Interview on the Eric Farris Show on 106.3 KRZK

Interview on the Eric Farris Show on 106.3 KRZK

Talk radio host Eric Farris invited me on the Eric Farris show to talk about my recent Tea Party Conference, satirical video and how I came to libertarianism.

It was really fun and I really appreciate Eric inviting me on!

Gender Roles, Sex Work, Feminism and More on Bloggingheads.tv

Gender Roles, Sex Work, Feminism and More on Bloggingheads.tv

This tells you about all you need to know about me, but as soon as I found out what Bloggingheads.tv was, I really, really wanted to go on. It was even more fun than I thought it would be. I have to thank TownHall Managing Editor Kevin Glass for inviting me on, and even more for asking me some really fascinating questions.

From the description:

On Rational Actors, Kevin talks to Cathy about her efforts to synthesize feminism and libertarianism. Can libertarian economic policies help change gendered expectations for women? Does the libertarian movement have a woman problem? Is legal sex work compatible with individual freedom? Turning to Ken Cuccinelli’s recent defeat in Virginia, they consider why married and unmarried women vote so differently. How can the GOP reform itself to be more appealing to women in general?

Be sure to follow Kevin Glass on Twitter.

The Delicious Irony of “Dark Money”

The Delicious Irony of “Dark Money”

It turns out that the liberal think tank Center for American Progress gets its funding from evil corporations just like everyone else. Among the top donors are multi-national corporations and industries such as Google, Northrop Grumman, and NBCUniversal.

Not a day goes by without some big-government lefty railing about “dark money.”

Just last week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) demanded that corporations reveal which think tanks receive their donations. Warren expressed concern that corporate donors are influencing think tank research.

The left’s preferred narrative is simple, easy-to-understand and has a ring of truth. It goes like this: Regulation helps consumers but hurts business’ profitability. Individuals give money to big-government organizations to promote regulation. Corporations donate to small-government organizations like Americans for Prosperity, the American Enterprise Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute to fight regulation.

But the fact that corporations also fund big-government organizations raises questions about this narrative. If regulation hurts corporations, why are they funding think tanks which promote it?

The truth is that most regulation is written by and for incumbent businesses to erect barriers to entry and to buy advantages over their competitors. That’s why corporations fund groups like the Center for American Progress.

Earlier this year, Center for American Progress donor Citibank hired lobbyists to literally write 70 out of 85 lines of a bill regulating derivatives trading which passed the House. If this regulation was meant to hurt Citibank’s profitability while defending their customers it’s unlikely to have done so.

There are three main reasons corporations like Citibank write their own legislation. First, lawmakers feel pressure from constituents to regulate industries about which their staffs know nothing; corporate lobbyists and lawyers provide much-needed information. Second, it’s much easier and faster for a company to understand and comply with a regulation it wrote. Third, and most important, companies write regulation that is easier and cheaper to comply for them than for their competitors.

Writing regulation gives companies a leg up on their competition without ever having to improve quality or lower prices. If lobbying is cheaper than innovating, companies will write regulation instead of taking risks.

While writing regulation is a great plan for companies, it really screws consumers. Regulations lower efficiency and profitability for all companies (though to differing degrees for different companies). These costs get passed right on to their customers. Regulations also rob customers of the innovation, quality improvement and price decrease that results from robust competition.

In other words, every dollar a company spends paying lawyers and lobbyists to write regulations is a dollar not spent developing new products or methods of manufacture.

Unfortunately, instead of helping consumers, even well-intended regulation actually screws them twice. It first screws them by raising the costs of goods and services. It then robs them of the lower costs and greater quality resulting from businesses having to compete for customers instead of regulators.

Lefty bloggers like those who write for “ThinkProgress,” run by Center for American Progress, like to talk about regulation versus deregulation as if deregulation were an actual thing. The United States has never seen a net reduction in regulation in any industry. What they are referring to are selective exemptions from existing regulation for certain activities and companies. This isn’t so much deregulation as different regulation, and it is also authored and crafted by companies for companies.

