It’s hard to prove or disprove statements of broad social sweep, but we do know one thing: Nicholas Nassim Taleb will not defend his assertion that big corporations are “vastly more dangerous” than big governments.
With notable frequency, people assume that I’m a reader of Taleb’s books. Evidently my thinking and his align in important ways. It’s made me mildly interested in reading him, though time constraints (or time mismanagement) have not yet allowed it.
My minor affinity with Taleb caused me to focus just a little more than I otherwise would have on a tweet of his the other day.
>Big corporations are vastly more dangerous to the citizenry than big government, but with good news: corps end up committing suicide.
>Nassim NicholنTaleb (@nntaleb) April 15, 2015
That premise really caught my eye. What is the relative danger posed by governments and corporations? Are corporations “vastly more dangerous”?
I’d thought that the jury was pretty much in on that question. With hundreds of millions killed outright by government action in the 20th century alone, the quantum of death and destruction wrought by governments is almost certainly greater than corporations’ destructive work.
Like any tool, corporations are dangerous. Death and injury is a byproduct of their delivery of food, shelter, transportation, entertainment, and every other want and need of consumers, because they often miscalculate risk or just make stupid mistakes.
(I should note that corporations are just a way of organizing people. Their existence isn’t demanded by any principle, and they arguably violate libertarian principle by acting as government transfer of risk from owners to consumers. But by historical accident they do exist, and they are an organizational conduit through which much productive human action passes.)
Governments are dangerous, too, to the point where it sometimes appears that unpleasant byproducts are the intended product. According to liberal theory, we enter into political society for protection from each other and outsiders. The day-to-day operation of government in the United States is pretty good relative to other countries and other historical eras. But Americans today are caged in droves and killed with regularity as a byproduct of the war on drugs, for example. People around the world are episodically slaughtered in the millions by literal wars entered into by governments.
Is there any comparable danger produced by corporations?
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/proven-big-governments-are-vastly-more-dangerous-citizenry-big-corporations
2015-07-03
Cato: Indiana’s Religious Freedom Law Is Deja Vu All Over Again
This debate is so banal. Progressives shout “discrimination,” conservatives cry “liberty,” and it really all boils down to the difference between government and private action, which both sides misunderstand.
Progressives aren’t satisfied with state recognition of same-sex couples and want to bend the will of those private citizens who have religious objections to the only belief system that’s now allowed by MSNBC polite society. Conservatives are wrong to oppose the extension of state marriage licenses to same-sex couples – I’m against such licensing schemes, but states have no good reason to treat gay and straight people differently – and it’s that opposition that breeds distrust when they correctly argue that people should be free to live their lives according to their consciences.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/indianas-religious-freedom-law-deja-vu-all-over-again
Progressives aren’t satisfied with state recognition of same-sex couples and want to bend the will of those private citizens who have religious objections to the only belief system that’s now allowed by MSNBC polite society. Conservatives are wrong to oppose the extension of state marriage licenses to same-sex couples – I’m against such licensing schemes, but states have no good reason to treat gay and straight people differently – and it’s that opposition that breeds distrust when they correctly argue that people should be free to live their lives according to their consciences.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/indianas-religious-freedom-law-deja-vu-all-over-again
Cato: California Labor Commission: Uber Driver Is Employee
According to the California Labor Commission, a San Francisco-based Uber driver who filed a claim against the rideshare company is an employee and not, as Uber argued, an independent contractor. The ruling orders Uber to pay the driver about $4,000 for expenses.
The ruling, which Uber considers non-binding, could potentially have devastating implications for the rideshare company in California. If similar rulings are issued regarding other rideshare companies like Lyft or sharing economy players such as Airbnb, Instacart, and TaskRabbit, we could see the growth of these popular and innovative companies stifled as they cope with the costs associated with having providers classified as employees.
The California Labor Commission ruling states that Uber is “involved in every aspect of the operation.” It is true that Uber provides a technology and that it carries out background checks on drivers. But Uber does not provide vehicles or set any hours or for its rideshare drivers. In fact, according to research on Uber wages conducted by Princeton economist Alan Krueger and Uber’s Jonathan Hall, only 38 percent of Uber drivers rely on Uber as their sole source of income.
