Friday, July 17, 2020

The False Dichotomy of Left vs Right

Why is it that we use the physical layout of the French revolutionary assembly to define the political divisions in most countries today? The political terms "right" and "left" originated in the fact that the supporters of the monarchy sat to the right of the assembly president and those who supported the revolution to the president's left. They ceased to have much relevance even in France as the monarchy was abolished and the revolution fractured into factions that settled their internecine scores with the guillotine. 

Wikipedia, that ultimate source of fake news, would have you believe that the modern left represents "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism", whereas the right represents "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism". You need to read no further than the use of the term "ideas" to describe the left and the more derogatory "notions" for the right to know the political sympathies of those who edited the article. It is so biased you could be forgiven for thinking it first appeared in The Onion or Babylon Bee. One thing the Wikipedia article does get right is that it lists libertarianism on both sides of the left-right divide, which suggests that even the lefties who dominate Wikipedia editing realise that libertarianism doesn't fit the dichotomy.

The respectability of the left and the vilification of the right in the West today is inconsistent and highly hypocritical. The extreme left, in the form of Marxist-Leninism, Maoism, and other forms of Communism, has been responsible for far more human misery and deaths in the last century than the extreme right, and they are indistinguishable in their means and ends. The Chinese Communist Party today, for example, fits Wikipedia's definition of Fascism precisely: dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy. The only real point of difference between Fascism and Communism in practice is that the former tolerates private ownership so long as it serves the purposes of the state - and this is also true of the Chinese political system today. Both Hitler and Mussolini saw themselves as socialists, and the left's casting of them at the opposite end of the political spectrum is a very successful piece of historic revisionism.

The real philosophical antipodes are totalitarianism and freedom, with extreme right and extreme left on the totalitarian end of the spectrum. Both are about using human characteristics to categorise people into groups that are set in opposition to one another. The extreme right uses nationality and race, whereas the extreme left has traditionally used class - but now also race, sex or gender, and sexuality. It's classic divide-and-rule and scapegoat tactics. Blaming the "other" for one group's misfortunes is the despot's oldest trick, whether it is the Nazis vilifying the Jews for Germany's misfortunes following World War One or Black Lives Matter blaming white people for the situation of African-Americans today.

The true contemporary Fascists are Antifa. You only need to look at them in their black outfits and masks, carrying weapons and beating up innocent people on the streets, to appreciate the parallels with Mussolini's blackshirts or Hitler's Brownshirts. The smashing and looting of businesses is a mirror of the events of Kristallnacht. The Black Lives Matter protestors who recently marched in cities all over the world are their "useful idiots", having been co-opted to their cause but perhaps not fully understanding what they are supporting.

The true liberals (in the classical sense of the word rather than the perverted American appropriation of it) are libertarians like me, who believe in individual rights and maximum freedom in all spheres of life - political, social and economic. We understand that you cannot have a big state proscribing freedom in one area without it affecting every other area of life. The desire of the left to have maximum freedom in the social sphere, such as the freedom to marry whoever you want, is incompatible with their desire to have the state dominate the economic sphere. Likewise, the right is contradictory when it (often somewhat selectively) advocates for free markets while trying to limit political or religious freedom.

Libertarians can be defined by their opposition to the use of force in political, social and economic relations. We believe individuals are sovereign and that governments derive their legitimate authority only from the consent of the governed. We believe that the legitimate purpose of government is to protect individual rights and that the role of government should be limited to activities that are consistent with this. That means the state ought not to interfere with who you marry or with whom you trade. It also means we are in opposition with big state advocates on the right or the left.

Monday, June 15, 2020

The Real Problem with Police Violence in America

My last post was a fairly pessimistic epistle entitled "The End of the World as We Know It" in which I lamented the fact that the four greatest decades in human history were over and we were at risk of throwing away everything we had gained. But even I could not have predicted what has transpired over the last month. I imagined the Covid-19 lockdown would see a newfound respect for individual freedom and the wonders of free enterprise as the most important factor in improving human wellbeing over the last two centuries. I was wrong - the pandemic has only served to give strength to the arms of those who believe that the only way to improve human existence is for them to impose their authoritarian will on the rest of us.

