The Case for Capitalism

by Yuval Levin

This plainly and comprehensively re-states the classical case for Capitalism, and is worth bookmarking for future reference.

The highlights, as selected by Donald Douglas at American Power:

There is not today, and perhaps there never has been, a serious economic critique of the fundamental tenets of capitalism. There are only moral critiques. Even those opponents of capitalism who proposed alternative systems — like the socialists and communists of centuries past — generally offered moral systems, and not genuine economic theories.

The moral critiques of capitalism have tended to fall into two categories. One, popular with those socialists and communists as well as with many less hostile liberal critics, is that capitalism is unjust to the poor. This meant at first that capitalism degraded the condition of the poor: Some early critics of capitalism contended that the circumstances of workers, especially in manufacturing occupations, were worse than anything the poor had ever experienced before the advent of free-market economics and the Industrial Revolution. But no such case could be sustained today. It is true that inequality persists, of course, but the standard of living of the poor has risen dramatically under capitalism, and the potential for escaping poverty is nowhere greater than in capitalist economies. So today, the focus of such critics is on inequality itself. The condition of the poor, they say, generally does not improve as swiftly as that of the rich, so that the gap between the wealthiest and poorest is expanding — to the detriment of social cohesion and basic justice. There is some truth to this, at least sometimes, but it only amounts to a moral indictment of capitalism if we believe that an equality of conditions is the essence of justice. Otherwise it would be foolish to reject the greatest source of material progress for the poor in human history on the grounds that it allows others to progress even faster. Moreover, it is far from clear that some systemic feature of the market economy holds back the poor. Today in America, the causes of persistent poverty have far more to do with culture than with economic injustice.

But that very point brings us to the second and more serious moral critique of capitalism: that it empties social life of any higher meaning, and so leaves society morally bankrupt even as it grows materially wealthy. Is capitalism in fact just a means of replacing material poverty with spiritual poverty? Is the market a money-making machine that burns social capital for its fuel, leaving in its wake a society of opulent nihilists? ....

Adam Smith expected ... that the market would discipline society and set bounds on our appetites. But as it turns out, our capitalist age is generally not an age of discipline. Far from it: Our society in most respects is a study in unbounded appetite. Our chief public-health problem is obesity. Our foremost social pathologies result from an absence of sexual restraint and personal responsibility. Our popular culture much of the time is a diabolical mix of Babylonian decadence and Philistine vulgarity. And our public life is a gluttonous feast upon the flesh of the future — we use more than we need, spend more than we have, and borrow more than we can pay. For all of our immense wealth, we somehow manage to live far beyond our means. In fact, it is almost fair to say that we lack for nothing except discipline. But as Adam Smith could tell us, discipline above all is what we require to be free. This is no small problem for the case for capitalism.

So what happened? In part, Adam Smith surely understated — and perhaps underestimated — the challenges of sustaining moral norms amid economic dynamism. His expectations rested on an assumption of what to us seems like exceptional social and moral consensus, but what to him was the reality of British life in the late 18th century. The loss of such consensus, brought about in no small part by our capitalist economy itself, is a defining fact of American life in the 21st century. And the challenge of sustaining our way of life in light of that loss is the defining problem of our political economy.

Also, from the conclusion:

Clearly, the case for capitalism requires us to roll back policies that have distorted the market's ability to produce this wealth and cultivate these virtues. The American welfare state needs to be dramatically trimmed and reformed — aimed at helping the needy become more independent rather than making the middle class less so. The cozy relations between government and big business must be rolled back as well, lest the system cease to serve the common consumer, and so lose his allegiance. Friends of capitalism have grown increasingly alert to this danger in the wake of the recent economic crisis, and are beginning to formulate the arguments and develop the means to resist it. The distinction between "pro-market" and "pro-business" will be an important part of the case for capitalism in the years to come, and American history offers useful examples of how it can be drawn responsibly.

Properly understood, the case for capitalism is not a case for license or for laissez faire. It is a case for national wealth as a moral good; for the interest of the mass of consumers as the guide of policy; for clear and uniform rules of competition imposed upon all; for letting markets set prices, letting buyers make choices, and letting producers experiment, innovate, and make what they think they can sell — all while protecting consumers and punishing abuses. It is a case for avoiding concentrations of power, for keeping business and government separate, and for letting those who can meet their own needs do so. It is a case for humility about our ability to know, and therefore about our capacity to do ....