Regulators and lawmakers ought to realize that Uber drivers, who are often driving for Uber part-time while using their own vehicles on their own schedule, shouldn’t be treated the same as traditional workers.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/ca-labor-commission-uber-driver-employee
The ruling, which Uber considers non-binding, could potentially have devastating implications for the rideshare company in California. If similar rulings are issued regarding other rideshare companies like Lyft or sharing economy players such as Airbnb, Instacart, and TaskRabbit, we could see the growth of these popular and innovative companies stifled as they cope with the costs associated with having providers classified as employees.
The California Labor Commission ruling states that Uber is “involved in every aspect of the operation.” It is true that Uber provides a technology and that it carries out background checks on drivers. But Uber does not provide vehicles or set any hours or for its rideshare drivers. In fact, according to research on Uber wages conducted by Princeton economist Alan Krueger and Uber’s Jonathan Hall, only 38 percent of Uber drivers rely on Uber as their sole source of income.
Regulators and lawmakers ought to realize that Uber drivers, who are often driving for Uber part-time while using their own vehicles on their own schedule, shouldn’t be treated the same as traditional workers.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/ca-labor-commission-uber-driver-employee
2015-07-02
Cato: Making Sense of the Trade Negotiations Secrecy Debate
In Tuesday’s New York Times, law professor Margot Kaminski laid out a compelling case for increased transparency in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. On Wednesday, John Murphy of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce offered a fairly convincing response in defense of confidentiality. The problem is that—as is common in trade policy “debates”—they’re not talking about the same thing. That’s frustrating to me because I think they’re both right.
Kaminski makes the point that the U.S. Trade Representative has been overbroad in what it deems classified material, that the current approach improperly privileges business lobbying over public interest groups, and that as negotiations cover more non-trade issues negotiators need more exposure and guidance from different people.
Murphy responds by noting that trade agreements are successfully increasing U.S. exports, that confidentiality in negotiations is both appropriate and helpful in achieving this outcome, and that systems are in place to ensure that all interested parties have input.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/making-sense-trade-negotiations-secrecy-debate
Kaminski makes the point that the U.S. Trade Representative has been overbroad in what it deems classified material, that the current approach improperly privileges business lobbying over public interest groups, and that as negotiations cover more non-trade issues negotiators need more exposure and guidance from different people.
Murphy responds by noting that trade agreements are successfully increasing U.S. exports, that confidentiality in negotiations is both appropriate and helpful in achieving this outcome, and that systems are in place to ensure that all interested parties have input.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/making-sense-trade-negotiations-secrecy-debate
Cato: Tim Cook’s Moral Confusion—and Intolerance
Few recent battles have seized the nation’s moral compass quite as emotionally as the one going on in Indiana right now, pitting defenders of religious liberty against opponents of discrimination based on sexual orientation. But Apple’s chief executive Tim Cook brings the moral confusion surrounding the battle to a head this morning with his op-ed in the Washington Post. Lumping together both legitimate and illegitimate “religious freedom restoration acts,” he writes, “they go against the very principles our nation was founded on.”
Really? Let’s see if that claim stands up. We find those principles in the nation’s founding document, the Declaration of Independence. And Cook himself invokes them: freedom and equality. Rightly understood, they hold that we’re all born free, with equal rights to remain free. That means—to cut to the chase—that we may associate with anyone who wishes to associate with us; but we are equally free to decline to associate with others, for any reason, good or bad, or no reason at all. That right to discriminate is the very essence of freedom. That’s why people came to this country, to escape forced associations—religious, economic, political, or otherwise.
