Marijuana in vending machines

Oliver Tree 

This certainly is a day for liberty. Exactly as it says on the tin California has decided to sell marijuana in vending machines!

Civil Society Report on Climate Change.

Oliver Tree

I urge those concerned with counter arguments to the current perversive hyperbole on climate issues to read the upcoming Civil Society Report on Climate Change. It presents a formidable challenge to the current debate on this contentious issue. Combining the expertise of over 40 Civil society think tanks, institutions and research activists the report addresses major flaws not only in the purported scale of the threat but the current solutions to obviate a threat should the climate change dramatically.

Wrestling the debate from alarmists, expedient politicians and unscrupulous organisations the report presents a serious and reasoned challenge to the proposed methods and claims of all three. Moving through several chapters the report answers the full extent of questions posed by those who seek to cloud current debate with hyperbole and hysteria. De-constructive analyses undermines the inflated predications of pandemics, deforestation, agricultural collapse and apocalyptic natural disasters whilst checking the extensive powers government and international organisations demand as a result.

Moving the debate away from ineffective prevention and binding, inflexible international targets real alternatives are proposed to help those who would be most effected by climate change. Innovative reasoning leads the report to champion the development of free commercial institutions whilst at the same time ending costly and counterproductive aid. The report covers the breadth of current debate providing alternative systemic evidence and, where prudent action is required, provides market based solutions that benefit all concerned.

The report concludes that global carbon reduction targets in treaties such as Kyoto will have a miniscule delaying effect at best. Subsequently serious questions are raised as to the validity of such treaties, the science behind them and the economic cost of their implementation. Totalling somewhere between $100 billion and $1 trillion a year Kyoto alone represents a crippling world wide economic impact. The evidence presented in the report paints this potential loss in terms of the constructive use this money could have on developing new technologies, focusing resources and combating the effects of any potential climactic shifts, especially in those areas that would need it most.

The report indicates that advocating the establishment of the rule of law, private property and free markets in developing nations should be the real focus of international attention. With these in place the infrastructure, technology and wealth needed to negate the possible effects of rapid climate change will exist and these nations need not suffer as environmentalists, the UN and its affiliate IPCC and UNFCC organisations suggest.

The influential American journalist H.L Mencken once wrote that “The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it”. By ignoring shrill apocalyptic cries the Civil Society Report on Climate Change acknowledges this sentiment, presents facts instead of perpetuating myths and provides workable solutions to climactic effects both real and imagined.

 

Barroso, Climate Change and Civil Society

Oliver Tree

 

 Wrestling with global financial meltdown for top news spot, climate change is never far from the headlines. So it is no surprise that EU President Jose Manuel Barroso has grabbed the limelight with yet another drastic plan to deliver us from our collective environmental sins. 

 

When it comes to climate change there is a scene in the film Men In Black that for me neatly summarises the debate. A wizened Tommy Lee Jones turns to a newly recruited Will Smith declaring that “1500 years ago everybody knew that the earth was the centre of the universe, 500 years ago everybody knew that the earth was flat and 15 minutes ago you knew that people were alone on this planet…think what you will know tomorrow”

 

No mater what the natives of Kreuzberg or the Rainbow Warrior would have you believe, science does not work in ‘facts’. During the later half of the 19th Century and well into the twentieth the ’science’ of phrenology predicted with factual certitude that racial groups and their physical characteristics determined people’s cognitive potential. Currently there are several competing theories about the exact reason for how airline wings work, no scientist can explain why hot water freezes faster than cold or indeed how the supposedly un-aerodynamic bumblebee flies. Science is constantly evolving in a non-linear fashion, progressing faster and further in some areas and clearly lagging behind in others. It is not for me, or indeed you, to sit and declare categorically one side of the climate debate or the other.

 

  Now I know what you are thinking, ‘oh no here we go again’ another free-marketeer  denying that the climate is changing or at the very least that humanity has anything to do with a natural process. You would be wrong however. Refuting climate change and/or anthropomorphic explanations outright is equally as facile as proclaiming its scientific certitude.

 

My point is this; the bandwagoning Bonos of this world may well be right. Those who deny everything to do with climate change may well turn out to be right. However, to extend the agenda setting remit of governments and international organisations on the basis of this scientific ‘knowledge gap’  is definitely wrong.

 

 For arguments sake, if climate change is man made and if  it is reversible then surely the last institution one wants taking the lead are international bodies that fail to resolve more meagre international issues and governments that consistently struggle to educate your children, supply adequate police forces and provide effective healthcare solutions. Governments and international bodies, no matter their motives, are in their very nature consistently the worst providers of efficient services and innovative solutions. Daily they struggle with the complexity of modern society;  who on earth would want to trust them with saving the planet?

