Natural Rights Libertarian

Our blue states and “progressive” major cities now seem to be competing to determine which jurisdiction can establish the highest minimum wage. At this moment, Los Angeles is in the lead at $15.37/hour (for hotel workers), with Seattle and San Francisco close behind at $15.00 (all workers). Obviously, such laws violate the freedom of employers and employees to enter into consensual arrangements at any rate of compensation below the legal floor, and thus are ruled out on libertarian principles.

Sadly, the electorate is generally unmoved by appeals to abstract notions like freedom of contract, so opponents of such laws often resort to a handy reductio ad absurdum: if raising the minimum wage to $15/hr. is such a great idea, why stop there; why not $30/hr. or even $150/hr.? The point of this argument is easy to grasp, even by the economically illiterate. Clearly, a floor of $150/hr. would not produce wealthy workers, but would instead generate layoff notices for most of them. Continue Reading »

I believe that no political controversy generates more misinformation, grossly erroneous historical claims, and outright lies than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Libertarians are perhaps more afflicted than most with this disease, which often lapses over into anti-Semitism. I do not mean the classical, overt hatred of Jews, but rather an eagerness to apply one set of ethical standards to the sole Jewish state and a radically different, much more lenient standard, to all other nations.

This recently hit quite close to home, when the fifth grade teacher at the private school my eldest boy attends chose to illuminate her “political systems” module with a case study of the above-mentioned dispute. She then published on the school blog the essays written by her students regarding this struggle, which had a decidedly anti-Israel slant. The centerpiece of her educational program was an (undated) report prepared by the Council for Arab-British Understanding[1], titled “Israeli-Palestinian Conflict” (the “Report”). Continue Reading »

In an earlier post I offered my perspective on Prosecutor Robert McCulloch’s conduct in directing the St. Louis County grand jury investigation that found no basis for indicting officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown. There, I argued that based on the information then available the prosecutor acted correctly in not seeking an indictment, a position now borne out by the U.S. Department of Justice’s report on the shooting, which found that: Wilson’s use of force was not “objectively unreasonable” under the applicable federal statute, and thus no federal grand jury indictment was warranted. However, a second DOJ report blasted the small city of Ferguson, Missouri (the location of the incident) for various forms of racism, not related to Brown’s death.

Before proceeding further, we would be wise to consult the analysis of the DOJ reports offered by Professor Richard Epstein, one of the preeminent scholars now working in the classical liberal tradition. With respect to the report concerning Wilson, he notes that based on the facts and circumstances he cites, “It is not just the case that there is insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution. It is that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence supports that Wilson’s conduct was fully justified.” In other words, it is clear that he acted righty in defense of his own life and in defense of the public at large (what would have happened if Brown had walked away with the officer’s gun?). Continue Reading »

Imagine that a collection of highly committed members of a Social Democrat style political party charter a cruise ship to sail around the Pacific in order to charge themselves up for the next election. The group consists of one thousand adults. Sadly, the ship suffers a catastrophic malfunction, and the group is shipwrecked on a remote and uninhabited island (well-known, however, to philosophers). Fortunately, the island has rich soil, ample potable water, and a moderate climate, and they are able to salvage the stores and equipment from the ship. Accordingly, there is every prospect that the group can survive until they are rescued. Continue Reading »

The Charlie Hebdo murders exposed a lot of ambivalence on the part of our leaders and public intellectuals regarding free expression. For example, the Pope all but apologized for this horrific crime, offering us the homey analogy that were even a dear friend to utter “a swear word against my mother, he’s going to get a punch in the nose. That’s normal.”[1] I guess it’s time to forget all about that silly “turn the other cheek” business.

Another prominent commentator condemned the murders unconditionally, but suggested that we, as a society, should ask ourselves, “Whether pens are swords or tools, are we using them well?”[ 2]. But, why should we ask that? When an aspiring Tolstoy turns out painfully bad fiction, should we question whether he is using prose in a responsible fashion? What’s suspect about bad painting, prose and poetry? Answer: nothing.   Continue Reading »

I find it revealing that the political controversy over the recently released Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s (majority) Report on the C.I.A.’s abuse of terrorism suspects focuses so heavily on the question of whether the alleged torture “worked,” that is to say, whether it produced valuable, life-saving information that could not be obtained by other means.[1] The nature of this debate suggests that the participants implicitly understand that the voting public would support torture if the benefits are significant enough. In contrast, most philosophers, including (especially?) libertarian types, appear to have a different view. Continue Reading »