Cook turns those principles on their head. He says religious freedom bills “rationalize injustice” by, for example, allowing a baker to decline to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. He would compel the baker to accept that request, by force of law. That’s the very opposite of the freedom of association—the right to be left alone—that the nation was founded on.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/tim-cooks-moral-confusion-intolerance
Really? Let’s see if that claim stands up. We find those principles in the nation’s founding document, the Declaration of Independence. And Cook himself invokes them: freedom and equality. Rightly understood, they hold that we’re all born free, with equal rights to remain free. That means—to cut to the chase—that we may associate with anyone who wishes to associate with us; but we are equally free to decline to associate with others, for any reason, good or bad, or no reason at all. That right to discriminate is the very essence of freedom. That’s why people came to this country, to escape forced associations—religious, economic, political, or otherwise.
Cook turns those principles on their head. He says religious freedom bills “rationalize injustice” by, for example, allowing a baker to decline to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. He would compel the baker to accept that request, by force of law. That’s the very opposite of the freedom of association—the right to be left alone—that the nation was founded on.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/tim-cooks-moral-confusion-intolerance
Cato: Airport Pirates Find Bounty in a College Student’s Life Savings
Today, our friends at the Institute for Justice launched a new challenge to yet another instance of egregious civil asset forfeiture abuse.
Charles Clarke is a 24-year-old college student who found out the hard way that government officials can confiscate property on the mere suspicion that it has a “substantial connection” to a crime or is the proceeds of a crime. No underlying conviction is required. Functionally, this means that officers can claim that “something was a little off” about your behavior, or that “something smells a little like drugs” and then have carte blanche to take whatever cash you have on you. After that, your cash is presumptively guilty, and it is up to you to prove its innocence.
In the winter of 2013, Charles was stopped at the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky airport based on the officers’ assertion that his bag smelled like marijuana. Actually, it was based off of a drug dog’s “signal” that his bag smelled like marijuana. By claiming that a dog “alerted” an officer can obtain probable cause, but in reality the dogs are about as reliable as Clever Hans.
After searching his bag, the officers found no drugs or other illegal substances. They then asked him if he was carrying any cash. Charles volunteered that he was carrying $11,000–clearly thinking, not unreasonably, that in a just world there is no way the officers could just take his money. Charles’s mistake, however, was thinking that he lives in a just world, and the officers walked away with his life savings.
Charles had saved the $11,000 over the previous five years, from work, financial aid, educational benefits, and gifts from family. Now he must overcome the officers’ hunches by proving that his money came from legal sources.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/airport-pirates-find-bounty-college-students-life-savings
Charles Clarke is a 24-year-old college student who found out the hard way that government officials can confiscate property on the mere suspicion that it has a “substantial connection” to a crime or is the proceeds of a crime. No underlying conviction is required. Functionally, this means that officers can claim that “something was a little off” about your behavior, or that “something smells a little like drugs” and then have carte blanche to take whatever cash you have on you. After that, your cash is presumptively guilty, and it is up to you to prove its innocence.
In the winter of 2013, Charles was stopped at the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky airport based on the officers’ assertion that his bag smelled like marijuana. Actually, it was based off of a drug dog’s “signal” that his bag smelled like marijuana. By claiming that a dog “alerted” an officer can obtain probable cause, but in reality the dogs are about as reliable as Clever Hans.
After searching his bag, the officers found no drugs or other illegal substances. They then asked him if he was carrying any cash. Charles volunteered that he was carrying $11,000–clearly thinking, not unreasonably, that in a just world there is no way the officers could just take his money. Charles’s mistake, however, was thinking that he lives in a just world, and the officers walked away with his life savings.
Charles had saved the $11,000 over the previous five years, from work, financial aid, educational benefits, and gifts from family. Now he must overcome the officers’ hunches by proving that his money came from legal sources.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/airport-pirates-find-bounty-college-students-life-savings
Cato: Postal Service Privatization
For more than a century, the federal government has pursued a misguided witch hunt against perceived monopolies in the private sector. But in a glaring hypocrisy, Congress has long protected one of the nation’s largest businesses against competition. The legal monopoly conferred on the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) is a relic. Government-run mail makes no sense in our email-dominated economy, and other nations are showing that postal privatization works. If the centuries-old Royal Mail can be privatized, then so can our USPS.
In a new study, former Clinton administration economist Robert Shapiro provides useful input to the privatization debate. He looks at the subsidies that Congress confers on the USPS, as well as the extra costs.