The death in the United States of a black man, George Floyd, at the hands of a white police officer, was the match that lit a tinder-dry kindling of carefully-nurtured resentments and manufactured grievances. Under the banner of "Black Lives Matter", thousands of protestors took to the streets not only in Minneapolis, where Floyd was killed, but in cities across America and the world. Even Auckland had a mass gathering. Political leaders, reading the mood of the crowd, turned a blind eye to the massive flouting of the Covid-19 lockdowns that they had hitherto enforced with pedantic officiousness. In some places the protests turned violent, with vandalism and looting of shops (the targets invariably being the stores with the most desirable consumer products), and assaults on innocent bystanders and property-owners. 

I think a degree of outrage is justified by the death of Floyd and others at the hands of American police, but the problem is not, as claimed, primarily one of institutional racism. When you examine the statistics, as Heather MacDonald does in this Wall Street Journal article [sub. required], white Americans are as likely to be killed in a encounter with police as blacks, and in this article, Coleman Hughes lists many cases of white victims who died in equivalent circumstances to George Floyd in recent years. In this part of the world, we were appalled to hear of the case of Justine Damond, the Australian women who was also shot by a Minneapolis police officer after she had summoned the police to investigate screams she had heard near her house. The case demonstrated that anyone, even a law-abiding Antipodean, could be the innocent victim of police violence in America.

The real problem is the unrestrained nature of the US Government. Other countries may have far more authoritarian regimes, but America's position as the most powerful state on Earth means it can bring to heel not only its own citizens but any person, anywhere in the world. It can force other governments or global institutions to comply with its wishes and has come to regard the entire world as being subject to its jurisdiction. The result of this virtual omnipotence is that American officials have an arrogance that is rare even in totalitarian regimes. Like the great imperial powers of history, the American state regards itself as towering above the people it rules, and its satraps and panjandrums are so estranged from those they are meant to serve that they act like a separate tribe - and as is customary in tribal engagements, violence is the norm.

I have been to the United States many times, and every time I go there I am more incredulous at the attitude of officialdom to the public. There is none of the courtesy or humour that is characteristic of public officials in New Zealand. The normal demeanour of American officials is haughty high-handedness and surly suspicion. The last time I went to the US was on the way to Mexico, and in spite of the latter country's immense problems with violent crime, I felt safer talking to a Mexican police officer than any of the American officials with whom I had to deal.

Notwithstanding the merits of the original cause, it is apparent that the outrage over George Floyd's death is being exploited by some pretty cynical and dishonourable groups for their own political ends. The more extreme protest actions on the streets of American cities have been organised and coordinated by the loose affiliation of extreme-left-wing groups known as Antifa. Today's Antifa is the philosophical successor to the original Antifaschistische Aktion, which was an offshoot of the Communist Party of Germany in the early 1930s. According to the Anti-Defamation League, Antifa "proactively seek[s] physical confrontations with [its] perceived fascist adversaries" and should not be confused with other, non-violent, anti-fascist groups.

I have always been able to imagine the sort of society the likes of Antifa want to create, but you don't need to imagine it - this week they have created a small example of it in Seattle. The so-called Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone or "CHAZ" was formed after police and city officials abandoned the East Precinct area of Seattle to the protestors. It didn't take long for a leader to emerge - a former rapper named Raz Simone, armed with an AK-47 and accompanied by equally well-tooled paramilitaries, announced that he was the police now and was filmed allegedly assaulting multiple protestors who disobeyed his orders. The citizens of CHAZ began to experience economic life as it would inevitably be in their imagined utopia - they were soon begging for donations of food (vegan fare, no less) from supporters outside the zone. Communism always looks like this - violence and starvation - although not even I expected that that they would get to the end state so quickly.

Protestors are now calling for the abolition of the police, and in Minneapolis the city council has acceded to their demands, but if the alternative is the sort of anarchy that now exists in Seattle, I think most people would vote to stick with the devil they know. And besides, the city council is responsible for the police and must accept blame for its dysfunction - I would be more impressed if they were to vote to abolish their own council.

Robert Peel, the British prime minister who established the Metropolitan Police Service, which is considered the template for the modern civilian law enforcement authority, said, "The police are the public and the public are the police." He meant that they should be an integral part of the community to which they belong, and he would have been horrified at the division that has arisen between his progeny in America and the people they are meant to serve. We shouldn't stand for an out-of-control police, but we should realise that it is merely the symptom of an out-of-control government.

