be useful. Although when you collect data like this, you make people think of data in terms of race and gender vs. other traits and characteristics that may highlight other trends. (You can’t measure everything, but what one measures does shape how people think about things, which is worth thinking about)

Article IX – This article made it easier to take a state case ruled on by a segregationist judge and move it to the federal courts. I don’t see any problems with this, if someone is in a situation where they can’t receive a trial from an impartial judge there should be recourse.

Article X – Created the Community Relations Service, which helps communities resolve disputes over discrimination. Aside from the funding, I don’t see any particular thing to be offended about.

Article XI – Allows placing the violators of the other articles in criminal contempt for up to $1000 fine and up to 6 months in jail. Aside from the enforcement of charges against private property use I don’t see a particular problem with this.

My Personal Opinion

The civil rights act isn’t on anyones radar to repeal for two reasons:

– There are laws that create actual problems that need to be dealt with like Sarbanes Oxley, Affordable Care Act, and Dodd Frank. Usually this half-century old law only comes up as political fodder to entrap libertarians.

– When I look at all the articles I find that I can more often agree with than disagree with the law. (Although, in principle, the clauses that violate private property rights can make me feel slightly uncomfortable. However the clauses preventing local governments from segregating public spaces makes me feel good and makes up for the previously stated discomfort.)

The controversy

Most libertarians probably aren’t fully aware of all the articles in the CRA, but libertarians like myself are very hard pressed to ever express any kind of flexibility on our resolution of private property rights (because they are integral to functioning markets, and we tend to really appreciate how small concessions can lead to large losses of other freedoms over time).

At the end of the day if I was a libertarian congressman in 1964 (probably wouldn’t have been back then considering I’m Latino), I would probably have to cast my vote for the act due to the value of it’s restraints on government power to compel discrimination. While many libertarians are very split on this pointless hypothetical that is often given to us I think it is generally a worthwhile law with fewer flaws than many others.

This Think Tank’s Name is Ironic (Sort of)

by Brian William Waddell

The Libertarian Center for Tolerance. Think about it. If you’re a libertarian, or a Libertarian, or an anarchist, or a Republican with libertarian views, or even a civil libertarian you probably understand why this is ironic. Libertarians, in all their stripes, can barely tolerate each other’s views. I’ve seen liberty loving people arguing (albeit usually more intelligently than the arguments I’ve seen between the “two” “major” parties) over tiny points of disagreement that mean nothing in the larger scheme because neither side would ever push to have government step in and regulate the issue. I’ve been guilty myself at times. We need to be tolerant, and accepting, of the views of all liberty lovers because we are all on the same team. We need that team to be as strong as possible to accomplish the shrinking of government intrusion that we all desire.

Big “L’s” Small “l’s” and Other Letters

Yes, there is a difference between a libertarian and a Libertarian. Many libertarians are Libertarians, but not all. Many Libertarians are also libertarians, but still, not all. I’m not helping am I? Look at it this way, someone who believes in the philosophy of libertarianism is a libertarian. Somebody who registers as a member of the Libertarian Party is a Libertarian. There is also a difference between these two and anarchists and civil libertarians. Anarchists sit on the absolutist end of the liberty scale: They want zero government and each individual to be free to do as they please as long as they don’t harm others. How that works, and if it’s even possible, is fodder for another post, but for now just know they’re on the side of liberty. Civil libertarians tend to be the ones who are registered Democrats, and are fine with government intrusion into your wallet, but will fight to keep the government out of your bedroom or reproductive system. These are the people who are valuable allies in many situations and should not be alienated despite their generally big government leanings. Their belief in liberty bears as many caveats as the Republicans with libertarian views, but the caveats tend to be opposites.

In short, the liberty philosophy continuum goes something like this: anarchists::voluntaryists::libertarians::constitutionalists::civil libertarians and Republicans with libertarian views::Republicans and Democrats. All these differences should not divide liberty lovers of any type from one another. Our diversity should be our strength, not our weakness. The ability of liberty in any form to find a place in the hearts of humans should be celebrated and nurtured. We shouldn’t ridicule or ostracize those with slightly different views as long as they are working in the same direction, and everyone on the continuum up to Republicans with libertarian views is working in the same direction at least part of the time. Don’t get me wrong, healthy debate is fine. But when’s the last time you saw a truly healthy debate on Facebook?

Why the Name Works

The Libertarian Center for Tolerance. Most outside of the liberty movement don’t think of tolerance when they think of libertarianism. This is ironic, too. Tolerance and acceptance are cornerstones of libertarian philosophy. Just because I don’t agree with how you live doesn’t mean I can, or should, stop you from doing it. As long as one doesn’t steal or injure, a person’s decisions are their own.

The reality is, those who understand libertarianism and have been around the liberty movement for a while will see the name of this think tank as both redundant and ironic at the same time. Libertarianism is tolerance. It also needs a dose of it among its own members. But, it’s important to have that “Libertarian” out in front of the title so that more people start to realize how liberty, tolerance, and acceptance really do go hand in hand.

