Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Where the Right is Wrong — Salvatore Padula
Like Friedrich Hayek, I am a man of the Right. Though I do not adhere down the line to the contemporary orthodoxy of the Right, I firmly believe that personal liberty and personal responsibility are the cornerstones of both human fulfilment and a healthy society. I am utterly convinced that for our society to remain strong it is imperative that conservative and libertarian policy be implemented. In order for this to happen, it is necessary for those of us on the Right to win the argument and sway public opinion. Happily, this appears to be happening, both because of the inherent merits of our positions and because of the manifest failures of progressive statism.
While I am optimistic about the prospects of the American Right and I am heartened by the increasing effectiveness of our persuasive efforts, I believe that there are always areas for improvement. Specifically, I frequently encounter arguments put forward by some on the Right that are counterproductive in persuading the unconvinced — as well positions held by segments of the Right that are simply incorrect. To that end, I have compiled a list (not meant to be comprehensive) of arguments and opinions which those who desire the implementation of good policy may want to reconsider, or at least raise more sparingly.
Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves
This is a common argument put forward by many on the Right and it is not without merit. Some tax cuts do, in fact, pay for themselves. It is not, however, always (or even usually) the case. While it is absolutely true that punitively high income and capital gains tax rates disincentivize economic activity and slow economic growth, it is not necessarily true that losses in revenue will be made up by the overall increase in the size of the economy.
Whether or not that is the case is primarily a function of the applicable multiplier. Macroeconomics is far from a science and predicting what a particular multiplier will be is largely a theoretical crap shoot (as evidenced by the failure of the 2009 Stimulus, which assumed a much higher Keynesian multiplier than that which actually occurred). It is common on the Right to invoke the Laffer Curve to support the notion that cutting taxes will increase revenue. Laffer was certainly on to something and the Laffer Curve does apply under certain circumstances, but these circumstances occur when marginal tax rates are exorbitantly high. There is strong evidence to support Laffer at marginal rates of 60% and higher. The evidence for lower rates (including our current top rates) is much more equivocal.
I am not saying that we should abandon calls for lower taxes. We should, however, be circumspect about this particular claim.
More Guns, Less Crime
I like guns. I own several. I believe the Second Amendment recognizes an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. I find many claims advanced by those opposed to guns to be risible, particularly concerning assault rifles. That said, I think that gun advocates often make arguments which have the effect of shooting themselves in the foot.
While my title for this topic alludes to John Lott’s book of the same name, I’m less opposed to general claims about the effect of gun ownership and carrying on crime reduction (though the data cited to support such claims are far from compelling) than I am on individual instances where increased firearm distribution is suggested as a solution to a problem. For example, after the Sandy Hook massacre it was common to hear gun advocates call for arming elementary school teachers. This response is just as disproportionate and ineffective as were calls from the left to ban assault rifles and large capacity magazines. What’s worse, they overshadowed the sensible calls to reform our mental health system and allowed an unsympathetic media to caricature supporters of gun rights as quacks in the mold of Alex Jones. Similarly, when we object to sensible policies, such as prohibitions on carrying weapons in bars, we do much to discredit ourselves with the mass of our fellow citizens who think that alcohol and firearms are a bad combination.
Supporters of gun rights would also do well to admit that guns make certain crimes more likely. Mass killings are certainly more likely due to firearms. It’s difficult to have a mass stabbing, for example. (Though there apparently was one in in China recently, there were a large number of perpetrators and the casualties were relatively few when compared to something like the massacre perpetrated by assault rifle-armed Anders Brevik in Norway a few years ago.), and physical altercations involving firearms more easily escalate into fatalities. Conceding these fairly obvious truths doesn’t weaken our case (since nobody takes the denials seriously) and it allows us to make the reasonable argument that, given the facts that guns exist and that criminals will possess them, prohibiting legal gun ownership deprives law abiding citizens of their right to self-defense.
State Nullification and Secession
Much to my dismay, both nullification and secession seem to be increasing in popularity among segments of the Right. I’m not going to dwell upon why this poses a problem for the Right in terms of public perception. I think the reasons are self-evident. What I would like to address is why both nullification and secession are unconstitutional.