Monday, May 11, 2020

The End of the World as We Know It

The four decades from 1980 to 2020 produced the greatest growth of liberty and prosperity in human history. Most of the great 20th Century dictatorships that had imprisoned half of the world's population collapsed or were replaced by more liberal versions of themselves. Average human income as measured by GDP per capita increased from approximately $2500 (in current US Dollars) to more than $11,000, and those living in extreme poverty as defined by the World Bank reduced from 44% of the world's population to less than 10%. The economic deregulation of the 1980s resulted in a wave of technological innovation in medicine, telecommunications, energy production, finance and consumer goods that has enabled people all over the world to live better and longer lives. The social liberalism that started in the 1960s accelerated during this period and, in the West at least, most of the remaining discriminatory laws against minorities such as gay people were swept aside.

The authoritarian instinct wasn't gone, however. In China, the Communist Party refused to follow its Russian and European counterparts into oblivion and in 1989 at Tiananmen Square reasserted its totalitarian rule with a bloodbath of tanks and guns against unarmed protestors. A few formerly-liberal countries like Venezuela also bucked the trend and embraced an austere form of socialism of which even the Khmer Rouge might have been proud. The United States reacted to the terrorist attacks against the World Trade Centre and other major landmarks in 2001 by invading Afghanistan and Iraq and introducing the repressive Patriot Act, turning its sophisticated surveillance capabilities against its own people, and many other Western governments followed suit. We had some economic stumbles, most notably the dotcom crash of 2000 and the global financial crisis of 2008, but while these interrupted the long periods of growth, the overall upward trend continued.

That era is over. Covid-19 has been the catalyst for, but not the exclusive cause of, a sea change in our social, economic and political lives that is unlikely to be short-lived. The signs were there before the pandemic. Elements of the environmental movement such as Extinction Rebellion had become shrill in their calls to sacrifice our economic and political freedom to avert a millenarian doomsday, and a combination of enhanced censorship laws and a "cancel culture" - complete with virtual-pitchfork-wielding mobs - saw the casting out from mainstream discourse of anyone who defied the increasingly narrow political orthodoxy. Voters responded by electing contrarian political bruisers such as Donald Trump in the United States, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and Viktor Orbán in Hungary, who vowed to overturn some of their opponents' excesses and imposed a few of their own. Covid-19 has merely brought all of this to a head.

Whether or not the Covid-19 lockdowns that most countries have imposed are justified from a epidemiological perspective, there is no doubt now that the economic costs and the political and social impacts will be significant and long-lasting. The elimination of the spread of the disease within a country's borders is just the beginning of the journey back. We will have to live with a less-onerous form of lockdown, including quarantine at the border, until we have a vaccine or develop natural herd immunity. According to the OECD, the lockdowns will have an initial negative impact on GDP of between 15% (Ireland) and 35% (Greece). The longer term economic impact is uncertain, although many economists are now expecting a U-shaped, rather than a V-shaped, recovery. We almost certainly haven't seen the full impact on stock prices, and as earnings plummet and more companies fail, the consequential impact on global markets is likely to be felt for years to come. Governments that already have high levels of national debt and large deficits will have limited capacity to use monetary and fiscal policy to drive long-term economic recovery, particularly with interest rates at historic lows.

Many of the changes we have adopted during the lockdown will survive the easing of restrictions. Some of these changes are positive - for example, the widespread use of working-from-home technology lessening the need for people to commute to central city offices (with a consequential reduction in traffic congestion and pollution). Others aren't so positive - such as the permanent loss of jobs in retailing and food service from the accelerated use of online shopping and home delivery. One of the worst effects may be a permanent disruption to social relations, particularly amongst the elderly, as people struggle to restore tenuous community relationships that existed before the lockdown. The pandemic has seen traditional social niceties replaced by mutual suspicion and this trend won't be easily reversed.

