Naturally, even if we can't boycott non-producing Islamic countries, at least we can buy Danish.
Update: The Dissident Frogman has more images, in many languages.
Radley Balko does a fine job of exposing how many members of America's would-be royalty -- elected politicians -- like to lord it over us commoners on the public thoroughfares. As Bob Dole used to say in a different context: where's the outrage?
In a recent essay, Arnold Kling draws inspiration from the Internet Engineering Task Force as a model for developing the ideals of freedom (or, as he puts it, the ideology of libertarian conservatives). So he calls for an "Ideological Affirmation Task Force" that will publish Requests for Comment (RFCs) among libertarian conservatives, as the IETF does among Internet engineers.
As someone who has written a few IETF RFCs (if you're keeping track, 3920, 3921, 3922, 3923, and 4622), I like the impetus behind the idea. But if anything, I don't think Kling is ambitious enough.
The task before us is not to affirm a certain ideology in a kind of mutual admiration society. The IETF provides engineering for the Internet -- it is building something new in the world, not affirming an existing ideology. What could a similar task force provide in the realm of society, culture, politics, and economics? In large measure, such a task force would try to deeply understand why certain societies are more successful than others (can you say the Anglosphere?). But unlike the IETF, it would attempt to first and foremost understand and clarify rather than engineer solutions -- because we know that rampant social engineering has almost invariably led to disaster.
So we need something larger than "ideological affirmation" -- we need to understand nothing less than the cultural, social, political, and economic basis for healthy, successful, productive, voluntary interaction among human beings. Call it the "interpersonal interaction task force" (IITF) if you will. Achieving that kind of deep understanding is the work of lifetimes. And many lifetimes have already been devoted to it, by world-class scholars such as F.W. Maitland and Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek and Alan MacFarlane.
But it's not merely a task for scholars. It's also a task for the societal equivalent of those Internet engineers -- the entrepreneurs in all fields of endeavor who would judiciously improve aspects of what already works by offering new and better ways to solve problems in voluntary, non-coercive ways.
So Mr. Kling, if you're serious about this task force, let me know -- I have a bit of IETF experience that might just apply to the IITF as well...
(Cross-posted at Albion's Seedlings.)
I really must read more H.L. Mencken. Here's a tasty quote found at Cafe Hayek:
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
Classic.
Over the weekend I came up with the term "free-market liberal" (well, there are 19,200 hits at Google, so clearly I didn't coin the phrase). I like it because it helps us take back the term liberal, which by all rights means "valuing freedom".
Now what would be the equivalent term for those on the Right? Free-thinking conservative or progressive constitutionalist, perhaps?
From Joel Kotkin's latest essay:
Successful cities like Houston grow because primary emphasis has been placed on the fundamental blocking and tackling of economic development -- streamlining regulations, maintaining sewers and drainage systems, building up the port and the road network. The mayor of fast-growing Aberdeen, South Dakota, says his city owes its success to $100 million worth of new highways, plus a pro-business climate and some of the lowest tax rates in the nation. By contrast, stagnant places like New Orleans, Philadelphia, and Cleveland have poured their limited resources into convention centers, sports stadiums, cultural palaces, or the development of planned entertainment districts.
Let's see, what has Denver done lately? Convention center? Check! Sports stadium? Check! Cultural palace? Check! Sure there's been highway expansion too, but in general it seems that priorities are off in the Denver metropolitan area. And that doesn't bode well for the future...
You know the old joke: "There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who think there are two kinds of people in the world, and those who don't."
It all comes down to the social psychology of in groups and out groups. People like to feel that they are good and those others are bad or stupid. Thus the Republican demonization of Bill Clinton and the Democratic demonization of George Bush. Thus all the Red State vs. Blue State guano.
Yet as Michael Barone points out, basic party identification in America is evenly split at ~37% Democratic and ~37% Republican. That 37% + 37% adds up to 74%, so the other 26% of the people are independent. And that doesn't even count the large number of people who don't vote (but just might if they were offered a compelling alternative). Notice, however, that independents and non-voters simply don't count in the rhetoric of the Democrats and Republicans, because they exist above the plane of their limited ingroup/outgroup perspective. Yet sometimes to find true reform you need to look up (it's a Flatland kind of thing).
The Democrats and Republicans merely seem to be locked into a death-struggle because they have gotten so good at honing their messages to attract voters. Example: the Democrats don't talk about gun control anymore; the issue didn't resonate and indeed actively turned off the voters, so they gave it up (at least publicly). Result? More votes for Democrats. But Republicans do the same thing, so the party balance is amazingly even. Hopefully that means we'll have divided government most of the time, which doesn't necessarily conduce to greater freedom but at least limits the excesses of either party, thus creating a bit of breathing room for practical libertarians, market progressives, free liberals, or whatever you want to call them (whether they're arrayed in a new party or spread out among the existing parties).
Gosh, people get all excited about these American elections, don't they? It's a sea change! The end of Republican hegemony! The dumb American electorate has finally awoken from its Bushevik slumbers! The extreme Republican right has been resoundingly repudiated! And similar claptrap.
In point of fact, congresscritters from the party of a sixth-year president almost always lose big. The Republicans this time did a little better than the historical average. So there's really nothing to see here. And all we did was elect more politicians!
There do seem to be small signs (not to be exaggerated) that some independent-minded people are fed up with both the Democrats and the Republicans. But whether that will translate into meaningful change at the federal or state level remains to be seen. Don't hold your breath for, say, a new party of practical libertarians or a resurgence of the Whig Party. And if you think this is the end of the line for big-government Republicans, check your premises.
Heh, I got Joe Hildebrand to post twice in one day. :-) He replies to my post by clarifying what he meant:
I suppose I was trying to comment on the things that we do choose to make national holidays. It seems to me that the enforcement of some of the holidays that we have in place is less important to our freedoms than voting.
Some of the current holidays I see as "a time to reflect on X", where X is some set of people or ideals that correctly deserve veneration. Perhaps what I'm actually suggesting that the folks that fought for equality of voting rights deserve that kind of respect; I can't think of a better way to honor their memories than to reflect on the issues of the day, carefully weigh my options, and exercise the right that they fought for so desperately.