For example, last year the House Financial Services Committee inserted language written by corporate lawyer Michael Bopp word-for-word into a 2012 version of a bill which would exempt many trades from Dodd-Frank regulation. It passed the House as written by Bopp, save for a slight change in phrasing. A later iteration of the bill, passed by the House committee earlier this month, also included some of the same wording. This isn’t some ideological war on regulation and in favor of free markets. “Deregulation” is corporate rent seeking in exactly the same way regulation is, only possibly with fewer unintended consequences and costs for consumers.

The main thing people fail to understand about money of any shade is that T-Mobile, Toyota, and Visa don’t give to the Center for American Progress despite their calls for greater and more onerous regulation. They give because of their calls for greater and more onerous regulation. And why then do corporations give to Americans for Prosperity, the American Enterprise Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute? Sometimes it’s cheaper to fight the regulation their competitors’ lawyers wrote than to write their own.

We all want to believe that regulators understand the industries they’re regulating well enough to improve their functioning. We all want to believe that regulations protect consumers from greedy businesses. Unfortunately none of that is true. And the sooner we stop worrying about what color the money is and start worrying about the actual, real-life effects of the regulation the money promotes the better off we’ll all be.

This post originally appeared at The Blaze.

Thick And Thin Libertarianism And Tom Woods

Thick And Thin Libertarianism And Tom Woods

On his blog, libertarian bestselling author and Ron Paul homeschooling curriculum writer Tom Woods has written some thoughts about thin and thick libertarianism and how they apply to the Duck Dynasty controversy.

If you’ve been living in a cave, the star of reality television show Duck Dynasty said some unfortunate things about gay people and some really unfortunate things about black people living in the Jim Crow South to GQ magazine. The remarks were homophobic and racist, and he was suspended from his show by A&E.

Somehow Woods ties this to thick libertarianism, and uses it as a jumping off point to critique a movement he dislikes.

First, he describes and takes issue with thick libertarianism. “Some libertarians say the traditional libertarian principle of nonaggression is insufficient.” He says, “If [people] support nonaggression, they are libertarians.”

The position thick libertarians take on the non-aggression principle is that it’s a starting place, not a place to end. The trouble with it is that there are multiple ways to define aggression. As Jason Brennan points out, “What counts as aggression depends upon what rights people have.”

Woods then defines thick libertarianism as requiring people to “have left-liberal views on religion, sexual morality, feminism, etc., because reactionary beliefs among the public are also threats to liberty.”

More accurately, thick libertarianism asks people to oppose racism, sexism, homophobia and other forms of bigotry because bigotry against some is a threat to liberty for all. If Woods disagrees with this idea, it’s not clear how or why.

Speaking of the way thick libertarians see social views that aren’t “left-liberal,” Woods asks, “Why is it only the traditional moral ideas of the bourgeoisie that are supposed to be so threatening?” I didn’t realize the racism, sexism and homophobia thick libertarians critique were the traditional moral ideas of the bourgeoisie. I think it’s more realistic to say, and polling data bears this out, that these kind of socially illiberal attitudes are much more prevalent among the poorly educated than whoever Woods describes as “bourgeoisie.”

While it’s difficult to survey for racism, as most racists don’t self-identify as such, survey data has shown lower IQ scores are associated with not being able to agree with statements such as “I wouldn’t mind working with people from other races.” There’s actually a strong positive correlation between education and approval of interracial marriage. One survey and another study found a negative correlation between parental income and homophobia.

But whether they are bourgeois or uneducated has zero bearing on whether they’re threats to liberty. Again, it would be great for Woods to get into whether or not bigotry constitutes a threat to liberty.

I would argue that denying someone goods or services on the basis of their sex, gender, orientation, religion, etc. is a curtailment of their liberty, at the very least to enjoy those goods and services.

That does not justify legally forcing someone to stop discriminating. However, it does justify calling out the pernicious effects of discrimination. That, in essence, is thick libertarianism. It’s concerned with both kinds of threats to freedom, government-created and cultural. And it proposes voluntary solutions, like education, or reality television show suspensions, to those threats.

This post originally appeared in C4SS.

How Bitcoin Will Destroy Banks

How Bitcoin Will Destroy Banks

We’ve got another awesome Sex and the State guest post! If you would like to submit a guest post, please fill out my contact form with an brief outline of what you want to write about.