The biggest permanent impact is likely to be political. Covid-19 has seen the largest expansion of state power over our lives since World War II. We have broken through an invisible wall of convention that constrained governments as much as any formal constitutional barriers - the presumption that a citizen can do anything so long as it isn't legally forbidden has given way to the expectation that our governments will tell what we are allowed to do. This hasn't happened in defiance of the will of the people - polls indicate that a majority of voters in most Western nations favour the extension of the lockdown, and any questioning of its necessity is regarded by many as disloyal. The established media have been cheerleaders of the measures and their traditional role of holding government to account has been assumed by bloggers and podcasters, who are often cast as troublemakers. The traditional Western political divide between conservatives and progressives hasn't defined the battlelines over the lockdowns - governments of both political hues have adopted similarly stringent measures and it has been the ultra-progressive Sweden that has been a libertarian outlier.

We don't have to be dire pessimists to think that it will be many years before we shake off all of the effects of Covid-19. International travel, for example, won't return to normal until we have a vaccine and airlines may be required to make social distancing permanent, halving the number of passengers on a plane and doubling the fares, thereby returning air travel to the relative luxury of the 1970s. Perhaps we will see a levelling of the disparities in incomes that have grown up in recent decades between blue collar jobs and the managerial elite, as some of those "essential" workers demand wages more commensurate with the importance of their role in the lockdown. Recent moves towards greater protectionism in trade is likely to accelerate as nations embrace isolationism and autarky, which is likely to further constrain economic recovery and growth. And some governments will be reluctant to hand back the power they have assumed during the lockdown, justifying further constraints on liberty by the ongoing impacts of the lockdown itself, in a vicious circle of escalating repression. It will be a virtuous government indeed that abandons all of their lockdown measures at the earliest possible opportunity.

Those of us whose adult lives have largely played out over the last four decades should be grateful that we have lived through the best of times, but we owe it to our children and grandchildren to give them at least the same opportunities that we have had to enjoy happy, healthy and fulfilling lives. How we handle the recovery from Covid-19 will determine whether we do so.

Wednesday, May 6, 2020

Understanding Risk in the Time of Covid-19

I am something of a risk management expert. A significant part of my professional career has been advising organisations on how to effectively manage risk, so I can justly claim to know a thing or two about the subject. The responses of governments all around the world to the Covid-19 outbreak have demonstrated how poorly understood the science of risk management is amongst our leaders.

Risk is quantitatively assessed as likelihood times impact. In other words, the chances of the risk eventuating (if we don't do anything to avoid it) multiplied by what happens if it does. One of the problems with Covid-19 is that governments, at least initially, under assessed the likelihood. They have also overestimated the impact with their projections of huge numbers of deaths. Having assessed the risk, you then have to assess the possible mitigations and their costs. Governments have compounded their errors by going straight to the most extreme form of mitigation and not quantifying the costs.

Time can be a significant factor in risk mitigation. I was listening to a podcast this morning in which an academic in America was discussing the poor state of infrastructure in many US states. He gave an example where a state government had decided to defer repairs on a short stretch of highway that would cost $6m if done today. Leaving the maintenance unaddressed for just two more years would result in a six-fold increase in the cost of repair. Under those circumstances, it seems crazy not to carry out the mitigation today.

One of the worst effects of a lack of understanding of risk management is the precautionary principle. This is the belief that unless you have complete knowledge about the likelihood and impact of the risk, either you shouldn't take any action at all (e.g. not allowing the trial of a new drug) or you should go all-out to prevent the risk eventuating (e.g. locking down the population in a pandemic).

Imagine you have a sore leg and you go to the doctor, who takes one look at it and says it might be cancer and therefore he should amputate. This is the precautionary principle. At the very least, you would want to understand the likelihood of it actually being cancer and the prognosis for that particular form of cancer before you agreed to the surgery. Some cancers are benign and don't need to be treated at all. Others are minor and localised and a simple excision of the tumour might be sufficient. You would weigh up the likelihood and consequence of the diagnosis against the cost (in loss of mobility, ability to work, etc.) of the mitigation. You may decide that the cost of any mitigation is more than the benefit gained from the treatment (a not-uncommon decision particularly amongst elderly cancer patients).

The most obvious real-world example of reliance on the precautionary principle today is the various zero-carbon initiatives legislated by governments around the world. Stopping all or most of the use of fossil fuels, which we literally rely on to keep us alive, in the belief that it will prevent global warming is, from a risk management perspective, extreme folly. The claims of "settled science" notwithstanding, we have little certainty about the direct impact of manmade carbon dioxide emissions on the climate, so banning the most common, economic and safe forms of energy before we have the chance to develop reliable alternatives, is unjustified.