I can't say I disagree. Probably I had a knee-jerk reaction to the idea (not in Joe's original post, it's just one of my hobby-horses) that voting is some kind of secular sacrament, when I think it's far from that.
So Joe, shall we have a Bill of Rights Day party on December 15th? :-)
My friend Joe Hildebrand wonders:
Is there anything that should be more sacred in a free country than careful reflection on one's choices at the ballot?
Well, Joe, I voted too, but I can think of plenty of things more sacred in a free society than voting:
IMHO voting is pretty far down the list of sacred values, since it is in many ways derivative -- it's everything else about a free society that gives voting what meaning it has. Especially in the modern world of gerrymandering, safe seats, two-party politics, and artificially restricted alternatives at the ballot.
Furthermore, voting happens only once a year. There are plenty of ways to be involved every other day of the year, such as writing letters to your representatives or to the editor of your local newspaper, participating in your neighborhood association (I run the website for mine), even blogging your ideas for making our society a freer and better place.
We need to think outside the (ballot) box if we're going to debug the bloatware that is our modern American democracy. :-)
I started to read Randy Barnett's book Restoring the Lost Constitution but I didn't need to finish it, because the basic idea is so clear to me: America has reached almost the exact inversion of its founding principles, which (as I've noted before) can be summed up in the last two articles of the Bill of Rights:
IX. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Unfortunately, our intellectuals and our political elites have never been able to count to ten when it comes to the Bill of Rights. If they could, perhaps we'd still retain a form of government that is strictly limited in its powers -- and a people who are unlimited in the enjoyment of their natural rights. Instead, today we've experienced what folks in software development call scope creep and bloatware. It's about time to hack the political system by performing some serious debugging, no?
It may be that American political history goes in cycles, with major realignments every 70 or 80 years. Think American Revolution in 1776, Civil War in 1860, Great Depression in 1932. What's next? Aren't we about due for the next major realignment? Perhaps. But in a recent essay the ever-insightful Michael Barone notes that major realignments need a trigger:
Political realignments occur because of events that have deep demographic impact and when one party stands for new ideas that command majority support. The Iraq war (2,500 deaths) and our current economy (4.6 percent unemployment) are not events of the magnitude of the Civil War (600,000 dead) or the Great Depression (25 percent unemployment).
It's not clear what the next trigger might be, but the current distractions are not it. Be afraid, lest it will be something truly horrible. May you live in interesting times.
This evening I cast my votes in state and local elections (or at least they gave me one of those little "I Voted" stickers -- do those new computerized voting machines really work as designed?). For elected officials, two principles guided most of my choices: (1) vote against incumbents and (2) if no incumbent, vote for gridlock by splitting the ticket.
But the real fun came from all the initiatives and referenda on the Colorado ballot this year. Here again two principles guided most of my choices: (1) vote for economic and personal freedom and (2) make life more difficult for the political class (yes, call me a libertarian populist if you must). So I voted as follows:
Amendment 38: Petitions. YES. If we make it easier to get petitions on the ballot, the voice of the people shall be heard even if the political elites don't want to listen.
Amendment 39: School District Spending Requirements. YES. Sorry, school administrators, but as long as you're part of the political class, you'll have to pay the price. There's a simple solution: take the schools out of government hands and give the schools to the teachers.
Amendment 40: Term Limits for Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Judges. YES. Sorry, judges, but you too are part of the political class. If term limits force you out of your current position, you can always find another job in another court, in electoral politics, in academia, or (gasp) in the market economy.
Amendment 41: Standards of Conduct in Government. YES. Here again we stick it to the political class. No one ever said it should be easy to feed at the public trough.
Amendment 42: Colorado Minimum Wage. NO. It's just wrong to legislate wages, especially since the result is that low-skilled workers (such as teenagers) are priced out of a job. But if we're going to raise the minimum wage, why stop at $6.85 an hour -- why not, say, $68.50 an hour? Now that's a living wage! :-)
Amendment 43: Marriage. YES. No this doesn't really belong in Article II of the Colorado Constitution, but I'm enough of a lexicographical conservative to hold that marriage means a particular legal relationship between a man and a woman (first citation in the Oxford English Dictionary: the year 1297). But see below on Referendum I.
Amendment 44: Marijuana Possession. YES. As Bob Marley said, legalize it!
Referendum E: Property Tax Deduction for Disabled Veterans. YES. This one wasn't clear cut for me, but it involves a tax reduction and my father's experience caring for disabled veterans makes me think that they deserve a break.
Referendum F: Recall Deadlines. NO. Why open the handling of recall elections up to legislative skullduggery?
Referendum G: Obsolete Constitutional Provisions. YES. It's good to keep our state constitution neat and tidy.
Referendum H: Limiting a State Business Income Tax Deduction. NO. Another close call, but in the end I decided that there's no good reason to burden small businesses with the government's problems regarding immigration. Shall we, say, reform the INS instead?
Referendum I: Domestic Partnerships. YES. No, it's not marriage, but I see no good reason why same-sex partners shouldn't have the privilege of entering into civil unions.
Referendum J: School District Spending Requirements. NO. This is the toothless version of Amendment 39, and it isn't hard enough on the political class for my taste.
Referendum K: Immigration Lawsuit Against Federal Government. YES. Sure it's tilting at windmills, but it annoys the federal government on the subject of immigration, which might just possibily lead to reform of the INS (though don't hold your breath).
A brief article in this week's issue of the Economist makes a case for libertarians as an underappreciated swing vote in American politics. Since so few people self-identify with the geeky term "libertarian", David Boaz and David Kirby of the Cato Institute use positive answers to the following questions as proxies for libertarian sentiment:
According to a recent study by Boaz and Kirby, 13% of Americans agree with those statements. While that's not a majority or a plurality, it's at least a sizable percentage that is being mostly ignored by Republicans and Democrats alike. It's also a lot more than the miniscule percentage of people who vote for the traditionally feckless Libertarians Party (there are many problems with the LP, not the least of which is its geeky name -- wouldn't something like the Founders Party be more palatable?). In any case, it's true that those of us who trend libertarian are in essence politically homeless. And as the Economist article hints, it doesn't help that liberty-lovers tend to be independent cusses who don't flock together for joint (read: collective) action.