Here are some background facts from Shapiro:
*With more than 600,000 workers, the USPS is the nation’s second largest civilian employer, after Wal-Mart.
*The USPS has three protected monopoly products: first-class mail, standard mail (bulk circulars, catalogs, etc.), and periodicals.
*Employee wages and benefits account for 78 percent of USPS costs. Average USPS worker compensation is at least 32 percent higher than comparable private-sector workers.
*Since the last time Congress supposedly fixed the USPS in 2006, the agency has been losing more than $4 billion a year.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/postal-service-privatization
In a new study, former Clinton administration economist Robert Shapiro provides useful input to the privatization debate. He looks at the subsidies that Congress confers on the USPS, as well as the extra costs.
Here are some background facts from Shapiro:
*With more than 600,000 workers, the USPS is the nation’s second largest civilian employer, after Wal-Mart.
*The USPS has three protected monopoly products: first-class mail, standard mail (bulk circulars, catalogs, etc.), and periodicals.
*Employee wages and benefits account for 78 percent of USPS costs. Average USPS worker compensation is at least 32 percent higher than comparable private-sector workers.
*Since the last time Congress supposedly fixed the USPS in 2006, the agency has been losing more than $4 billion a year.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/postal-service-privatization
2015-07-01
Cato: New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez Signs Civil Forfeiture Abolition Bill
A quick and happy update from New Mexico: Gov. Susana Martinez (R) has signed HB 560, which I detailed here, into law. New Mexico has thus effectively abolished civil asset forfeiture by requiring a criminal conviction before the government can seize property.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/new-mexico-governor-susana-martinez-signs-civil-forfeiture-abolition-bill
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/new-mexico-governor-susana-martinez-signs-civil-forfeiture-abolition-bill
Cato: Confused about the Middle East? So Is the United States
Since the Arab Spring, many Middle Eastern countries have fallen into political chaos like dominoes. This week’s explosion of conflict in Yemen is just the most recent example. Though many of these conflicts are based on local grievances, they are being exacerbated by the involvement of the region’s larger states, and by the United States.
America’s leaders denounce intervention by unfriendly states like Iran. Yet the United States ignores or even enables such actions by U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia. In doing so, America is simply contributing to the mess in the Middle East. Washington should back off and refuse to get more deeply involved in further Middle Eastern conflicts.
Yemen’s conflict is nothing new; the Houthi rebels have been active in Yemen for more than a decade, and captured the capital in January, forcing President Hadi to flee south. This week, as the rebels finally reached the southern city of Aden, Hadi fled, and apparently appealed to Saudi Arabia for help in combatting the Iranian-backed insurgency.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/confused-about-yemen-so-united-states
America’s leaders denounce intervention by unfriendly states like Iran. Yet the United States ignores or even enables such actions by U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia. In doing so, America is simply contributing to the mess in the Middle East. Washington should back off and refuse to get more deeply involved in further Middle Eastern conflicts.
Yemen’s conflict is nothing new; the Houthi rebels have been active in Yemen for more than a decade, and captured the capital in January, forcing President Hadi to flee south. This week, as the rebels finally reached the southern city of Aden, Hadi fled, and apparently appealed to Saudi Arabia for help in combatting the Iranian-backed insurgency.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/confused-about-yemen-so-united-states
Cato: Supreme Court Allows Texas to Offend the First Amendment
Today a narrow and unusual Supreme Court majority ruled that the DMV – of all government agencies! – is allowed to censor speech it considers to be “offensive.” To wit, the four “liberal” justices and Justice Clarence Thomas somehow found that the specialty license plates Texas drivers can choose to have on their vehicles actually constitute state speech – and of course the state can control its own messages, including rejecting a plate proposed by the Texas branch of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. This is so even though the specialty-license-plate program encourages Texans to come up with their own designs and slogans, which has resulted in around 400 plates that express support for a plethora of nonprofit organizations, commercial entities, affinity groups, and myriad other causes.