Some experts were calling for the New Zealand Government to quarantine everyone entering New Zealand back in February, when we had no Covid-19 cases. That mitigation, as disruptive as it would have been on our tourism and international education sectors, would have cost a fraction of the complete lockdown of our economy that was adopted once we had multiple cases of the disease within our borders. Philip Thomas, a professor of risk management at Bristol University, has estimated that if GDP falls by over 6.4 per cent over the next two years as a result of prolonged economic inactivity, more lives will be lost than saved thanks to rises in poverty, violent crime and suicide. So, even if you ignore the actual dollar costs, the lockdown may end up costing more in lives than the unmitigated impact of Covid-19 itself.

Effective risk management is almost always about choosing the lesser evil. There is seldom a costless mitigation option. Economists and actuaries understand this, which is why they quantify the value of human life in their models. For example, the economic cost of a death from a motor vehicle accident in New Zealand is valued at $4.34 million. Personally, I consider my life worth a lot more than that, but the transport authorities have to use an average value of life that represents the trade-off they are prepared to make in mitigating the risk of death on the roads. Make it too high, and the models would indicate we should ban all travel by motor vehicles, which would cost a lot more than the value of the lives lost. The problem with government responses to Covid-19 all around the world is that they haven't done these calculations, so it is not surprising they all jumped on the precautionary principle bandwagon and locked us all down.

A further problem with risk management is reliance on specialist expertise. This may seem a strange criticism for a risk management expert to make, but experts are, by definition, narrowly focused on their area of expertise. It would be surprising to find an epidemiologist, for example, who knows a lot about economics. So when governments take their advice exclusively from a epidemiologist, it isn't surprising that their response doesn't give sufficient weighting to the economic costs. Part of the challenge in defining and quantifying a risk is in finding the right range of expertise to do a balanced assessment of likelihood and impact. An engineer who specialises in fluid dynamics, for example, may be as qualified to advise about the spread of a disease as a doctor.

I feel like we're in the early stages of a nuclear war and there is still time to stop the missiles with only moderate damage to each side, but no one has the courage to agree a ceasefire. At some point rational thinking has to enter the higher realms of decision making about Covid-19. Our governments have largely ignored the costs of mitigation, but once these become apparent - like the smouldering remains of nuclear strikes - we're all going to wonder why we didn't come to our senses earlier.

Sunday, May 3, 2020

Ignorance Upon Uncertainty

It has been more than a week since I last posted and since then in New Zealand we have come out of Covid-19 lockdown Level 4 into Level 3. I have no idea what these levels mean in terms of detailed rules and the authorities seem to be making it up as they go along, with the New Zealand Police refusing to release their own advice about the legality of their enforcement of the rules. This Kafkaesque uncertainty is the hallmark of authoritarian governments everywhere - if the rules are arbitrary, you can always be deemed to be in breach of them.

I have imagined that among the small blessings of the lockdown, an increased appreciation for the value of the producers in society might come out of this situation. People have become aware that they can't take it for granted that their supermarket has plenty of the right type of toilet paper or packaged flour. They have also become aware that the people who run the factories, who drive the trucks that deliver the goods, or who stack the shelves in the stores, should be considered "essential workers" as much as the doctors and the nurses tending the Covid-19 patients. But most don't understand the workings of the complex supply chains that ensure the shelves are full with what they need, or how the packages that they order on Amazon or AliExpress miraculously arrive at their door from the other side of the world. It would astound most people to know that there is no central organising authority that operates those supply chains, but rather they are a result of the collaborative efforts of a myriad of businesses, big and small, all around the world.

Even worse is the fact that most people (including many of our leaders) don't understand how the broader economy works, and they don't seem to appreciate the economic and social damage that is being done with the Covid-19 shutdown. They believe the government can flip a switch and turn the economy off or on at will and that all will soon be back to normal. Employers are being criticised in the media for laying off workers or even for closing down, as if the proprietors of such businesses are traitors acting against the national interest.

Our prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, showed her utter ignorance of how the economy works - or worse, a Marxist understanding of the economy - with her comments that the private sector should value their workforce in the same way government does. This is particularly galling to business owners who are struggling because of her lockdown policies (which, as I have written before, are only necessary because of Ardern's early inaction to prevent Covid-19 entering New Zealand) and in increasing numbers are losing their life's work. Does Ardern not realise that every cent government spends ultimately comes from a private business somewhere? She is criticising private business owners for not being as generous as she is with the money she seizes from them!