Sigh.
Boy, is the race for governor of Colorado depressing. On the right we have Bob Beauprez, an anti-choice, big-government Republican. On the left we have Bill Ritter, an anti-choice, big-government Democrat. That's right, the Democrats and Republicans have given us two anti-choice, big-government candidates!
But all is not lost, because over here in the radical center we have Dawn Winkler, the only candidate who reflects the Western heritage of smaller government, individual choice, and personal responsibility. And the people of Colorado are starting to pay attention, because with almost no media coverage she is running around 8% in the polls. Plus she's blogging and speaking in her own voice, not that of some PR agency.
If you ask me, it's time for a new Dawn in Colorado politics. :-)
Over at TCS Daily, Arnold Kling speculates about the possibility of a populist revolt coming soon to American politics. It wouldn't surprise me one bit. I think real people -- that is, you and me -- are sick and tired of polarizing pundits and posturing politicians. I share Kling's concern about what populism might mean for economic policy (protectionism), immigration (closed borders), and a host of other issues. Which is why we need to educate real people about the benefits of free trade (America has nothing to fear from economic competition, and in fact benefits from it), open but smart immigration (we're a nation of immigrants after all, and the periods when immigration was closed off led to a lack of economic dynamism), etc.
As I see it, the major challenge for the West over the next few decades will be retaining our freedoms in the face of the 21st-century jihad. The best we can hope for is that some leader or party is going to get smart about populism by emphasizing things like eliminating our effective subsidies to the modern-day tribalists who want to destroy us. How about repealing the income tax (no more IRS!) and replacing it with a huge tax on foreign oil? That kind of proposal could go far, and tap into populism in a good way. (Yes, the libertarian in me dislikes all taxes but the realist in me knows that we're going to have taxes for the foreseeable future, so why not tax the damn Saudis instead of hardworking Americans?)
This month's issue of the Washington Park Profile (a fine local paper in Denver) contains a heartwarming letter to the editor about the imminent opening of a "peace garden" at the Cameron Church. The driving force behind the creation of this little oasis of peace is a local high school student, who says:
The message of the garden is that Muslims, Jews and Christians unite to help end to the stereotype of all Muslims being terrorists.
Warm-hearted but muddle-headed. I don't know anyone who claims that all Muslims are terrorists. However, following the demise of the Baader-Meinhof Gang and with the exception of localized groups such as the IRA, Tamil Tigers, Shining Path some Basque separatists, some Ameican anti-abortion extremists, and eco-freaks such as Earth First, it's pretty clear that the primary terrorist threats in the world today come from the Muslim world. As far as I know, there are precious few Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Shintos, Sufis, animists, agnostics, atheists, or Zoroastrians bombing buses and trains, flying airplanes into buildings, or blowing themselves up in crowded nightclubs. It is Muslims -- specifically, Jihadis -- who are using terror as their preferred means of "interacting" with the rest of the world -- specifically, the Dar al-Harb or "land of war" as opposed to the Dar al-Islam or "land of submission".
Draw what conclusions you will. My conclusions are drawn from Patrick Henry:
Gentlemen may cry Peace, Peace -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Last week I posted some Whiggish thoughts about the prospects for freedom in America. It seems that Denverite David Aitken recently participated in the national convention of the Libertarian Party, where as a member of the Libertarian Reform Caucus he had a hand in producing the LP's new platform. Is there hope for the LP? I'm not yet sure, but I may take another look.
The Club for Growth reports:
Thanks to Congressman Jeff Flake's 19 anti-pork amendments, we now have every House member on record regarding their positions on earmarks. Before now, House members have been able to avoid scrutiny because their pork was co-mingled with other projects and tucked into the dark corners of big spending bills. Or they were able to withstand the scrutiny because they were attacked as a whole chamber and not directly attacked themselves. But because of Flake's amendments, they were recently forced to cast up-or-down votes on specific projects.
Diana DeGette, my representative in Colorado's First District, voted for all 19 of the listed pork projects. Methinks that someone in Denver needs to start shadowing Ms. DeGette's every vote. Here's a list of web pages that might be of assistance:
[Written while flying from Denver to Portland on 2006-07-23, posted from OSCON on 2006-07-26.]
A recent exchange over at ChicagoBoyz pointed to an article by Ryan Sager on the place of libertarians within the Republican Party (see also Sager's earlier articles in the thread here and here). Sager argues that libertarians -- those who believe in free minds and free markets -- will never exercise much political (as opposed to intellectual) influence if they pursue third-party politics. As many observers point out, America is a two-party country. Third parties are typically doomed, especially ideological third parties such as the Socialists (in the early 20th century) and the Libertarians (in the late 20th century). Given that those with libertarian leanings are only 10% or at most 20% of the American population, they will never win elections (even in rare two-way races, Libertarian Party candidates typically win only 30% of the vote). The only way that a third party could become one of the major parties is if it could form a coalition that draws from the existing factions among the Democrats and Republicans -- e.g., modern-day libertarians, small-government conservatives, and freedom-oriented liberals. Even then, it's doubtful that there are enough Goldwater Republicans and Jeffersonian Democrats around to form a coalition. (And I ignore the fact that most people of such political persuasions are cussedly individualistic, thus naturally being averse to party politics and organized action.)
So what is a libertarian to do? As I explored in my essay Toward a Practical Objectivist Politics, there are many opportunities for influencing the American debate outside of electoral politics: fighting for pro-freedom initiatives and referenda, providing expert testimony, speaking out at public meetings, serving on non-partisan boards, and the like. But when it comes to electoral politics, libertarians are betwixt and between (here I ignore those voluntaryists and others who eschew the political process entirely, although I have respect for their approach as well). However, something that Seymour Martin Lipset says in his book American Exceptionalism resonates with me: America is essentially a Whig nation. Lipset argues that conservatives in America have never really been big-government Tory paternalists (though there have been Rockefeller Republicans, a tradition in which we can squarely place the current president). Similarly, I would argue that dedicated progressives care more about freedom of speech, association, and action at the local level than about centralized government programs promulgated and managed from Washington, DC (the anti-statist stance of early labor organizations such as the A.F. of L. and the I.W.W. is consistent with this thesis).