I will start with noting the social contractarian basis of our Constitution. The United States Constitution begins with “We the People of the United States.” It is not an agreement between the states; it is a compact between the people. While it is true that sovereignty under the Constitution is divided between the federal and state governments, federal sovereignty is not derived from the states, but from the people. Because our Constitution is a compact between the people of all the states, it is not within the power of individual states to unilaterally secede. While there is a natural right to revolt against an oppressive or tyrannical regime, that right is possessed by the people, not the states, and is, in any event, extraconstitutional.
Beyond that basic principle, nullification is squarely contradicted by the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which states that federal law is the supreme law of the land and overrides state statutory and constitutional law) and Article III, Section 2, which grants the federal courts jurisdiction over, amongst other things, cases arising under the Constitution and the laws of the United States.
The Federalist Papers also contradict the legitimacy of state nullification. Federalist No. 33 declares federal laws supreme to state laws. No. 39 explains that, under the Constitution, conflicts over jurisdiction between state and federal power are to be resolved by the federal courts. No. 44 discusses the role of the states in checking federal overreach, specifically stating that the election of new representatives is the recourse available to states. It does not mention nullification. No. 78 states that federal courts have the power to void legislative acts that are contrary to the Constitution. It does not grant a similar power to the states. No. 80 specifically denies that states have the power to invalidate federal law.
We Should Return to the Gold Standard
I deplore out-of-control spending and the profligate printing of money. Inflation is a terrible thing. I’m very critical of the policies of the Federal Reserve. That said, I think that a return to gold-backed currency is a terrible idea and is frequently advocated by people who don’t really understand what they are talking about. (Note: many advocates of the gold standard are highly informed. If you are one of them, much of what I have to say here is not directed toward you. I still think you’re mistaken though.)
There are undoubtedly good arguments in favor of having a gold-backed currency. They include long-term price stability, reduced risk of significant inflation, and the near impossibility of hyperinflation. Gold standards also make it more difficult for a government to engage in sustained deficit spending. More debatable is the assertion that a gold-backed currency has objective value in contrast to the ephemeral nature of fiat currency.
On to why the gold standard is a bad idea. First, despite claims to the contrary, gold has very little objective value. Gold certainly has industrial applications and people think it’s pretty, but there really is no such thing as objective worth. Something is only worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it. In any case, if you are looking for a stable store of objective value linking your currency to any single commodity (gold included) is inferior to a basket of goods. Second, while excessive inflation can be a serious problem, deflation is often disastrous. Fixing the money supply to gold reduces the risk of inflation at the cost of increasing the risk of deflation. As a general matter, moderate inflation (around 2%) is widely considered by economists to be desirable. Third, while a gold standard usually leads to long-term price stability, it is prone to short-term extreme volatility as the value of money is dependent upon the supply of gold.
In any case, fiat currency is often unfairly maligned. A well-managed and politically independent central bank should have no problem responsibly managing the currency in a way that encourages growth and avoids inflation. While it is true that the Fed has pursued a dangerous policy of quantitative easing (though I’m slightly less concerned than are many about the prospects of mass inflation, I think it a real danger), this is not an inherent weakness of fiat currency. It is a consequence of the politically imposed dual mandate under which the Federal Reserve is tasked with limiting inflation and maximizing employment. These are often contradictory aims and the proper role of a central bank should be limited to curbing inflation.
Representative Peter King
The man is an ass.
Anyway, these are a few areas where I think the Right should reconsider. I’d love to know what you think and if you have anything you’d like to add to the list.
I wasn’t specifically referring to Lott’s data with the “spurious data” comment. As I said in the OP, I find Lott’s argument and supporting date unconvincing, but they are not clearly spurious. What I had in mind were some data disseminated by the NRA which I’ve recently been presented with claiming that private gun ownership saves 50,000 lives in the US per year. I looked into the methodology and it was laughable. Once everything is transferred to 2.0 I’ll be happy to find it and provide you a link if you’d like.
You should broaden your drinking horizons.