Ardern's criticism came after one of her colleagues, Deborah Russell, in an example of the most breathtaking left-wing arrogance, blamed businesses themselves for not being able to withstand the government-ordered lockdown. The left likes to go on about victim-blaming but in typically hypocritical fashion are happy to engage in a little of it themselves when the victims are business owners.

Meanwhile the deputy prime minister, Winston Peters, leader of the "far right" New Zealand First Party, wants to "put up the shutters" to foreign investment and trade, returning New Zealand to the "Polish shipyard" economy of his mentor Robert Muldoon's government during the 1970s and early 1980s. New Zealand at the time had a protected manufacturing sector that produced shoddy, expensive goods; draconian exchange controls that meant you had to apply to the Reserve Bank to get a strictly-limited amount of foreign currency before travelling overseas; and - Muldoon's coup de grace - wage and price controls that meant a corner store had to apply to the prime minister personally if it wanted to put up the price of tea. The economy was Soviet in all but name and it is to this state that Peters wants to return this country.

The problem is not just with central government. Local councils refuse to cut back their spending in the crisis and are intent on increasing their tax take from struggling businesses and home owners. They seem oblivious to the evidence that many New Zealanders are already struggling to meet their existing financial commitments.

All of the Covid-19 assistance programmes have involved greater spending by the state. The Government is acting like a benevolent rich uncle, doling out wage and salary assistance, business loans and increased welfare benefits as if New Zealanders won't realise they will have to pay back every cent. Perhaps the Government is right to count on the public's ignorance - it is apparent that many people do not realise governments have no source of funds other the taxes they extort from hardworking citizens. Even government borrowing is just a demand on future taxpayers.

I don't see any evidence that Covid-19 will result in an increased appreciation for the producers in society. I think we are fated to repeat the mistakes of the past, whereby governments and the public regard the producers as milch cows, to be exploited until they are empty vessels, and then to be blamed for not being productive enough. Perhaps if the economic downturn from the Covid-19 is long and deep enough, governments will realise at some point that they need to release their grip on the producers' throats. I fear that may take many years.

Wednesday, April 22, 2020

Covid-19 is a dry run for climate change lockdown

If you were wondering what the impact of climate change policies such as New Zealand's Zero Carbon Bill will have on the economy, the Covid-19 lockdown provides the perfect prototype. The Government's own estimates stated that passing the Zero Carbon Bill would reduce this country's GDP by up to 22% by 2050 ceteris paribus (e.g. see this document [PDF]), and the OECD recently estimated that the Covid-19 lockdown would reduce our GDP by around 30%, so the two events are roughly comparable in ultimate impact.

This comparison is not an idle one. Policy makers are already talking about using the Covid-19 lockdown as a prototype for zero carbon policies. The UN's Paris Accord organisation sees it as an “opportunity to...relaunch economies on low-emission, climate-resilient trajectories”. The UK's Climate Assembly sees it as a "test run" for the for potential climate change shifts they have been proposing. According to assembly representative Ibrahim Wali, the UK could achieve its zero carbon target if “people could stay home more, work remotely. Sometimes in life you just need a challenge to change the way you live and operate." In other words, we could save the world from climate change if we could just make the lockdown permanent. In France, the citizens' assembly set up by President Macron has similarly proposed closing down hypermarkets, prohibiting the sale of almost all existing cars and even banning advertising for consumer products (you would think the French in particular would be wary of citizens' assemblies, but apparently not).

They are right in the sense that the Covid-19 lockdowns closely model the impact of zero carbon policies. If you imagine that zero carbon policies mean you're just going to swap your car for a Tesla and that will be it, then you are mistaken. You will be much poorer, just as those who have already lost their jobs and businesses from the Covid-19 lockdowns are today. You won't have a private car. You won't be able to buy all of the food you currently consume and you certainly won't be dining out much. You won't be able to keep your house warm in the winter or cool in the summer. You won't have access to many of the drugs and medical treatment you may need to stay alive. And forget about being able to travel overseas - that privilege will only be for the ruling elite. So get used to it people, if you're in one of the many countries that have legislated for zero carbon you're going to be in permanent lockdown.

