Corporate Land Grab in Africa

Much of the modern world has been shaped, alas, by governments’ grabbing land from peasants and yeomen, whose families had worked it for hundreds of years, in order to give it to the nobility or other privileged interests.  As a result, many self-sufficient farmers became tenants of politically created absentee landlords.

As Ludwig von Mises wrote in Socialism:

Nowhere and at no time has the large scale ownership of land come into being through the working of economic forces in the market. It is the result of military and political effort. Founded by violence, it has been upheld by violence and by that alone…. The great landed fortunes did not arise through the economic superiority of large scale ownership, but through violent annexation outside the area of trade.

According to this story in the Observer (UK), this still goes on today, in Africa: Continue Reading …

TGIF: Government as Consumer

Destutt de Tracy, like other liberal, free-market economists of early nineteenth-century France, saw the State essentially as a predator, a destroyer of value, and the source of class conflict.

Read the rest of TGIF here.

Your Government at Work

Here at a glance is what the U.S. government is up to fiscally. Don’t look at this before bedtime.

Hat tip: Mario Rizzo.

American Exceptionalism: Is it Nationalism in Disguise?

I’ve been disturbed lately by the increased usage of the phrase “American Exceptionalism.” One longstanding critique of conservatism is that the word “conservative” has no substantial meaning beyond indicating a resistance to change. Conservatives therefore spend too much time trying to backfill an empty concept with whatever ideas they need to pass the popular agenda item of the moment.

Enter “American Exceptionalism” (AE from here on) . Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru state it plainly in a recent National Review article:

What do we, as American conservatives, want to conserve? The answer is simple: the pillars of American exceptionalism.

It should worry conservatives that they need convoluted concepts like AE to bring clarity to their ideology.

The basic idea that there are historical facts that make the United States exceptional in the history of civilization is not what I’m concerned about. Every society has some exceptional quality, something that makes it unique. What concerns me is that a theory of American Exceptionalism must provide a coherent theory of “the exceptional” or else it becomes a mere placeholder for nationalistic fervor. Either America is exceptional because of something it does, or it is exceptional simply because it is American.

In this particular case, Lowry and Ponnuru fill their version of AE with mostly positive stuff:

Exact renderings of the creed differ, but the basic outlines are clear enough. The late Seymour Martin Lipset defined it as liberty, equality (of opportunity and respect), individualism, populism, and laissez-faire economics.

Which begs the question? Why call it American Exceptionalism? Why not American Individualism or American Liberalism or just simply Libertarianism? Well because:

The creed combines with other aspects of the American character — especially our religiousness and our willingness to defend ourselves by force — to form the core of American exceptionalism.

But how is it exceptional for Americans to “defend themselves by force”? Are we supposed to believe that every other civilization has defended itself without force? or simply surrendered? Moreover, last I checked, religiosity was not particularly unique in the history of mankind.

So if we’re defining American exceptionalism using factors that aren’t particularly exceptional, what exactly are we talking about?  Ironically, American exceptionalism appears to mean liberty … with exceptions made for religion and national security. But then how does this differ from nationalism, the belief that the individual’s life only has meaning within the political and cultural boundaries set forth by the “nation”?

I’ll let you answer that. But don’t use the term “American exceptionalism” in your answer.

You Can’t Always Get What You Want

Sandy Ikeda’s “Wabi-sabi” column on TheFreemanOnline.org today has a fascinating take on imperfection, tolerance, criticism, and competition.

Check it out here.

TGIF: Jefferson’s Economist

In 1817 the Frenchman the Count Destutt de Tracy published his Treatise on the Will and Its Effects. Thomas Jefferson was so enthusiastic he had it translated into English.

Read TGIF here.

Capitalism versus the Free Market

My lecture “Capitalism versus the Free Market,” sponsored by the Future of Freedom Foundation and held at George Mason University Monday night, can be viewed here.

Economic Liberty Lecture Series: Sheldon Richman from The Future of Freedom Foundation on Vimeo.

Private Money Gets Ripped on bankrate.com

Yesterday I was looking at www.cnbc.com and there was an article on private money.  I thought , “Excellent, the work of the Austrians is starting to get through.” 

Yes, I was wrong again.  Apparently, if you don’t understand a concept, it is better to push it to the extreme and then make fun of it.  I find this attempt at debate shameful. 

It just shows that there is still a long way to go.

Obama “believes” in the Free Market

Yesterday, it was reported (see here) that Obama claimed his programs were not socialist.  Furthermore he said, “Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, I am an ardent believer in the free market.” 

Since the Clinton years, I have had to read such pronouncements through the lens of a lawyer.  In particular I noticed that he did not say that he supports the free market.  Rather he said that he believes in the free market.  Well, I believe in Cuba and North Korea, but that doesn’t mean that I support either regieme.

I find his word choice very deliberate.  Do you?

My New Hero

A superintendent voids a union contract, fires all the teachers, becomes my personal hero. Of course she can hire the good ones back, but it will be under a new contract.