 

There are alternatives. I direct the open minded reader to the following alternative solutions on the issue. The soon to be published Civil Society Report on Climate Change and The Commons blog offer introductions and explanations as to why a free market solution provides a logical and tested route to solving climate change and other pressing global issues.

 

 

 

 

 

 

inverse conclusion

jessica wright

Steffen Hentrich wrote about “the dictatorship of the experts” in today’s post of the German language IUF blog, referring to this article by David Shearman. Shearman claims the following with regard to China’s ban on the use of plastic shopping bags, in the interest of reducing Greenhouse gas emissions:

All this suggests that the savvy Chinese rulers may be first out of the blocks to assuage greenhouse emissions and they will succeed by delivering orders. They will recognise that the alternative is famine and social disorder.

Shearman believes liberal democracy incapable of dealing with the supposed problem of Greenhouse gas emissions, and argues that governments must now take authoritative action for the good of all. He goes on to say,

Liberal democracy is sweet and addictive and indeed in the most extreme case, the USA, unbridled individual liberty overwhelms many of the collective needs of the citizens. The subject is almost sacrosanct and those who indulge in criticism are labeled as Marxists, socialists, fundamentalists and worse. These labels are used because alternatives to democracy cannot be perceived! Support for Western democracy is messianic as proselytised by a President leading a flawed democracy.

Shearman would like to create a counsel of scientists who would direct governments in making authoritarian policies, based on what many consider flawed scientific analysis. He concludes with an ominous warning, and seemingly inverted conclusion:

“if we do not act urgently we may find we have
chosen total liberty rather than life”

 

(all quotes taken from original article by Shearman)

 

Again again…..

 

Oliver Tree

With the markets continuing their slide into Bear territory the theme of today’s post I’m afraid remains focused on international business news.

 

Slipping under the radar somewhere between predictions of economic Armageddon and, well , economic Armageddon dear old Gordon Brown (coincidentally resembling a grizzly bear himself) has just completed a trip to China and India. In this time of impending recession his journey, and the investment message it symbolises, stands in direct contrast to that of other European leaders of late.

Take the always entertaining Mr Sarkozy. With a history of defending French companies, such as yogurt maker Danone in 2005, he has gone on to recently declare that,

“In the face of the growing power of speculative funds…and sovereign wealth funds which don’t respect economic logic, there is no question of France not taking action…”

His vehicle for action? Caisse des Depots et des Consignations or CDC. Through the state controlled CDC investment bank, or sovereign wealth fund to the rest of us, and its $55 billion worth of shares he seeks to,

“…promote the primordial economic interests of the nation”

Fighting fire with fire. Primordial indeed.

Whilst the British prime minister travels China and India seemingly flogging Britain and British Companies to the highest bidder, the French Premiere seeks to safeguard the Tricolour of Petits Filous. A starker contrast one could not ask for and, in our current economic climate, I will let the sensible reader draw their own conclusions.

I hate to say I told you so but…..

Oliver Tree

 

Across the pond a minor scandal has been raging in Libertarian circles. Unbeknownst to this writer it appears a certain Ron Paul has been making headlines for all the wrong reasons. This latest besmirching of the Libertarian name only adds to the argument of my post ‘A Definitive Year’ below.

 

Whilst one is keen to see some traditionally Libertarian ideals emerge as part of a viable political campaign, one has to bear in mind that using politicians as standard bearers has its dark side. Paul did indeed give credibility to some Liberal ideas but has now tarnished that reputation with his mirky newsletters and flaky denials.

 

Rapid disassociation by the likes of Tom Palmer and CATO should go some way to repairing the  damage done yet the only way forward folks seems only too clear; our vehicle is ideas not political parties or politicians.

 

 

The Definitive Year

Oliver Tree

Yesterday’s news tells of more Bentleys sold in Beijing than London, more caviar consumed in Moscow than New York and more yachts moored in Dubai than Cannes. The rise of the Indian tiger, the Chinese dragon and the oil oligarch are by now long in the tooth. Currently making front-page ‘Economist size’ news however are the growing acquisitions made by the large ’sovereign wealth funds’ of just such emerging national giants. With the West suffering financial jitters, the recent cash injections given by these funds indicate a collision course for 2008 where nationalist protectionism and economics will surely collide.

With news that on the 15th of January much of the $21 billion offered to bail out beleaguered Citi group and Merrill Lynch came from the sovereign funds of Singapore, Kuwait and South Korea, suddenly international finance resembles foreign take over. As today’s edition of The Economist is keen to point out, such investments have raised more than marginal political heckling; the Dubai World Ports debacle and recent Huawei corp. acquisitions are two cases in point. With Hillary Clinton quoted as ‘demanding control over sovereign funds’, the German government considering legislation to block investment from them and the Australian Treasury demanding that the IMF prevent these funds from gaining a majority stake in foreign corporations, the battle lines appear well and truly drawn.