Our purpose is to protect and strengthen our way of life, to stand up for a social and economic system that has lifted billions out of poverty and vastly improved our world in countless ways, and to avert a careless slide toward social-democratic melancholy and decline. This general purpose, of course, has to take form in specific instances and choices, and exactly how the broad conceptual argument for capitalism should be translated into policy is always a matter of case-by-case prudence. But that does not mean that we can do without the broader argument — the argument first framed by Adam Smith, and refined by two centuries of theory and practice, especially in our country. It is an argument for individual freedom amid moral order, and for prosperity sustained by sympathy and discipline. It is an odd modern hybrid: a conservative case for the liberal society. As such, it is also an integral piece of the case for America.

Northern Ireland Adopts African-Style Politics

Great story in the Indo,

African politics works a lot like this. Every conceiveable interest group, tribe, and political faction must get their share of the pie before any sort of government can be formed. Jacob Zuma in South Africa recently managed to get this done by doubling the number of cabinet ministers, and increasing the number of those suckling at the public teat by inventing some new departments for them. That is Africa.

This is Ireland, however, and in fine Banana Republic tradition, so much money is being thrown around to get the Northern process back on track that soon there will be more public servants than citizens. Ain't democracy grand.

"Gordon Brown promised £20 million for development of the Irish language during the Hillsborough Castle talks, Gerry Adams has revealed.

Most of the money will go to the Irish Language Broadcast Fund, which provides over 75 hours of television for the BBC and others.

Culture Minister Nelson McCausland welcomed the investment and said another £5 million would also be made available to promote Ulster Scots. 

A draft strategy to protect and enhance both languages should go to the ministerial executive by the end of March."

read the rest here.

Things I DON't Miss about George W. Bush

by the excellent Michelle Malkin :





Sorry to be a wet blanket, but someone has to do it.
The “Miss Me Yet?” billboard (inspired by Jonathan Maney’s t-shirts) is cute. But let’s not get carried away with nostalgia.
President Bush put America on the proper war footing after 9/11 and deserves much credit for doing so, but he also:
1) joined with open-borders progressives McCain and Kennedy to try to force shamnesty down our throats;
2) massively expanded the federal role in education;
3) championed the Medicare prescription drug entitlement using phony math;
4) kowtowed to the jihadi-enabling Saudis;
5) stocked DHS with incompetents and cronies;
6) pushed Hillarycare for housing;
7) enabled turncoat Arlen Specter;
8. nominated crony Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court;
9) pre-socialized the economy for Obama by embracing TARP, the auto bailouts, the AIG bailout, and in his own words:


“I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system.”
– George W. Bush
No, I don’t miss having a corporate socialist Republican in the White House any more than I like having a corporate socialist Democrat in the White House now.

Call for Ban on FGM in Ireland

Here's one those stories that shows just how far we have come from being a country that has had a limited number of problems to deal with to a truly multicultural one with multicultural problems.

Not that there is any shortage of those, but this story just shows how much money and effort is spent solving a problem we should really not have to solve.

One presumes that Female Genital Mutation is already illegal. But it cannot just be illegal, it must be a "violation of human rights" as well.

Of course it is, and so are a lot of other things. But we all know that labelling something as such is not mere posturing on the part of an elite who believe such labelling reinforces their sense of moral superioriy, but a segway into a whole new area of government control. Why a "specific legislation" to ban FGM? Does it not fall under a number of other prohibitions, such as Assault, Child Abuse, and Sexual Abuse?

Just look at what that legislative distinction requires - endless "campaigns", "committees" and the inevitable "community-based initiatives". Why can't appalling, barbaric practices just be illegal, or even just morally reprehensible? Do not mistake this for lack of sympathy. FGM is an inhuman (no, not "inhumane"), brutal and horrific practice and should be punishable by punishments we don't even have in our legal system (although maybe in Saudi Arabia's). But more "steering committees" we do not need.

