Mises Wire |
- Gun Laws and Decentralization: Lessons from "Constitutional Carry"
- Colonies Compared: Why British Colonies Were More Economically Successful
- Why Envy Can Destroy Economic Progress
- Victim-Centered Justice Throws Black Men under the Bus
- Terminate NATO
| Gun Laws and Decentralization: Lessons from "Constitutional Carry" Posted: 27 Mar 2021 12:00 PM PDT Few political movements can boast of success like the firearms movement in the United States. Often overlooked is how before the 1980s there was no concept of licensed, let alone unlicensed, concealed carry in the overwhelming majority of the country. The sole exception was Vermont, which through an idiosyncratic state supreme court decision in 1903 has had unlicensed carry for over a century. "Vermont Carry," the concept of unlicensed concealed carry, would be the Holy Grail for Second Amendment advocates for up to a century. In the intervening decades, in large part motivated by notable transgressions on the right to bear arms during the 1930s and 1960s, activists took to using gradualist methods in their efforts to relax gun control laws at the state level. Starting in the late 1970s, Georgia kicked off the modern licensed carry movement after it joined states like Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Washington in enacting some form of licensed concealed carry. Soon thereafter, states began adopting licensed carry one by one, and by the twenty-first century, most of the nation had some form of licensed concealed carry. At first, the idea of unlicensed carry seemed like a quixotic prospect only odd states like Vermont were capable of adopting. However, the dam broke after Alaska ended America's century-long unlicensed carry dry spell by signing its own constitutional carry bill into law in 2003. An even more pronounced momentum shift took place in 2010 after then Arizona governor Jan Brewer signed SB 1108, Arizona's constitutional carry bill. From there, a wave of states have followed suit in making constitutional carry the law of the land. [Read More: "Homicides in the US Fall for Second Year as Murder Rate Drops in 38 States" by Ryan McMaken] Constitutional carry's success is not a coincidence. It reflects a concerted effort by many disaffected gun owners who realized the federal government was not responding to their demands to scale back infringements on gun ownership. Rather than engage in the pie-in-the-sky federal campaigns that the average conservative organization would generally be involved in throughout the post–World War II era, many gun owners shifted their political sights toward state legislatures. Indeed, there is something to be said about Barack Obama's occupancy of the White House serving as a lightning rod for gun owners at the state level. At the time, many gun owners were thoroughly spooked by Obama's campaign promises to enact gun control legislation. Their fears became more pronounced when the Obama administration pushed for a far-reaching gun control package in the wake of the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre. Although Obama's gun control desires never came to pass, gun owners became sufficiently motivated to not only take action against his gun control attempt at the federal level but to shift their attention toward the state level. Several creative Second Amendment organizations picked up on the grassroots dissatisfaction of the Tea Party and leveraged that energy for state-level projects such as constitutional carry. By the time Obama left office in 2016, there were eleven states with constitutional carry as law. Constitutional carry's momentum maintained its course in the Trump era. Five states—New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, and Kentucky—passed constitutional carry legislation of their own when Donald Trump was in office, thus showing signs of a movement that has a life of its own and a willingness to press forward regardless of the partisan winds blowing in DC. Presently, there are eighteen constitutional carry states, following Utah and Montana deciding to quickly pass said legislation in the opening weeks of the Biden administration. Furthermore, states such as Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Texas are seeking to jump on the legislative bandwagon. From the looks of it, the concept of lawful individuals carrying firearms without a license is not going away any time soon. Undoubtedly, the level of polarization present in the US can be leveraged in a positive direction. Large swathes of red states are filled with "deplorables" who have no love lost for both Democrats and Republicans in DC. One way they could poke DC in the eye is by passing legislation such as constitutional carry. Contrary to what the promoters of traditional politics say, political confrontation can yield positive results. When states start taking matters into their own hands and buck prevailing trends emanating from DC, Americans can carve out their own "freedom domains," if you will, where they can enjoy particular freedoms other states and the federal government would generally deprive them of. In turn, when enough states adopt niche policies like constitutional carry, lagging states and the federal government alike will get the message that they are out of touch with the policy wants of large portions of America. At the same time, America is witnessing an ever-expanding Second Amendment sanctuary movement, with similar actors using local means to push back against gun control. Dissatisfaction is high and people are beginning to express it in a concrete, political form. As they say, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and sufficient pressure from below could be the wake-up call federal lawmakers need in order to act on their constituents' demands. Pulling a "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" likely won't bring about any meaningful political change in a gridlocked Congress. Perhaps real political reforms will be the product of frequent visits to one's respective state legislatures instead. Getting acquainted with state politics—something many politically active Americans have neglected to do in our federally obsessed political culture—is the first step in casting aside the ossified strategies of yesteryear. Meaningful reforms will not come from DC but rather state legislatures and lower levels of government that are more prone to yield to grassroots pressure.  