So, what does all this have to do with the libertarians amongst us? For a start we should rejoice at the clear functioning of the capitalist system. Secondly, 2008 represents something of a watershed for the association of classically liberal beliefs. Long bound to Republicans in America and bundled worldwide with a convenient and wholly incorrect association with ‘conservatism’ in general, libertarians can use 2008 and the coming battle over international finance as a vitalising break from national political associations. By rejecting calls from Bush, Merkel, Clinton, Rudd et al, liberals can illustrate not only the contradiction of expedient calls for protectionism but also their own disassociation from contrary conservatism, domestic scare-mongering and degrading party political allegiance.

smoke screen

oliver tree

Starting in California in 1990 and spreading throughout America, Italy and France, Berliners are now faced with the reality of a smoke free public space. As a British subject, I witnessed in July 2007 the UK becoming the latest in that long line of smoke free countries. With sanctimonious declarations from Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt “… a historic day for public health…”, and rousing populist sloganeering from Cancer Research UK that we were “…making the nation a lot healthier….”, I couldn’t help wondering if they had all somehow missed the point.

Sure, cigarette sales have declined by 0.5% in 6 months since the ban and yes statistics demonstrate that more people are quitting, but is the UK nation on a ‘healthier’ course due to the ban? Aside from the illiberality of the act does restricting the consumption of a legal substance really make for a healthier nation? The same tactics were used three years ago, again in the UK, but only this time the target was alcohol. Filled with lurid tabloid tales that the streets of Britain resembled a latter day Gin Lane, the government decided to threaten everything from fining the drink industry to taxing pubs and clubs who sold “alcopops” and shots at knock-down prices.  The result; continued ‘binge’ drinking with supermarkets cashing in, by slashing their prices to account for the pubs and clubs’ shortfall.

A healthier nation does not arise from the prohibition of trans-fats or nicotine any more than raising the duty on petrol reduces cars on the road. Despite a decline in UK cigarette sales I would be willing to bet the incidence of regular exercise, a healthy diet or the moderation of other unhealthy vices has, if anything, continued its steady decline. The only logical conclusion to draw from this spate of altruistic penalties and bans is that ultimately in order to bring about greater public health governments need to tax, legislate and fine any substance deemed ‘unhealthy’ into oblivion.Instead of this obvious fallacy let me propose a longer term, albeit controversial solution, remove publicly funded health care. Allow people to realise the real cost of a drunken night out as they pay to be patched up at casualty, see their health insurance premiums rise if they choose to smoke 50 a day, consume fast food and never exercise.

Unfortunately for Berliners, it is too late to stop your ban. However, please do not believe that prohibition ever did anything other than create bootleggers, and that forced restriction never solves the real issue of intangible financial accountability.

a splintered party

Jessica Wright 

The New York Times reported in 2005 that there are four major blocs within the American Republican party, they are as follows:

1. the “leave us alone” coalition
2. the cultural coalition
3. the security coalition
4. the old guard coalition

Most people that call themselves “Republican” fall within one of these categories, making it difficult to say exactly what a Republican is and stands for. This multifariousness is evident in the current lead-up to the 2008 Presidential primaries with the three Republican front-runners taking one each of the three caucuses held in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan. In a New York Times article today, Nagourney writes:

“On the most tangible level, the vote on Tuesday was proof from the ballot box of what polls have shown: this is a party that is adrift, deeply divided and uninspired when it comes to its presidential candidates and unsure of how to counter an energized Democratic Party”.

Those who voted for Huckabee in Iowa belong to the socially conservative wing of the party, advocating for a faith-based leadership. McCain’s voters in New Hampshire were from the independent crowd, who are plentiful in “live free or die” state.

The Times reports the following about Mitt Romney:

“Mr. Romney has made a conscious effort to reassemble the coalition of economic and social conservatives that came together with Ronald Reagan and that President Bush kept remarkably unified in his two campaigns and through much of his White House tenure. Mr. Romney’s uneven performance has highlighted the strains in that coalition, and a central question about his candidacy is whether he will be able to rally its fractured components to his side. It was no coincidence that he invoked Reagan more than once in his victory speech on Tuesday, though it was perhaps equally telling that he also invoked the first President Bush, who like Mr. Romney struggled to convince Republicans that he was Reagan’s rightful heir”.

At present, Huckabee appeals to Republican voters who see their party as a bastion of moral authority, McCain to those who are not fully satisfied with their options but would not vote outside party lines, and Romney, who wants to appeal to those socially conservative (but not too conservative) and economically liberal voters who reminisce over the Reagan era.

The New York Times Guide to the Political Herds

Spiegel International on the Michigan Primary
The New York Times on the Republicans