It’s Ok! Libertarians Can Think Something is Bad or Wrong

by Brian William Waddell

After my last piece, someone questioned whether a “true Libertarian” (this phrase alone begs the question of what a true libertarian is, and whether the size of the “L” matters, but that’s for another post) is allowed to think that having a female-only tavern or Christians only theater is wrong. Sure. Why not? I don’t personally think it’s wrong, I just think it’s bad business. But the idea that holding an anti-segregationist opinion flies in the face of libertarianism is absurd. The key distinction is that I will fight for your right to have that silly segregated business while I tell you it’s a bad idea and you shouldn’t do it. If that makes it so that I’m not a “true Libertarian” I’m okay with that.

Why Limit Your Possibilities?

If you were opening a retail business that had a target demographic of, let’s say, women between the ages of 21 and 35, would you only allow people in that specific group to come in? No, that’s silly. Maybe just limit it to women? That seems like a slightly smarter choice. But what if a man wants to purchase some of your goods for his significant other? Clearly this means the best route for the business is to be open to men and women. I can understand the niche market for a tavern only allowing women, ostensibly for a less meat market-like environment, but there is a reason there are not many of them around. Limiting your audience of your own accord is bad business. Usually the audience that a business serves is limited enough by outside factors without internal silliness.

I’ve run enough businesses over the years to understand that the best policy for building and maintaining a business is one of open arms and friendly smiles. Nobody should be turned away.

Right to Refuse Service

On that note, I’ve already written a piece on my own liberty-centric site regarding a recent event where a bakery declined to make a wedding cake for a wedding between two men. The baker was well within his rights as a business owner. He wasn’t within his legal capabilities as a business owner (according to one judge) in Colorado, however. Therefore, he was ordered that he had to make cakes for same-sex couples. This is the problem, and also the distinction. A business owner should be able to choose to not serve people for any reason. Yes, I said any reason. It’s wrong and ignorant to do it for certain reasons, but it’s still something that must be allowed. The free market dictates that just as the business owner need not serve people, people need not patronize that business.

I‘m Allowed

I think taking adverse action toward people based on the color of their skin is wrong. I think taking adverse action toward people based on their sexual preferences is wrong. I think taking adverse action toward people based on their religion is wrong. I’m allowed to think these things are wrong. I’m also allowed to say, “Yeah, that’s wrong, but he can run his business how he chooses. I’ll just never shop there.” On a philosophical level, at least, I have no problem with the creation of “black only” schools or other institutions. I have no problem with “Asian only” schools. I have no problem with “white only” schools. Frankly, as long as all groups are allowed to have their own institutions I don’t see how anyone is actually left out. Another requirement would be that nobody would be compelled to (they can if they want to, of course) pay for the institution. This would be allowed if we were truly living in a place of liberty. (I think all of the above institutions are silly and run counter to improving society because experiencing diversity is a key to becoming a well rounded individual. But, to each his own.)

Make My Day

Go ahead. Open a business where you only allow redheaded men with handlebar mustaches over the age of 33. Call me when you reach your first anniversary and I’ll throw you a huge party to celebrate.

Why libertarians should care about Tolerance

by Alex Merced

After my article on advocating for tolerance of/acceptance for the transgender population I got several critical messages not about whether people should be accepted/tolerated but attacking my libertarian bona fides for even discussing it, as if being libertarian means being completely agnostic on the outcome of all issues all the time. If anything, these individuals have seemed to miss the point of my article, and possibly of libertarianism itself.

From the libertarian perspective just about everything should be solved by the interplay of individuals and their choices, also known as markets. Which cell phones should be sold? Let the market decide. How should you educate children? Let the parents decide. Which house should you buy and how should you finance it? You should decide. This extends to the market for values and preferences (what you think is right or wrong, what rituals and traditions do you practice, how do these things change), etc. Although these things evolve in an interplay of individual choices (a market) as well, even if there aren’t direct exchanges of money, decisions are made and some social norms succeed and fail over time.

These markets work because people act on their preferences and values. As a libertarian, I want people to have a view on which cell phone they want, to choose to act on that view, and even evangelize their choice. I just don’t want anyone making the choice for them. As a participant in the market for social norms, I am entitled to being able to choose the norms I like and evangelize them. I’m free to make the claim that if people voluntarily embrace these norms the world may be better off (I just don’t advocate forcing people to adopt these norms).

To me, engendering a culture of tolerance and acceptance has many consistently libertarian benefits:

– Libertarians are against violence and coercion. It’s one of the primary reasons we have such a distaste for government as a mechanism for economic or social engineering  (the fact that it often works poorly at doing so doesn’t help). Intolerance can often be a big motivator of violence (a good transgender friend of mine was recently beaten and sent to the hospital with her boyfriend). While I think there should be equality under the law and a crime should be treated as a crime for a jury (the judge should have the discretion to lessen or worsen a punishment based on circumstances in my view, but the jury should only determine if a crime has been committed not determine whether they liked the motivation for the crime which is what hate crime legislation does). Although, if social norms were more tolerant from the get go, the violence may have never occurred for it to be a legal issue in the first place.

– Promoting tolerance doesn’t mean people don’t have the right to be intolerant with their own property and choices, but promoting tolerance is about ending the atmosphere that makes people feel it’s alright to destroy someones property because they may be different in some way.

My point is that if libertarians are anti-coercion and anti-force, creating a culture that exalts individual choice and property ownership and shames violence/coercion from government or individuals is a project that must be actively taken on. If this isn’t, other cultural norms that may be ok with violence/coercion will win out in the cultural market.