Is there a constituency for decentralization, local action, market freedom, religious tolerance, inidividual opportunity, and the rest of the American creed? It can be hard to discern true support (as opposed to lip service) for that creed in the Republican Party of George Bush, and even harder in the Democratic Party of Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean. Yet I'm enough of an optimist to believe that it's there, and even not that far under the surface. If I'm right about that, then it is possible and legitimate to work toward greater freedom in the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, or the Libertarian Party -- and one's decision about which party to work within is a matter of means, not ends. Sager argues that the best place for libertarians to fight for their ideals in electoral politics is within the Republican Party. The fact that there is a fairly large remnant of small-government conservatives and Goldwater Republicans might lead me to agree with Sager. Balancing that is the fact that, as Bruce Bartlett pointed out recently, Republicans are the most successful party in most of the country right now and therefore attract the kind of opportunists who simply want to get elected (until about ten or twelve years ago, those people were probably attracted to the Democratic Party). Having worked within the Libertarian Party (and knowing that third parties traditionally do not succeed in American politics), I would argue against investing too much effort in the LP on practical grounds. I somewhat doubt that folks in the Democratic Party will open themselves very far to libertarian ideals, but if they continue to lose elections then they might welcome some fresh thinking. And let's not forget that if history repeats itself, American politics is about due for a major realignment (1776, 1860, 1932, and perhaps 2012?) In any case, libertarians won't have any influence if they don't get involved. So pick a venue and get busy. :-)
The Whigs are dead, long live the Whigs!
Jimbo is aiming to shake up American politics with a new wiki. Participatory politics for participatory people! Will it make a difference? I don't know, but it's worth a try. Count me in!
Seth Wagoner (whose blog I've found via Stowe Boyd) quotes an interview with George Soros as follows:
We need to maintain law and order. We need to maintain peace in the world. We need to protect the environment. We need to have some degree of social justice, equality of opportunity. The markets are not designed to take care of those needs. That's a political process. And the market fundamentalists have managed to reduce providing those public goods.
So we have a distinction between market fundamentalism and, presumably, government enlightenment (those wonderfully reality-based bureaucrats).
Since I'm essentially a market anarchist, I tend to think that many more human needs can be met through the market than people like Soros might imagine -- yes, even needs for law, order, peace, justice, and environmental protection. But the choice is not only between profit-oriented companies and government force. There is a wide range of voluntary solutions that do not require the exchange of money -- mediation, arbitration, charitable giving, neighborhood organizations, international networks, educational institutions, student exchanges, boycotts, letter-writing campaigns, public protests, and much more. These endeavors share with market exchanges an essentially voluntary nature (which government force distinctly lacks). So call me a volutarist rather than a market fundamentalist, but no matter the nomenclature I encourage people like Soros to keep their political processes to themselves -- or, at the least, to an absolute minimum.
I've written a political protest song against eminent domain abuse but haven't recorded it yet (I hope to do so soon). Here are the words, to the tune of "This Land is Your Land":
My land is your land, my land ain't my land
If you're connected and say you'll use it
To pay more taxes or please the planners
My land was made for you to stealAs I went walking out on that highway
I saw developers taking our property
I heard rapacious big corporations
Saying our land's for them to stealMy land is your land, my land ain't my land
If you're connected and say you'll use it
To pay more taxes or please the planners
My land was made for you to stealIn fair New London near old Fort Trumbull
There lived a woman named Susette Kelo
The politicians told her to vacate
They said your land's for us to stealThe politicians in fair New London
Weren't building bridges or schools or highways
They took that neighborhood to give to Pfizer
They said this land's for us to stealMy land is your land, my land ain't my land
If you're connected and say you'll use it
To pay more taxes or please the planners
My land was made for you to stealThe Constitution forbids all takings
Except for public use with compensation
But our Supreme Court said that's all bunkum
They said our land's for them to stealMy land is your land, my land ain't my land
If you're connected and say you'll use it
To pay more taxes or please the planners
My land was made for you to steal
I just sent the following letter to Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell:
In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision last year in the case of Kelo v. the City of New London, Americans of all political persuasions have united against the abuse of eminent domain to evict people from their homes, many legislatures have taken serious steps at reform, and citizen-initiated referenda will be on the ballot this fall to modify state constitutions across the land. Yet Susette Kelo and her neighbors still face eviction by the City of New London! Today's editorial in the Hartford Courant says it best, and I join them in urging you to intervene in this matter lest an even greater travesty of justice occur.
And I urge you to contact Governor Rell, too.
More and more, it seems that Americans disagree -- over the war in Iraq, immigration, gun control, and a thousand other topics of public interest. Each national election feels more momentous, or a least more vitriolic. Politics has been become personal in a nasty sort of way that does no one any good.
As far as I can see, one of the root causes of the American predicament is the ever-increasing centralization of power and decision-making. When most signficant policies are set in the District of Columbia, national elections take on ever-greater importance.
It wasn't supposed to be this way. When America consisted of thirteen colonies, most powers were local or state, not central. That used to be called federalism. Now federalism is practically synonymous with centralism. The results have not been salutary.
What is the way out? Arnold Kling has advocated 250 states. But the logic of power relations (eludicated by French scholar Jean Baechler) might mean that a USA of 250 states would be even more centralized, since the most stable arrangement for any power structure is to have around 5 major powers and several smaller ones (as evidenced by the traditional balance of power in Europe and, not coincidentally, by the early United States with its thirteen former colonies, only four or five of which were signficant in size and power).
A more workable arrangement might be what in The Anglosphere Challenge Jim Bennett defines as a "network commonwealth" -- a loose network of civic states, wherein decisions are localized and only a few powers (e.g., common defense) are delegated up to the commonwealth level. (We could see this structure as a kind of updated Hanseatic League.) One key here is that a network commonwealth would consist of civic states -- that is, states that are (according to Jim Bennett) "dependent on essentially voluntary forms for cohesion", likely with small populations since "consensus and coherence are easier to achieve among a limited number of people" (anywhere from tens of thousands to ten or twenty million, as in Kenichi Ohmae's region-states). A vibrant civic state also tends to have "a core population sharing strong ethnic or religious bonds" (and, I would add, cultural assumptions, legal structures, and often economic interests). (Quotes are from chapter 1 of TAC -- and yes, I need to clean up the HTML for that page.)