What we need is more punishment for parents who carry out such acts, preferably including immediate deportation, while their victims can remain in Ireland. Politely asking them not to mutilate their children is not the answer.
****
According to a report in the Irish Times, a number of participants at an event held by the National Steering Committee on Female Genital Mutilation to mark International Day of Zero Tolerance to FGM called for a stepping up of the campaign for a new law banning the practice of FGM in Ireland.
During the event, serious concerns were expressed about whether the current legal framework in Ireland served as an effective tool for addressing the practise of FGM. While Government advice has indicated that female genital mutilation constitutes an offence under assault laws, speakers at the seminar said distinct legislation was needed.

According to the Irish Times report, a spokesman for Minister for Health Mary Harney said: “The question of introducing specific legislation to ban female genital mutilation remains under review. However, we cannot be specific on a timeframe for this review at this stage.”

The Irish Steering Committee came together in early 2008 to develop the Plan of Action to address Female Genital Mutilation, which was finalised in late 2008. The report is a valuable source of information on the practise of FGM in Ireland and elsewhere. The document highlights that ‘a proactive and coordinated response is required to prevent the establishment of the practice [of FGM] in Ireland and to provide care for women and girls living in Ireland who have already undergone FGM in their country of origin’.

It identifies a number of strategies ‘as being essential to addressing FGM in Ireland and in other countries through Irish development policies’, focusing on actions under 5 strategy headings: legal, asylum, health, community and development aid. From a legal perspective, the report quotes earlier research carried out by the Women’s Health Council which, amongst other things, highlighted the shortcomings and the inappropriateness of existing legislation in terms of prosecuting FGM.





According to the Plan of Action and the Women’s Health Council, both the levels of prevalence and incidence of FGM in Ireland are relatively low. However, it is highly regrettable that steps are not being taken at this stage so as to proactively prevent future cases of FGM in Ireland, rather than waiting until the state may find itself in a ‘reactive position of having to deal with the more problematic eradication of a practice already established in a new context’ (Women’s Health Council).

There is no question that law can, in and of itself, serve as an absolute deterrent to or panacea for FGM. Indeed, international experience demonstrates that the legal prohibition of FGM unaccompanied by community-based initiatives focussing on health and education will not result in a significant reduction in the practice. However, it is arguable that bringing about the legal prohibition of FGM is relatively easy and can certainly be achieved more quickly than the changes in societal attitudes and other factors affecting practitioner communities that are necessary for the practice to be discontinued.


In addition, a strong legal framework can strengthen the ability of agencies to protect children at risk and provide them with appropriate care (‘Plan of Action’), as well as providing support to members of communities who are under pressure to subject their children FGM and are reluctant to do so. Given the egregious impact that FGM has on the human rights of girl children, a failure to take the step of establishing an effective and watertight legal prohibition on the practise is inexcusable.

In 2001, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly passed Resolution 1247 calling on the governments of member states (including Ireland) ‘to introduce specific legislation prohibiting genital mutilation and declaring genital mutilation to be a violation of human rights and bodily integrity’. It remains to see when Ireland will respond to this call.

In January of this year, Viviane Reding, EU Commissioner-Designate for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship declared her commitment to taking “concrete action on FGM” and outlined a series of steps that she would take, including working with the with Commissioner-Designate for Home Affairs to harmonise criminal offences and sanctions in criminal law.

There is thus a growing awareness and concern about FGM throughout Europe – a fact that is reflected in the development of the END FGM European Campaign. This Campaign is run by Amnesty International Ireland, in partnership with non-governmental organisations across the European Union. A new document was launched at yesterday’s seminar entitled, “ENDING FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION: A Strategy for the European Union Institutions” as part of that campaign.

While developments at the EU level are to be welcomed and encouraged, they do not serve to absolve Ireland of its obligations to take measures to address FGM under Article 24 CRC, Article 3 ECHR and the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (for more, see the statements of the Committee responsible for monitoring CEDAW here, here and here). It is therefore incumbent on Ireland to take action now to provide support to current victims of FGM and to prevent the creation of new ones.

Fiddling While Rome Burns - More Wasted Cash

 What a huge joke at the taxpayer's expense.