I think it’s probably true that my cringe threshold is lower than is yours, but what drives me up the wall is when sound arguments in our favor are drowned out by unsupportable assertions and crackpottery. Making an easily discreditable argument is usually more harmful than remaining silent as it all to often undermines our stronger points. In any case, I’m not suggesting people shut up. I’m suggesting they put a bit more thought into what they say. *
*Actually, that’s not quite true. I’d like people who advocate nullification and/or secession to keep those opinions to themselves. They are just wrong. Also, Peter King should never speak.
I do agree that we are largely in agreement.
Saying that there are no theoretical differences between Keynesians and Supply-Siders is an overstatement, but the differences are much smaller than the theoretical differences between Austrians and Keynesians. The divide between Keynesians and Supply-Siders are substantial, but they are more technical than theoretical in nature. The way I would describe the relation of Keynesian and Supply-Side Economics is that it is similar to the relation of Rawls and Nozick. They are both within the social-contractarian school of political philosophy, but reach radically different conclusions. In this analogy, the Austrians would be akin to Utilitarians.
I remember seeing Laffer on CNBC a few years ago where he was asked about the stimulative effects of infrastructure in mitigating downturns. IIRC, he doubted that such a thing would be effective, but not for theoretical reasons. He seemed to think that cronyism would result, rather than the money being spent on genuine infrastructure.
On a slightly different note, I don’t think that any supply-sider would disagree with the ideas put forth by Keynes. The explanations for supply-side policies seem no different than an explanation that any Keynesian might give about the possible effects of tax cuts.
Well, that’s always true. ;)
The devil is in the details.
Just as an aside, I’m generally skeptical of claims that the macroeconomy is manageable or predictable. I’m in the Robert Lucas camp which holds that large-scale macroeconomic models are rarely useful. Finn Kydland was one of my professors. He won a Nobel Prize largely for his work demonstrating the failures of Keynesian-inspired attempts at economic management. His views rubbed off.
Another thing about gold: I would argue that it makes forcible redistribution more likely. The most common, and in my opinion most effective, argument against redistribution is that economic growth means everybody gets richer; inequality doesn’t matter if the poor are objectively better off. This is only possible with so-called fiat currency, currency which is backed up by the economy as a whole. A currency based on a single commodity cannot grow unless the supply of that commodity grows. This makes wealth distribution into the zero-sum game which the left insists it already is; under a single-commodity standard no one can enrich themselves without taking from another.
I think you may be under a misapprehension concerning where Keynesianism departs from classical economics (of which supply-side economics is a variant). Keynes wasn’t saying anything really theoretically novel when he argued in favor of stimulus during economic downturns. That was a fairly widely accepted view. Where Keynes was innovative was in his belief that stimulus should be focused on increasing demand, rather than supply.
The question of whether supply creates demand (Say’s Law/classical/supply-side economics) or demand creates supply (Keynesianism) is something of a chicken vs. egg situation, but that isn’t the core of the Keynesian/Supply-Side dispute. Where they differ is about whether it is easier to manage demand or supply. On balance, I think the supply-siders have the better argument as Keynesian demand-management requires a degree of macroeconomic precision which I think unattainable as well as massive state involvement and all the ills which accompany it.
Good point.
All your arguments against secession are based upon state governments doing the seceding. But note that the south did NOT secede that way; they did it correctly, which was an extra-governmental assembly of the people, which then votes to secede. It does not include the state government, although the people then have the right to reinstall the state government as the ruling authority.
Your argument on guns presupposes that you know best who should or shouldn’t carry and where. I don’t have an argument with private property, but if that establishment is open to the public and prohibits firearms, then IT is responsible for your safety. Note that you make the same kind of gratuitous comment about where you believe guns should be; it only differs from the Left in the number of places that you prohibit. As a counter to your argument, there are way more people carrying now than, say, 10 years ago. Yet there is not blood in the streets – or the bars. People are smarter than you credit them, often the case when liberals (not saying you’re a liberal – just acting like one) go about saving us from ourselves.