By this logic, Texas has long been endorsing Dr. Pepper, ReMax, and an assortment of burger and taco joints. Indeed, both Longhorns (UT-Austin) and Aggies (Texas A&M) will be dismayed to learn that the Lone Star State cheers for the Sooners (University of Oklahoma) and Cowboys (Oklahoma State). Surely at least one person is “offended” by each of the above examples, yet the DMV has refused to act in the face of such (macro)aggression. As the dissenting justices point out, it’s even more bizarre that, under the majority’s reading, “rather be golfing” is official state policy. It’s a wonder that the state has become America’s engine of economic growth!
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/supreme-court-allows-texas-offend-first-amendment
By this logic, Texas has long been endorsing Dr. Pepper, ReMax, and an assortment of burger and taco joints. Indeed, both Longhorns (UT-Austin) and Aggies (Texas A&M) will be dismayed to learn that the Lone Star State cheers for the Sooners (University of Oklahoma) and Cowboys (Oklahoma State). Surely at least one person is “offended” by each of the above examples, yet the DMV has refused to act in the face of such (macro)aggression. As the dissenting justices point out, it’s even more bizarre that, under the majority’s reading, “rather be golfing” is official state policy. It’s a wonder that the state has become America’s engine of economic growth!
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/supreme-court-allows-texas-offend-first-amendment
Cato: The United States Should Choose Allies That Benefit America
If America ends up at war, it almost certainly will be on behalf of an ally. Washington collects allies like most people collect Facebook “friends.” The vast majority of U.S. allies are security liabilities, as potential tripwires for conflict and war.
Yet American officials constantly abase themselves to reassure the very countries that the United States is defending at great cost and risk. For instance, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) recently worried: “What ally around the world can feel safe in their alliance with us?” The right question is with what ally can America feel safe?
Instead of relentlessly collecting more international dependents, Washington policymakers should drop Allies In Name Only (AINOs).
Contra the scare-mongering of hawkish politicians, the strategic environment today is remarkably benign for the United States. The world is messy, to be sure, but the number of big conflicts is down. More important, America faces no hegemonic threat or peer competitor and is allied with every major industrialized state other than China and Russia.
All of Washington’s recent wars have been—from America’s standpoint—iver unimportant, indeed, sometimes frivolous stakes.
Terrorism remains a genuine threat, but falls far short of the sort of existential danger posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Worse, terrorism typically is a response to foreign intervention and occupation. Washington has inadvertently encouraged terrorism by backing authoritarian regimes, joining foreign conflicts, and creating enemies overseas.
Adding unnecessary allies makes this problem worse. In Ukraine, for instance, the Obama administration is under pressure to treat a non-ally as an ally—arming and/or defending Kiev—thereby confronting Russia, a nuclear-armed state which considers border security a vital interest.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/us-should-choose-allies-which-benefit-america
Yet American officials constantly abase themselves to reassure the very countries that the United States is defending at great cost and risk. For instance, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) recently worried: “What ally around the world can feel safe in their alliance with us?” The right question is with what ally can America feel safe?
Instead of relentlessly collecting more international dependents, Washington policymakers should drop Allies In Name Only (AINOs).
Contra the scare-mongering of hawkish politicians, the strategic environment today is remarkably benign for the United States. The world is messy, to be sure, but the number of big conflicts is down. More important, America faces no hegemonic threat or peer competitor and is allied with every major industrialized state other than China and Russia.
All of Washington’s recent wars have been—from America’s standpoint—iver unimportant, indeed, sometimes frivolous stakes.
Terrorism remains a genuine threat, but falls far short of the sort of existential danger posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Worse, terrorism typically is a response to foreign intervention and occupation. Washington has inadvertently encouraged terrorism by backing authoritarian regimes, joining foreign conflicts, and creating enemies overseas.
Adding unnecessary allies makes this problem worse. In Ukraine, for instance, the Obama administration is under pressure to treat a non-ally as an ally—arming and/or defending Kiev—thereby confronting Russia, a nuclear-armed state which considers border security a vital interest.
Read more at http://www.cato.org/blog/us-should-choose-allies-which-benefit-america
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)