This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| Colonies Compared: Why British Colonies Were More Economically Successful Posted: 27 Mar 2021 09:00 AM PDT Last month, British black studies professor Kehinde Andrews argued that the British Empire was "far worse than the Nazis." It was a controversial comparison to be sure, but it raises the question: Compared to other expansionist regimes, how bad was the British Empire? A survey of the evidence suggests that the British Empire was relatively less harmful than other imperial efforts, and this is reflected in outcomes—in terms of health and economic growth, among other outcomes—compared among British colonies and other sovereign states in similar times and places. This should not surprise us, since, as far as empires go, the British one was unusually liberal and open in terms of trade, centralization, and economic regulation. One can certainly argue that colonial empires are in themselves morally unacceptable—as Ludwig von Mises did—but the fact that colonial empires often differ significantly in their outcomes can serve to provide us with insights into what sorts of government policies are the most and least harmful. British vs. French Education PolicyFor example, Bolt and Bezemer (2008) assert that differences in human capital among former colonies are explained by the identity of the colonizing power. Unlike the French, who sought to centralize education and often clashed with missionaries, the British provided missionaries with greater latitude to design curricula. Missionaries were even given the option to contextualize education to meet the needs of natives. Whereas the French aimed to train a cadre of officials who were assimilated into French culture, British officials promoted an inclusive approach. Furthermore, by popularizing vocational education the British enabled locals to obtain technical skills that aided in boosting human capital. Similarly, Agbor (2011) submits that the educational policy of the British is a mechanism through which colonial origin impacts economic growth in African countries during 1960–2000. The British felt that education should solve the problems of colonial society, hence they adopted an indirect approach allowing instruction to be administered "through village schools using native teachers and the local vernacular languages of the people, whilst in former French colonies, pupils were generally boarded from their homes to far away schools where they were taught in French by French teachers, using French textbooks." As a result, the practical outlook of the British was more favorable to natives, who acquired useful skills, in contrast to the selective model of the French, who invested in creating an elite crop of bureaucrats to administer colonial policy. These findings have been confirmed by recent research identifying an educational advantage for adults born in the British part of Cameroon compared to their peers from French Cameroon. Economic GrowthHistorically, Britain has been more committed to free trade than other European powers. For example, in the nineteenth century, British colonies were never obliged to export solely to Britain. Hence economist Julius Agbor opines that "one of the most important legacies of British colonisation on its former colonies has been a long exposure to world competition through trade openness, which might possibly explain why former British sub-Saharan colonies adjusted more rapidly through structural adjustment programmes implemented in the 1980s in comparison with their French counterparts." Moreover, Bertocchi and Canova (2002) contend that, on average, British ex-colonies report superior economic performance to French ex-colonies. This is consistent with the earlier research of Grier, who attributes the stronger economic performance of former British colonies to educational policy. Likewise, Agbor in a recent study informs readers that "former British colonies have had marginally higher income levels than former French colonies during 1960–2000, and that this is attributable to the favourable contribution of the legacy of British colonisation in trade openness and human capital." HealthBased on his assessment of health policy in colonial Kenya, Moradi (2009) concludes that "the net outcome of colonial times was a significant progress in nutrition and health." He continues: "Colonial times were not as bad as commonly believed. In fact, Kenya … outperformed places like Mexico and India." Additionally, Klerman et al. (2011) concur with him by noting that life expectancy in former British colonies was significantly higher around 1960. Flexible Labor MarketsFor years economists have posited that the common law is flexible and more conducive to investment than civil law. As such, countries with a common law legal system report dynamic labor markets and lower levels of regulation. According to Botero et al. (2013), heavy regulation of labor is associated with lower labor force participation and higher unemployment, especially among young people. Singapore is a perfect example of a former British colony that successfully appropriated British institutions, as Shankar Singham points out in a recent piece:
The Postcolonial Rejection of LiberalismObviously, some are wondering why many former British colonies do so poorly even though British institutions seem to generate progress. Yet this irony is easily explained by the policies of postcolonial leaders. After gaining independence in 1962, the Jamaican economy experienced record economic growth. But unlike the pragmatic Lee Kuan Yew, who sought to transform Singapore into a competitive economy, Jamaica had the idealistic Michael Manley. Under the spell of democratic socialism, he aggressively advocated statist policies, thus inducing economic collapse. Economist Peter Blair Henry in "Institutions vs. Policies: A Tale of Two Islands" illustrates the terrible effects of the Manley years:
Apologists for the Manley regime usually ascribe economic turmoil to external shocks, like the oil crisis of the 1970s, but economist Derick Boyd avers that this view is untenable:
Andrews's attempt at comparing the British colonial experience to that of the Nazi conquests should be regarded as obvious hyperbole. But even when far more mild comparisons are made—such as with the French colonies—we find it was the relatively liberal British who left behind colonies that were comparatively heathier, more educated, and more economically developed than was the case where there was less embrace of free trade and economic freedom.  This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| Why Envy Can Destroy Economic Progress Posted: 27 Mar 2021 05:00 AM PDT In some cultures, entrepreneurial achievement and capital accumulations are viewed with high levels of suspicion and envy. This can be disastrous for economic progress. Original Article: "Why Envy Can Destroy Economic Progress" This Audio Mises Wire is generously sponsored by Christopher Condon. Narrated by Michael Stack.