Look past the world in front of you

Explore your time

No trust, no love, a nothing news

A cheaper dime

Ruins wrought in the present day

Your leaders glean

Don’t let the truth slip away

See the unseen

Tear down your wall of ignorance

Reach for the stars

There’s not much time; take a chance

Forget your czars

The state that feeds ties the noose

Serves you morphine

Don’t let that drip numb the truth

See the unseen

With the mainstream news picking up on Bitcoin once again, the response to this monetary innovation has been all over the map. Whether it be unstudied fear;  the informed hope of an up-and-coming Millennial; the downright bemusement of an aging dinosaur; the witty exuberance of a modern day leveller; or the cartoonish nay saying of business insiders, there are many vehement opinions on Bitcoin. In time, we will see which sentiments and predictions are correct, but for the time being, allow me to once again throw my humble hat into the ring.

I venture a greater adoption of Bitcoin will help lead to a greater understanding that freed-markets, i.e. communities based in voluntarism, are superior to the current hegemonic relationship experienced by most the of the global population in relation to state sponsored banking. This will happen for three intertwined reasons: (1) given the nature of Bitcoin as a voluntary, decentralized system whose future is reliant upon entrepreneurial activity and (2) given the nature of state sponsored banking as a coercive, centralized system whose future is reliant upon political force then (3) how both systems will act in order to maintain and justify their continued existence will demonstrate that voluntarist solutions are possible in solving problems traditionally claimed to be the sole province of the state.

The Nature of Bitcoin

Bitcoin has the potential to disrupt the prevailing monetary order of central bank command-and-control because it is its own decentralized and voluntary system with the capacity to issue, secure, and transmit money. These processes are audited automatically through an encryption process known as mining which is published on the Bitcoin network’s universal ledger, the Blockchain. Bitcoin isn’t a fiat currency such as dollars, yuan, or euros, and it’s not exactly analogous to precious metals either. Though the Bitcoin network has the capacity for frictionless, low-cost peer-to-peer transactions, it accomplishes this in a manner quite different than a traditional money-wire service such as Western Union or an online-payment service such as PayPal. Bitcoin provides services similar to all these examples, but that’s not what it is. For those who like to learn through vivid metaphor, the best I have heard for Bitcoin is the allegory, “The Island of Stone Bitcoins.”

At a fundamental level, Bitcoin is a novel way of reintroducing private property rules into a monetary space festering with political controls that are anathema to a free society. Think of Bitcoin as a burgeoning new interactive sport or video game that is slowly becoming more popular because the games of old have grown tired, stale, rigged, and self-destructive. Bitcoin’s rules are implicit in and enforced by its distributed network so that people must freely choose to play by those rules if they are to play at all. The implication of this decentralized enforcement process is that there is little-to-no need for traditional political controls associated with money and banking.

Accordingly, Bitcoin should be seen as a threat to (excuse me, savior from) the dominant monetary regime marked by state privileged central banking.

The Nature of State Sponsored Money and Banking

Contrary to conventional opinion, the current monetary regime is incredibly fragile because it is based upon a legacy of political force and centralized power rather than the peaceful individual consent of market participants. State sponsored central banking is clearly not a product of the free market; it can only exist through political coercion, as the central bank is given an exclusive government grant of privilege over the issuance of money as well as other power over the monetary system.

For example, Bitcoin is not yet money. It will only become “money” when it is voluntarily accepted as such by the global population (if they are allowed.) Central banks, however, see money as a matter of political authority: a case of ex-cathedra where whatever they say is money is money.

Here is the People’s Bank of China on how Bitcoin is not money (emphasis mine):

Some people call Bitcoin ‘currency,’ but because it is not issued by the monetary authorities, it is not truly money. Bitcoin is a virtual good, it does not have legal status and cannot and should not be used as currency in circulation in the market.

Such a pronouncement is a telling example of the fatal conceit that afflicts central planners, especially central bankers. From a free market standpoint, money is a naturally occurring phenomenon that would appear without the state’s control or diktat. Just as light bulbs, shoes, and skyscrapers have been provided by the market so to could money be produced by the market.