While the United States has traditionally had a strong narrative of shared culture and history, at 300 million people it is perhaps reaching the breaking point given the strong centralizing tendencies witnessed over the last 150 years. Rather than trying to decide everything in the District of Columbia, it makes more sense to form policy at the state or local level. Indeed, it may make sense to devolve many powers also to the regional level, along the lines of Joel Garreau's book The Nine Nations of North America -- out of those nine (or dozen or whatever) regions, four or five would probably dominate in size and power and thus set most of the (strictly limited) commonwealth agenda. In a sort of fractal design, it makes sense for those regions themselves to be commonwealths or confederations wherein regional power is again delegated up by the civic states making up the region. With around 325 million people in North America, the result would be perhaps 10-15 regions of 25-30 million people, where each region would consist of 10-15 civic states, each with 1-3 million people. At each level, there would be 4-6 main actors (leading to regional and continental stability) and several smaller actors (allied with the main actors on various issues).
Because only about 20 American states have populations less than 3 million people (see statistics), any kind of political devolution would likely result in a much larger number of civic states in North America, driven especially by division of high-population states such as California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, and New Jersey -- see the CommonCensus map for some possible fault lines (downstate vs. upstate New York, Chicagoland vs. central and southern Illinois, north vs. south Jersey, Philly-centric vs. Pittsburgh-centric Pennsylvania, the many varieties of California and Florida and Texas).
Will such a system come to pass? Probably not. But the current system is increasingly unstable (it goes well beyond the Red State vs. Blue State divide), and in a true crisis radical change might become palatable. Only time will tell.
(Cross-posted at Albion's Seedlings.)
Today is the 231st anniversary of the Battle of Lexington and Concord (more here). My favorite remembrance of those events is Emerson's Concord Hymn:
By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood
And fired the shot heard round the world.The foe long since in silence slept;
Alike the conqueror silent sleeps;
And Time the ruined bridge has swept
Down the dark stream which seaward creeps.On this green bank, by this soft stream,
We set today a votive stone;
That memory may their deed redeem,
When, like our sires, our sons are gone.Spirit, that made those heroes dare
To die, and leave their children free,
Bid Time and Nature gently spare
The shaft we raise to them and thee.
Amen.
I've deliberately stayed quiet about the recent controversy over American immigration policy (mainly emigration from Mexico to America), but here are a few thoughts:
America is a nation of immigrants, built on the foundation made by its original settlers (yes, there is a difference between settlers and immigrants). Immigration has always been good for America, making it a more dynamic, vibrant civilization. I see no reason to think that continued immigration will be a bad thing.
The long border between Mexico and America is just about the only place in the world where the Anglosphere directly interfaces with another culture (the only comparable area of the world is probably the Irish Sea, but Ireland is essentially Anglospheric compared to Mexico, which is a staunch member of the Hispanosphere). This is in contrast to Anglospheric nations such as Great Britain (an island), Australia (a continent), and Canada (bordering only America). We would expect trouble along such an interface, and that's what we've got.
When border enforcement was much more lax and a guest worker program was in place (e.g., in the 1950s and 1960s), people went back and forth as they pleased, often several times a year. More strict enforcement made it much harder to get in, but also much harder to go back, paradoxically resulting in more illegal immigration, not less.
Some Americans resent the fact that immigrants can come into America and sponge off the welfare system (whether they do so in greater numbers than existing citizens is an open question). Here's a solution: get rid of the welfare state and find localized, voluntary solutions to social problems (not centralized, bureaucratic programs instituted and controlled from the District of Columbia).
All the racist claims that Mexicans have lower IQs, will never assimilate, are too different (etc.) were made against the Irish, Italians, Slavs, Chinese, and so on throughout American history. Yet all those groups assimilated just fine. The same is happening for second-, third-, and fourth-generation Mexican-Americans, who overwhelmingly speak English rather than Spanish, are starting lots of small businesses, etc.
One obvious solution to illegal immigration is this: make legal immigration easier. But couple that with a strong commitment to assimilation, assimilation, and more assimilation (welcome to America, you will be assimilated!). English immersion in the schools, English only for governance and business, and a dedication to accepting everyone as Americans (no hyphenation, please) if they abide by American (really Anglospheric) norms and cultural assumptions such as open debate, high trust, common law, respect for the individual, personal responsibility, and economic flexibility.
The root cause of the Mexican exodus to America is not how attractive it is to live in America, but how unattractive it is to live in Mexico. After the Iron Curtain fell, many countries in central and eastern Europe had net out-migration, but that was perceived as a bad thing. Why would you want the people (especially the young people) of your country to think that life is way better somewhere else? The only long-term solution is to make Mexico a good place to live and work, not the hotbed of corruption it is now. Unfortunately that will require a kind of cultural imperialism that is much out of fashion these days, since in essence it would require that Mexico ditch the Hispanosphere for the Anglosphere, or at least develop a kind of hybrid culture with a higher radius of trust, stronger rule of law, more open competition, a more flexible economy, and all the rest. This would give new meaning to the phrase Hispanamerica is coming. It would also present quite a challenge to both Mexico and America. But in the long run it would be much more beneficial to America than, say, the damn war in Iraq.
So the local bus drivers are on strike here in Denver (word has it they want wages on par with their colleagues in New York). Which got me to thinking: in just about any other profession, unhappy workers at one company would simply quit and go work for somebody else. The problem is, there is no "somebody else" in the public transport business, because it's a local monopoly. Here's a better way: take all the huge public buses off the streets and simply let private vans and other jitney services stop at the existing bus stops (or build new ones if they want). Let a thousand entrepreneurs compete for the rider's dollar and determine the best routes, best schedules, and best prices. Open competition: what a concept!
While reading the latest policy paper from PERC -- an essay by Kendra Okonski on the state of the environment in Montana -- I came across a revealing quote from Jared Diamond's book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. Diamond argues that Montana is in dire environmental straits because Montanans are "reluctant to accept their new need for government planning and for curbing individual rights" (Collapse p. 432).