Foreign embassy revamp defended

Sunday February 07 2010

The Foreign Affairs minister has defended a multimillion-euro revamp at the residence of the Irish ambassador to Canada.
The taxpayer is understood to have forked out 4.4 million euro to refurbish the luxurious home in Ottawa.

Fine Gael said the figure was outrageous and unjustifiable and said work on the 24,000 square foot building included a whirlpool, sauna and a chandelier that cost 20,000 euro.
Minister Micheal Martin said it was important Ireland be properly represented overseas.


"The embassies play a very key role actually, both in helping to win inward investment and in supporting the work of Enterprise Ireland and IDA by utilisation of the embassies for economic purpose," he said.

More than 15 million euro has been spent over the past two years on refurbishments to diplomats' residences worldwide.

Mr Martin told RTE's This Week that the amount spent in Canada, where Ambassador Declan Kelly lives, was a very significant sum.

"There will be very little enhancement or upgrading of facilities in the next couple of years because we don't have the same resources that we had in previous years," he added.

Fine Gael's foreign affairs spokesperson Billy Timmins said there was no way the amount could be justified while the country is mired in recession.


"Those bearing the brunt of the recession at home are entitled to feel infuriated at the Government's decision to prioritise funding for a 'palace' over special needs assistants, hospital wards and social welfare payments," said Mr Timmins. "This is nothing less than an insult to every single taxpayer," he added.

Press Association

Immigration and Human Rights

Yesterday's post ended abruptly, largely because I like to make sure I have the facts in hand before going off on a potentially false tangent.
Having leafed through the digital pages of the Irish Human Rights Blog I encountered the following story, which in many ways illustrates some of the points I was clumsily trying to make.

****
On Monday, the Irish Times reported on a new operation which has been undertaken by the Garda National Immigration Bureau (GNIB) to detect and prevent what they believe to be marriages of convenience for the purpose of securing EU residency rights. A Pakistani man, Muhammad Shafi, was recently convicted of offences related to the possession of ‘false instruments’. Gardai also intervened to halt his marriage to a Lithuanian woman. The Irish Times reports that marriages designed to circumvent certain legal obstacles to residency in Ireland are an important informal feature of  our immigration regime, with the Minister  for Justice estimating that  ”30 per cent of all our applications for recognition under the EU directive on freedom of movement and residency involve persons who were illegally present in Ireland or on a temporary or limited permission when making their applications”. The Times explains:

These marriages are typically arranged by failed asylum seekers or former students from Asia who no longer have permission from immigration authorities to stay in Ireland.
Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern told his EU counterparts at a meeting in Spain at the weekend that there was evidence of growing abuse of immigration laws with a growing number of non-EU nationals marrying women from the Baltic states.
Some 110 of the 384 residency applications made by Pakistanis in the Republic in 2009 were based on marriages to Latvians.
A further 50 applications were based on marriage to Polish nationals while 47 applications were based on Pakistanis marrying Estonians.

RTE claims that marriages of convenience have become a sort of industry in Ireland, involving experienced marriage brokers who pay EU citizens to marry non-EU partners. You can see a Prime Time report on the topic, which features interviews with Pakistani men living in Ireland here. Further RTE reports are available here and the Irish Independent carried reports along similar lines in 2008. Nevertheless, even if marriages are being arranged for immigration purposes in some circumstances, and even if questions arise over associated criminality, the government response must be measured, proportionate and tailored to specific abuses. As Hilka Bekker of the Immigrant Council of Ireland observes in the Prime Time report, we should be concerned that couples who genuinely wish to found a family together in Ireland will be hindered by an increasingly punitive regime founded on suspicion.

At EU level, the Irish, UK and Danish governments form  a bloc within Europe which is lobbying for a redrafting of  the EU Residence Direactive. Since the decision of the ECJ in Metock (see a House of Commons Research Briefing here and a Monckton Chambers briefing here), the government may not require that the non-EU partner was lawfully resident in another Member State prior to claiming residence in Ireland and may not restrict residency rights with respect to the time when the marriage took place (ie before or after arrival in Ireland) or the country where it was solemnised.