Yet, try telling this to most people established in the prevailing financial system and prepare for a heaping-helping of scorn and derision if not blatant laughter (the kind where they’re laughing at you.) This goes to show that though state sponsored central banking is based upon political force, it is ultimately justified by its utility to people and their acceptance of the rules, economics, and political philosophy that support the system’s continued existence.

As soon as people discover and build a market monetary system (I imagine Bitcoin to be a mere part of this endeavor,) the legacy of force central banks are founded upon will not continue for much longer, as the justification for their hegemonic power will be demonstrated to be false.

Looking Into the Future

Whether or not Bitcoin will succeed in supplanting state sponsored banking is a wait-and-see proposition; this will depend upon both the success of the entrepreneurial activity surrounding the Bitcoin space and the policy actions of the central banks and their governments.

If Bitcoin is to unseat state sponsored money and banking, the foremost reason will be the self-destructive behavior of the central banks of the world. In their hope to mitigate the painful symptoms of economic stagnation they have caused, the monetary authorities are destroying themselves; each new intervention in the market must be followed by more interventions in order to keep the party going–e.g. the issuance of more and more debt for less and less growth–which as David Stockman has put it, “is crucifying the savers of America on a cross of ZIRP.”

Slowly but surely, the drip of fiat money from of the state is numbing-to-death the heart of capitalism that is the capital markets, and as they continue to exert their power to save themselves and their deficit hungry government sponsors, the central banks will lose their power over the market. People will begin to see less and less utility in the state’s monopoly money and eventually stop believing the promises of the monetary authorities. A contemporary example of this: the interventions undertaken by the government in Argentina. As laid out at the beginning of episode 65 of Let’s Talk Bitcoin, the behavior of the Argentine central bank and the government’s increase of capital controls is leading to the greater adoption of Bitcoin to escape financial state-wreck.

If Bitcoin rises to global prominence under such state-wrecked conditions, it will most likely help to put the kibosh on the acceptance of those economic theories and public policies that support the imposition of state power to “save the free market from itself.” Economic bromides such as “deflation is bad everywhere and always” and “the paradox of thrift” would finally be shown wanting in practice. Monetary nostrums such as zero-interest-rate policy and counter-cyclical government stimulus would be seen as ineffective, destructive, or even as outright forms of legalized theft. Many people who have long been revered as “experts” in the prevailing monetary order will be seen as dinosaurs if not outright charlatans (I’m talking to you Alan Greenspan!)

Beyond these considerations of the state’s actions, there is much that needs to be done in the Bitcoin space. There are many known and unknown goods and services needed for the development of the digital economy and the larger acceptance of cryptocurrencies in general. Whether it be the greater development of wallet/security/arbitration services, more robust and sophisticated exchanges and payment processing platforms, or the development of social service networks along the lines of digital mutual aid societies, the potential for the digital economy in general and Bitcoin in particular is astronomical.

That being said, it is a fool’s errand to try and construct an abstract model of the potential Bitcoin economy in order to impose it upon the world: that would be true “rational constructivism.”  An economy can only be built through the individual human action of many participants, and to my mind, that requires a humble admission of “I don’t know where this is all going exactly.” Both true-believers and naysayers need to keep this in mind.

Bitcoin did not and will not “just happen” on its own even if all of us were to wish upon a star; leave the Jiminy Cricket economics to the politicians and their ilk. For Bitcoin to succeed, we need entrepreneurship and people with a vision of how to solve the problem of making money and banking a more equitable experience for the global population.

I am of the mind that such people do exist and if our work does succeed in bringing about a greater adoption of Bitcoin, I plan on being happily surprised by a free market renaissance that is impossible to imagine with certainty. Is it any wonder so many libertarians are interested in Bitcoin? Bitcoin is voluntarist solution to ordering an uncertain world, so while your political leaders glean ruins wrought in the present day, take the time to look past the world right in front of your face and see the unseen world of the rising digital economy.

joey headshot

Joey Clark is a freelance writer and political commentator. He is currently a radio producer and talk show host in Montgomery, AL. Read his blog. Send him mail.