Isn't it fascinating how intellectuals almost unanimously argue for more government planning and fewer individual rights? Granted, all that planning would be done by the intellectuals and their proteges (or so they think), so you can understand why they would want governments to have more power and for individuals to have their rights stripped away. But the unmitigated hubris of the intellectuals never ceases to amaze me. And folks wonder why most Americans are anti-intellectual! What a bunch of guano -- especially when you realize that Diamond plays fast and loose with the facts regarding Montana's environment, which leads me to think that he is more interested in increased government planning and weakened individual rights than he is in scientific truth or societal success.
Naturally, even if we can't boycott non-producing Islamic countries, at least we can buy Danish.
Update: The Dissident Frogman has more images, in many languages.
Because of some cartoons representing Mohammed that were published in a Danish newspaper, people in various Islamic countries are (at their most peaceful) boycotting Danish goods. Unfortunately, those of us who care about freedom of speech can't boycott products from said Islamic countries because they don't produce anything (well, sure, they sell oil, but that's a commodity, not a product). Wouldn't it be something if all those Muslims who are burning Danish flags (where do they get them on such short notice?), storming Scandanavian embassies, and removing Danish products from Islamic stores were to join the market economy and produce something that people in other countries might want to buy?
According to a report in the Standard-Times of New Bedford, Massachusetts, a student at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth was visited by agents of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) after using inter-library loan (ILL) to request a copy of Mao's Little Red Book (which, supposedly, is on a DHS "watch list" of subversive material, especially because the student asked for the unabridged version). While it's not clear if the story is a hoax (doubts have been raised), the standard response is to recommend buying potentially subversive books with cash (though who could take Mao seriously these days?). My response is just the opposite: I have just requested that very edition through inter-library loan (at least I think I've requested the right edition -- perhaps I'll contact Brian Glyn Williams, one of the student's two history professors, about it) and will wait to see if DHS shows up at my door. Yes, even ILL can be a small vehicle for civil disobedience.
Update: Yes indeed, the story was a hoax.
I'm politically homeless -- part of what Arnold Kling calls the long tail of politics. Although my political philosophy is generally libertarian or Jeffersonian ("that government governs best which governs least"), I stopped supporting the Libertarian Party several years ago because it is a feckless, corrupt organization. Yet the issues that are important to me -- reforming eminent domain, ending the War on Drugs, eliminating corporate welfare and trade barriers (especially with the so-called Third World), maintaining reasonably open immigration, encouraging greater cooperation within the Anglosphere (e.g., sojourner status for citizens of the English-speaking nations), freeing education by giving the schools to the teachers, ending occupational licensing and other restrictions on making a living, safeguarding the right to self-defense, pushing as much power as possible down to the local level, etc. -- are not important to the Republicans or Democrats. These days I tend to follow Kling's advice to vote against incumbents, though I doubt that does much good. Better, I think, to support organizations that are focused on particular issues (e.g., the Castle Coalition on eminent domain reform). Too many people associate politics with electoral politics, which is a hopeless arena because of gerrymandering and the sheer size of electoral districts. I hold out more hope for initiatives, referenda, and judicial activism (cf. the Institute for Justice). While I think it would help to split electoral jurisdictions into smaller, more manageable units (along the lines of Jefferson's call to divide the counties into wards, Kling suggests local governments would best represent at most 3,000 people), even that reform would be limited in its effectiveness without a change in how we fund government (now, if those local governments collected all the taxes and fed them up the line to regional, state, and federal governments, we might get somewhere).
Further, as I mentioned the other day, most places get the government they deserve. Translation: culture drives politics, not the other way around. Which implies that if you really want to change the political scene, fundamentally you need to change the culture. I happen to think that part of changing the culture is finding common ground among those in the Long Tail and supporting political changes that will change behavior in healthy ways (e.g., strengthening civil society, encouraging volunteerism, reducing dependency on government programs). But such changes are not always (or even are seldom) palatable to the general public (and certainly not to politicians), thus the need to change underlying cultural attitudes as well.
I tend to think of it this way. Progressives love the slogan "If you want peace, work for justice." But what is justice? Progressives think of it as so-called social justice: redistribution of wealth and such. Those in the Jeffersonian tradition tend to think of it as freedom of opportunity, equality before the law, etc. So back in my salad days as a libertarian I used to add a second slogan: "If you want justice, work for freedom." Catchy, eh? But what's it mean? Doesn't that just reduce you to what Ayn Rand called a "hippy of the right"? I think I stopped being committed to the Libertarian Party the first time I saw a television advertisement for Harry Browne, whose campaign slogan was "Freedom Now!". How petulant! How adolescent! That's no better than the damn labor unions chanting "What do we want? Justice! When do we want it? Now!" out on the picket line, or the multiculturalists with their cries of "Hey hey, ho ho, Western Civ has got to go!"
So my old friends the Randians would supplement my second slogan with a third and a fourth: "If you want freedom, work for individualism." and "If you want individualism, work for reason." (since Rand and her followers reduce everything to philosophy and by god we've got to get everything down to metaphysics and epistemology or we're just not being radical enough, always in the good sense of focusing on root causes of course). Yet the more history I read the more I see that philosophy is not the cause of everything, or even of much. Consider some of the most significant transitions in history: human beings did not change from hunter-gatherers to farmers because of a philosophy of "agriculturalism", from farmers to engineers and factory workers because of a philosophy of "industrialism", from oral to literate because of a philosophy of "chirographism", from the written world to the printed word because of a philosophy of "typographism", from the printed word to the electronic word because of a philosophy of "digitalism", etc. These developments were long-term secular trends -- driven not only or primarily by ideology (religion and philosophy) but by a wide range of environmental, intellectual, technological, military, political, economic, and social factors -- what we can broadly call cultural factors. Thus I'd agree with my old Randian friends that "If you want freedom, work for cultural change" -- but I no longer think that cultural change is a monolithic process rooted in philosophical-religious ideas. The reality of human history is much more complex than that.
I liked being a Randian and a libertarian. If social psychology teaches us anything, it is this: it's comfortable and comforting to belong to a group. It's much easier to be a member of a group (even a group of individualists!) than it is to stand alone. Many people are happy to identify with groups as amorphous as Republicans or Democrats, as if that were the extent of the political spectrum. Others define themselves as members of smaller groups within the Long Tail (Greens, libertarians, socialists, Trotskyites, or what have you). Yet if you remain true to your own uniqueness, you will find that you have similarities to (and differences from) most of those groups, that you can work together with their members on certain issues and part ways on others, and that the opinion that matters most is not that of some arbitrary amalgamation but the one small voice of your own conscience.