The dissolution of a social contract is only legitimate if all the people party to the contract are involved in the decision to dissolve. It doesn’t matter that the people of the South wanted to dissolve the Union; they didn’t give the people of the North a say in the matter.
This is what I call the Roach Motel Theory of Unionism: states check in, but they can’t check out. If states can voluntarily join the union, simple common sense dictates they may voluntarily leave.
Moreover, you say that the right of the secession is possessed by the people, but not the states. But states are, by definition, associations of people. And as to secession, the Declaration of Independence says this:
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
I don’t think people should drink and drive. Does that mean I’m acting like a liberal?
My point is that the states did not voluntarily choose to join the union; the people of the states did.
The signers of the Declaration of Independence were themselves secessionists. And the right to secede supersedes any governing document, particularly when the government created under its auspices becomes increasingly abusive of individual liberty.
Then, of course, you have the example of this country from, say 1880 to 1910. Seems it had a veritable explosion of economic growth, with all included, without a central bank. Yes, banks did what banks do – issued “money”, but it was specie-backed.
Yes. The criteria is that nothing happens, not that you are arbitrarily “drunk”. We are suppose to look to actions and consequences, not doing something you disapprove of.
The Declaration of Independence was the dissolution of an existing social contract, but it was also a rebellion against tyrannical government. It was an extraconstitutional act. My entire point is that people who claim that unilateral secession is constitutionally permissible are wrong. Under some circumstances it may be warranted as a matter of natural law, but it is extraconstitutional. What I object to is advocates of secession claiming the mantel of constitutionalism.
But it wasn’t. It only took 9 states to ratify the constitution, not all 13. And none of the people of that time would have countenanced an argument that they, as a group, could not secede if they did it appropriately. Indeed, when the south seceded, most of the north really didn’t much care.
That’s not really a counterexample. During that period the money supply grew because the supply of gold grew. (Also fractional reserve banking.) It was a happy coincidence. For examples of non-fiat money being problematic I would direct you to the economies of 17th and 18th century Spain and Qing Dynasty China.
What is your basis for this claim?
I have stated that I don’t think people should drink and drive. I did not say that I wanted to outlaw drinking and driving. I’m quite happy with the criminalizing drunk driving.
Similarly, I have stated that I don’t think people should carry guns in bars. I have not said I want to outlaw carrying guns in bars. I have said that such a ban would not violate the 2nd Amendment. It wouldn’t. That said, I would prefer bans to be put in place by the bars privately.
Right. Lack of guns sure slowed them down in Rwanda.
The decline in crime, particularly violent crime, long predated the increased popularity of carrying and is a phenomenon found throughout most of the developed world, regardless of gun laws. My argument is not that more guns lead to more crime; it is that claims that more guns lead to less crime lack much strong empirical support. In that respect, I am not so much making an affirmative argument as disputing one. On the issues of mass killings and guns in bars I am making affirmative arguments. I’m arguing that denying that guns make massacres like Sandy Hook easier is so clearly incorrect that it discredits whatever other argument gun rights proponents may make. Similarly, when people insist that they have a constitutional right to bring their gun to a bar, they are not only wrong. They discredit meritorious constitutional carrying arguments.
Two points:
1) A substantial proportion of the Rwandan Genocide was carried out by men with guns.
2) There were approximately 180,000 perpetrators of the Rwandan Genocide. Over the span of four months (April-July 1994) between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people were killed. At the high end of the death estimate, each perpetrator accounted to 5.5 victims over four months, or 1.4 per month. Using a Ruger Mini-14, a shotgun, and a Glock; Anders Breivik was able to kill 77 and wound 319 in 1 hour and 12 minutes.
As I’ve stated, my point is that guns do make mass killings easier. Are you actually disputing that?
Attackers of gun rights would do well to admit that the banning of guns makes certain crimes more likely. Mass killings are certainly more likely due to an absence of firearms int he hands of those who could stop the perpetrator.
There – fixed it for you.
And it appears that the “The left will use any policy I disagree with to make us look ridiculous, so that policy shouldn’t be advocated” meme made it over to Ricochet 2.0.
Do you have any evidence to support the validity of your fix?