On the positive side, the much more immediate threat of Covid-19 has stymied efforts to create a new world order based on carbon zero policies. It also provides the opportunity for some real world climate change experiments - for example, the reduced air pollution may allow scientists to better understand the impact of atmospheric aerosols on climate change. In an even more interesting development, the lockdown may enable scientists to test one of the central hypotheses of anthropogenic global warming - that mankind's carbon emissions are responsible for almost all of the increase in atmospheric CO2 since pre-industrial times. If the hypothesis is true, the reduction in fossil fuel emissions during the lockdown should result in a corresponding reduction in the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2. Climate scientist Dr Roy Spencer is examining this impact in the atmospheric carbon levels recorded at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii. If there is no corresponding flattening of the CO2 curve, then it follows that factors other than mankind's carbon emissions are significant drivers of the increase in atmospheric CO2. That would mean all our efforts and policies to reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels will be for nought.

[Hat-tip: Breaking Views @NZCPR for many of the above links]

Monday, April 20, 2020

Should a Libertarian Accept Government Lockdown Assistance?

In a recent column in The Spectator entitled I have herd immunity, author Lionel Shriver wrote about herself:
I am a type. I don’t like groups. I maintain few memberships. I question and resist authority, especially enforcement of rules for the rules’ sake. I’m leery of orthodoxy. I hold back from shared cultural enthusiasms.
The same is true of me. I believe in the sovereignty of the individual - that every human being has the rights to life and liberty and to pursue their own fulfilment to the fullest extent that is consistent with everyone else enjoying the same rights. I believe the legitimate role of the state is solely the protection of these limited rights.

The Covid-19 lockdown has provided a dilemma for people like me who don't believe in government welfare assistance. My business is suffering - my revenue this month will be significantly down - and it qualifies for the New Zealand Government's Covid-19 wage subsidy. I have never received a government welfare payment and never envisioned doing so, and therefore I was very reluctant to apply for the Covid-19 business assistance. There are two considerations I took into account in making the decision on whether to accept the Government's handout. 

The first is philosophical, and to address that I looked to Ayn Rand for guidance. Rand was categorically opposed to government welfare assistance on the basis that it was immoral to forcibly take the product of one individual's work and give it to another. She believed that the needs of one person, no matter how pressing, do not create a moral claim on the product of the life of another. Rand's critics claim that she was hypocritical because she accepted US Social Security later in life. Onkar Ghate at the Ayn Rand Institute confirms this but points to the fact that she saw no conflict between opposing state redistribution programmes in principle and accepting what she saw as restitution for the theft of one's wealth in the first place. She likened it to accepting compensation from the proceeds seized from a robber who had stolen from you.

The other consideration I took into account was that the Government ordered this lockdown and (as I have said in earlier posts) if it is necessary that is only because of the Government's earlier inactions. So in effect, I regard the wage subsidy as fair compensation for the negligent damage the Government did to my business.

One other factor that finally convinced me to accept the Government's financial assistance is that my company and its shareholder-employees have large tax bills due at this time, for which the Government isn't offering any grace (other than some vague suggestions they may waive "use of money interest" and penalties). Our cash flow has been significantly impacted by the lockdown order, affecting our ability to meet the tax demands, so in the end we had no qualms about taking the assistance and applying it to the Government's legalised theft.

It does stick in my craw that even the most self-reliant of us have all become dependent on the state. I can't help thinking that this is seen by those in power as a useful by-product of their Covid-19 response. The metaphysical basis of almost all political belief today is social, cultural and economic collectivism. We are all just part of one big, global village, and, as in any village, every person should be concerned with everyone else's business. Self-reliance is seen as selfishness and is not to be tolerated, and if you think you know what is best for your own life, you simply don't know what is good for you.

I am not an anarchist. I believe that governments are necessary to solve human problems such as defeating an invading enemy and stopping highly infectious diseases. But governments have a long history of turning reasonable and necessary collective actions into enduring tyrannies. I fear that accepting the government's largesse may make me complicit in doing exactly that.

Later on today we will learn the New Zealand Government's decision on whether we will be allowed some relief from the universal house arrest we have endured over the last four weeks. Perhaps a positive decision will provide some comfort.