Repeat after me: "I am an individual." :-)
Yesterday was Bill of Rights Day, which celebrates the day in 1791 when the American Bill of Rights was ratified.
(Poster courtesy of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.)
Be sure to celebrate by exercising your rights. Choose from the following:
Note especially Amendment IX -- the rights of the people are by no means limited to those listed in the Bill of Rights -- and Amendment X -- the Federal government has only those certain powers granted to it by the Constitution and reserves all other powers to the states or to the people. In combination, Amendments IX and X mean that individuals are to be fully respected in their persons and property and that a very limited government exists only to serve the people. Would that it were still true...
Canadian Prime Minister (for at least a little while longer) Paul Martin wants to ban handguns. It seems that he is not familiar with the research of John Lott.
A while back I started taking bus and light rail to work when I don't ride my bike (and with a high temperature today of 3°F -- that's -16°C for you non-Americans -- I wasn't about to ride my bike!). One thing that mystifies me is the lack of a public on public transport. Last night, during an admittedly cold and snowy commute, but in the middle of the normal rush hour, I was the only person on the bus headed east from the light rail station. Where are all those enviro-conscious folks who voted for FasTracks? I'm sure my neighborhood is full of them, but they're not riding the bus. So who's more hypocritical: someone who voted for a massive government-funded public transport project but doesn't use public transport, or someone who voted against said project but uses public transport?
Tyler Cowen wonders what the future holds for those of a libertarian persuasion. Realism dictates that we recognize a simple fact: a libertarian world is not in the offing. Indeed, neither is a libertarian country or even a libertarian state. As I like to say, utopia is not an option. Unfortunately, there is a strong utopian stream among libertarians. Part of the reason is that most prominent libertarian thinkers have been philosophers, economists, and other cerebral types. For better or for worse, libertarianism -- the vision of a purely voluntary society -- is an ideology. Ideologists want to change the world and will not be satisfied until the world matches their vision (joke: "A libertarian is someone who lies awake at night worrying that somehow, somewhere, there are still a few miles of publicly owned sewer pipe").
While the ideology of libertarianism was a product of the deeply ideological twentieth century, that doesn't mean that the need for freedom is an artifact of ideology. Yet, although all human beings need liberty, the practice of liberty is a cultural phenomenon that has flourished only in certain times and places. Those who value freedom would do well to study its history. In particular, the modern concept and practice of a primarily (if not fully) voluntary society emerged in northwestern Europe, most sustainably in England and the places settled by the English (Canada, America, Australia, New Zealand, etc.). In other words, the Anglosphere.
It's important to have gadflies in any society, and libertarian ideologists can and do fulfill that role. Yet I think they undercut their effectiveness by not recognizing historical realities. A voluntary society is not some unnatural, pie-in-the-sky utopia -- it can be an organic extension of existing cultural traditions of individualism, common law, volunteerism, strong civic ties, high trust, pluralism, entrepreneurship, scientific investigation, technological innovation, private property, and intellectual freedom. The key, I think, is to evolve those traditions rather than attempting to foment some kind of utopian revolution. One aspect of evolving those traditions is strengthening ties between those areas of the world that have built on these predominantly English foundations. Another aspect is clearly understanding that this inheritance is not genetic but mimetic, not a matter of blood relations among people of English descent but a matter of ideas, laws, institutions, principles, and practices. Another aspect is leading by example -- forming schools, starting companies, creating new products, defining new technologies, defending privacy and property -- rather than attempting always to stand outside of society from a position of criticism rather than a practice of engagement. This does not mean "selling out", compromising one's principles, or giving up on the dream of a fully voluntary society. But it does mean doing the intellectual and practical work necessary to make a difference in this world, not sitting around and complaining.
The state of Colorado is asking for more money (technically, overriding the "Taxpayer's Bill of Rights" or TABOR, which specifies that state spending shall be limited to inflation plus population). Here's their argument (as presented in the voter blue book):
... the state experienced a recession during 2001 and the amount of money collected in 2002 was $7.8 billion, while inflation plus population growth would have allowed spending of $8.1 billion. The next year's limit grew from the $7.8 billion, not the $8.1 billion. This lowering of spending is known as the "ratchet-down" effect. The amount the state can spend under TABOR is now permanently below what it would be if no recession had occurred and spending had grown by inflation plus population each year.
Well, cry me a river. It turns out that the company I work for experienced a downturn right around the same time, about 40% of the employees were laid off, and the remaining employees took a pay cut to keep the company afloat (a much bigger pay cut than the state budget experienced, I might add). So my salary underwent that same "ratchet down" effect and the amount I'm paid is now permanently below what it would have been if no downturn had occurred. Yet if I presented the state's argument to my employer, they would (no doubt very nicely) tell me "tough luck". So I say tough luck to the state of Colorado. Spin off some marginal "product lines" (I can think of plenty) or tighten your belt a little further. Recessions happen, and you're going to have to deal with it rather than stamping your foot at economic reality. In other words, I'll be voting no on C and D, thank you very much.
I wonder how many millions of dollars are spent every July 4th on municipal fireworks displays that are put on in celebration of American liberty. Don't you think towns and cities could find a way to spend a small fraction of that money in actually protecting freedom rather than loudly and hypocritically expressing their devotion to it? Personally, given recent Supreme Court decisions and other developments, I don't feel much like celebrating this year.