 |
| Victim-Centered Justice Throws Black Men under the Bus Posted: 27 Mar 2021 05:00 AM PDT By embedding victim-centered justice in law, lack of due process will become institutionalized. The burden of this will fall on men, and in particular black men. Original Article: "Victim-Centered Justice Throws Black Men under the Bus" This Audio Mises Wire is generously sponsored by Christopher Condon. Narrated by Michael Stack.
 |
| Posted: 27 Mar 2021 04:00 AM PDT The Washington Post has published a long piece calling for NATO to take on a new official enemy—China. The piece is written by Sara Bjerg Moller, an assistant professor in the School of Diplomacy and International Relations at Seton Hall University. She argues that after 30 years since losing the Soviet Union as its official enemy and struggling to find a replacement to justify its continued existence, a perfect replacement would be China. I've got a better idea. Let's just put NATO out of its misery and terminate it. After all, let's not forget NATO's original mission: to defend Europe from the possibility of an invasion by the Soviet Union, which had been America's and Britain's World War II partner and ally but which had been converted to their official enemy at the end of the war. But the likelihood of a Soviet invasion of Europe was always nil. The Soviet Union had been decimated by World War II, especially as a result of the German invasion of the country. Even though the invasion was ultimately repelled and Germany was defeated, the Soviet Union's industrial capacity had been destroyed, not to mention the millions of Russian citizens who had been killed. The last thing the Soviet Union wanted was another war, especially given that the United States possessed nuclear weapons and had shown a willingness to employ them against large cities. The advocates of a national-security state in the United States, however, needed a new official enemy to replace Nazi Germany, especially to justify the conversion of the U.S. government from a limited-government republic to a national-security state, a type of governmental structure with omnipotent, non-reviewable powers. The Soviet Union and "godless communism" fit the bill perfectly. The American people were then inculcated with the notion that there was an international communist conspiracy to take over the United States and the rest of the world that was based in Moscow, Russia. To convince Americans and western Europeans that the Soviet Union posed a grave threat to them, U.S. officials pointed to the postwar Soviet occupations of Eastern Europe and East Germany as examples of communist aggression. They apparently forgot that President Franklin Roosevelt had delivered such lands into the hands of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, who FDR affectionately referred to as his "Uncle Joe," at their wartime summit in Yalta. Was it really too surprising that Stalin accepted FDR's gift, especially given that Eastern Europe and East Germany would serve as a buffer against another German invasion of the Soviet Union? It was within this fervent anti-communist environment that NATO was formed. But in 1989, the Cold War suddenly and unexpectedly came to an end, which, needless to say, put the U.S. national-security establishment and NATO into a panic. After all, the Cold War was the justification for both of these institutions. With no Cold War, they could both be dismantled. Instead, the national-security establishment simply went into the Middle East and began poking hornets' nest, which ultimately brought terrorist retaliation, which in turn brought the "war on terrorism," another racket that has kept the national-security establishment in high cotton. Meanwhile, unwilling to let Russia go as an official enemy, NATO began gobbling up former members of the Warsaw Pact, with the aim of placing U.S. troops and missiles ever closer to Russia's borders and with the hope of provoking a reaction, which ultimately came about in Ukraine. As Moller argues, however, Russia poses no real threat to Europe and, therefore, cannot be seriously considered to be a justification for NATO. Instead, she argues, it's time to replace Russia with China, owing to China's rise as an international powerhouse. The reasoning is classic empire-think: If a nation starts to prosper and rise, it's best to put it down before it gets too large and powerful. How about just leaving China and Russia alone? What's wrong with that? What's wrong with other nations becoming prosperous? The fact is that NATO should never have been established in the first place. Moreover, the biggest mistake in U.S. history was to convert the federal government to a national-security state. The best thing American could do now is terminate NATO and restore a limited-government republic to our land. Reprinted with permission from the Future of Freedom Foundation.  This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Mises Wire. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
No comments:
Post a Comment