Bob Dole used to ask "Where's the outrage?" Well, it's here: Americans across the political spectrum are outraged at the Supreme Court's odious decision in the case of Kelo v. New London, allowing governments to take property from one person and give it to another for private use as long as "the public" (read: local governments) will benefit through increased tax revenues. I'm sure that your home or business could bring in much higher tax revenues if it were converted into a luxury high rise, a hotel, a big box retailer, or a fast food restaurant. Think it can't happen? Think again. The Supremes have given the green light to confiscation of private property anywhere in America, and unholy alliances of unprincipled politicians and greedy developers are already springing into action. But the people are fighting back. An enterprising soul in New Hampshire has proposed to confiscate the vacation home of Justice David Souter for the "Lost Liberty Hotel". Great idea! The people need to put some serious pressure on any politician or developer who attempts to cash in on the Kelo debacle, any judge who allows property confiscation to proceed, any business that tries to use eminent domain for their own benefit. The Castle Coalition is leading the fight by organizing local citizens across the country, encouraging governors to sign the "Hands Off My Home" pledge, providing materials and legal support for those threatened with eminent domain abuse, and much more. It's time to get busy. Kelo is only the start. We have not yet begun to fight!
I try not to pay much attention to political matters, but today's Supreme Court decision in the case of Kelo v. New London is tremendously depressing. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor observed in her dissent, "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
The Constitution is dead! Long live the Constitution!
Since I am half French and half Dutch, I must say it warmed my heart that the French said "non" and the Dutch said "nee" to the European Constitution in the span of a few days. David Carr's obituary is classic:
Her all too brief life started out with glamour and hope and ended with controversy and acrimony. But, what she lacked in longevity she made up for in impact, holding an entire continent in her thrall. She was the "It" girl of Europe and there could scarce have been a single Prime Minister, President, King or Bishop who did not want to walk into a room with her draped across his arm.
But it was her qualities of impeccable breeding that gave rise to resentments as well as plaudits. For everyone that she seduced with her charms, she vexed with her arrogance. For all those that were willing to flirt with her, there were others that feared her embrace. In the end she was brought low by the little people she was born to rule over.
As much as any analysis of the Constitution is possible at all, then the final one must be that she was a puzzle draped in an enigma. Even those closest to her admitted that she was difficult to read and even harder to interpret. Despite all earnest attempts to present her as something coherent and friendly, she remained stubbornly opaque and inpenetrable; a capricious, whimsical, moody, temperamental, volatile, eccentric, arbitrary, erratic, fickle, inconstant coquette whose last act of defiance is to take her unfathomable mysteries with her to the grave.
Whither Europe? Heck if I know, but at least the people have spoken resoundingly against those elitist bureaucrats in Brussels.
Anglosphere, anyone?
Congratulations to the Institute for Justice and its clients on their victory in the case of Swedenburg v. Kelly -- the U.S. Supreme Court agreed that allowing direct sale of wines by in-state wineries but restricting such sale by out-of-state wineries was a violation of the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. Keep up the good work, IJ!
Markets work. One person offers a product or service, a second person buys that product or service, a third person may ask the second person for a recommendation, the desire for reputation (and more business) leads most sellers to try to be ethical, competition leads sellers to offer high value for a good price -- well, you get the picture.
The fact that (in general) markets work -- and work well -- makes me wonder about the supposed need for occupational licensing. Think about it: would it be right for the government to require you to have a license in order to do your job? Let's say you live in Denver, Colorado and your dream job is to run auctions, dance the striptease, recycle auto parts, apply body art, run a dry cleaners, be an escort, run a gravel pit, make or sell ice cream, collect junk, offer massage services, be a security guard, run a parking lot, pedal a rickshaw, sell second-hand goods, drive a taxi, trim trees, be a valet, start a towing service, or any of a number of other occupations. Well, don't dream for long, because you need a license before you can make your dreams a reality.
Is there any reasonable justification for these occupational licensing restrictions? (Emphasis on the word "reasonable".) Are these regulations at all fair, especially to women, minorities, immigrants, and the poor? Some folks say "if you want peace, work for justice". I say "if you want justice, work for freedom".
In 1836, Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote the following poem for the dedication of a monument erected in Concord, Massachusetts to remember the first American revolutionaries, who died at the battles of Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775:
By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood
And fired the shot heard round the world.The foe long since in silence slept;
Alike the conqueror silent sleeps;
And Time the ruined bridge has swept
Down the dark stream which seaward creeps.On this green bank, by this soft stream,
We set today a votive stone;
That memory may their deed redeem,
When, like our sires, our sons are gone.Spirit, that made those heroes dare
To die, and leave their children free,
Bid Time and Nature gently spare
The shaft we raise to them and thee.
Amen.
Last month I wrote the mayor of Denver challenging him to seek alternatives to incarceration for non-violent offenders such as prostitutes and drug users (most of whom probably need counseling and social assistance a lot more than they need time in the country jail). It turns out that the mayor had already formed an Alternatives to Sentencing Committee recently, but I had not heard about it. Let's hope the committee does good work.
Today I received a letter from John Hickenlooper, mayor of Denver, urging me to vote on May 3rd for a ballot initiative that would significantly expand Denver's courtrooms and jails. Granted, it was a mass mailing on behalf of Citizens for a Safe Denver, but it was a letter just the same, so I've sent him the following reply:
Dear Mr. Mayor:
Your recent letter regarding the upcoming vote on a new Justice Center struck a chord with me. While I respect your opinion that expanded courtrooms and jails are needed, I cannot help but wonder if the city has investigated all other options. For instance, anecdotal evidence indicates that many of those incarcerated in the city and county jails are non-violent offenders who have been booked for victimless crimes such as prostitution and drug use. My considered opinion is that it would be much more productive to find alternative approaches to truly helping such people than to continue wasting valuable jail space and courtroom time on putting them behind bars.
According to your letter, last year you "appointed a task force of community members, business leaders and local experts to review the situation and make recommendations for improvements"; I challenge you to do the same on efforts to find lasting solutions that will improve both the city and the lives of those in need, rather than just sending them through the same old revolving door of court appearances and jail time.
Sincerely,
Peter Saint-Andre
Speaking of Wired, a while back they published an article on technology and the Democrats, which makes it plain that the Democratic Party is studiously avoiding the big reason for their lack of success: they're more interested in rearranging the technological and fundraising deck chairs than in aligning their philosophies and policies with the core American tradition of freedom and liberty. If this keeps up, don't expect Hillary to go far in '08.
Thanks to Glyph #139 at the Explorers Foundation, I've found the work of the late Michael van Notten, who late in life became heavily involved in the stateless society of Somalia, specifically the northern area of Awdal, where he worked to set up a free port and other enterprises. His essay on the Somali experience makes for fascinating reading.