The Government has some plans to legislate to address the issue of marriages designed to circumvent the immigration regime. s. 126 of the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill, 2008 is designed to regulate and control marriages in Ireland where one or both parties are foreign nationals. S. 126 (1) states that ‘[t]he marriage of a foreign national and an Irish citizen does not, of itself, confer a right on the foreign national to enter or be present in the State.’  In order for a marriage where one or both parties is a non-EU citizen to be valid, the non-EU citizen(s) must give notice to the Minister for intention to marry at least 3 months prior to the solemnisation of the marriage. They must also be ’the holder of an entry permission issued for the purpose of the intended marriage or a residence permission (other than a protection application entry permission or a non-renewable residence permission).’ If they do not already have such a permission – this is important  not only for those who have been refused a residence permission but for asylum seekers and those on the types of permission specified in the Bill –  the Minister may exempt them, subject to certain conditions outlined in s. 126(4).

Persons involved in the solemnisation of a marriage, such as religious ministers or civil registrars, are required to check that either or both ‘foreign nationals’ possess the resulting documentation at the point of marriage, and may not proceed with the ceremony unless it is produced. Under s. 126(6), anyone who solemnises or permits solemnisation of a marriage without this documentation, ‘facilitates it’ or is party to it, will be guilty of an offence. This section would add to the provisions of s. 58 of the Civil Registration Act, 2004 which allows people who do not fall within this range of roles to lodge an objection to the registration of a marriage. The Immigrant Council of Ireland correctly argues that s. 126(6) is indicative of a government preference for involving service providers in carrying out immigration functions.

The Immigrant Council of Ireland has argued that s. 126 represents a disproportionate infringement on the right to marry, and that, in addition ‘[t]he Government runs the risk of criminalising ministers of religion who consider the right to marry members of their congregation as essential to their religious beliefs and, in addition to infringing the fundamental right to marry, this constitutes a potential infringement of the right to freedom of religion as protected under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 44 of the Irish Constitution.’ The Council also suggests that the provision will likely not survive constitutional challenge – in all probability it infringes the constitutionally protected right to marry, rights of religious freedom and the constitutional equality guarantee – but its existence indicates the approach of the Irish government to accommodation of family and religious life within the immigration system: both appear to be viewed with a certain suspicion, as chinks in the armour of immigration law.

*****

Now, there is little need to view the matter as a Human Rights issue. Crimes are being committed and the only real rights being violated are those of the Irish people, who have as much right as possible not to have criminals in their country, one would presume. In fact, the proposed restrictions are quite mild.

What is happening here is that the Human Rights industry feels the need to, at public expense, stick its oar into as many aspects of public policy as it possibly can. This, in reality, does not bode well for freedom, because governments are restricted from applying their own laws, which we can assume are there to protect citizens and -in this case - strengthen the country's borders.

The IHRC, Open for Business!

I had given up hope of ever seeing any signs of economic recovery in
Ireland. After all, all Ireland's industries are in recession, and
people have been laid off all over the place. Imagine my feigned
surprise when I discovered that one industry seemed to be growing, and
in fact had an actual job advertisement on its website!

That organisation is of course, the Irish Human Rights Commission, who
have advertised here under "New
Internship and Professional Placement Opportunities".

Well, not really. They aren't actually planning on paying anybody, but
you can apply to work for them for free.

And not only that, but according to their Code of Conduct document,

"For the avoidance of doubt, the Intern acknowledges that she/he is not an employee of the Commission and has no entitlements to employment protection or benefits under statute, contract, common law or otherwise and the Intern undertakes not to make any employment related claim of any nature against the Commission during or after this Agreement, under statute, contract, common law or otherwise. Furthermore, the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2001 shall not apply to the termination of this contract either on the cessor of the term or otherwise."

Aha. So not only must you work for the Commission for free, you not
under any circumstances have any actual rights.

So, I wondered to myself what sort of person would lumber themselves
with such a responsibility. Someone with an Arts Degree perhaps
(that's me!). More likely someone with an Arts Degree coupled with the
desire to pursue a career in the Human Rights industry. That's not so
much me.

In fact, I can't imagine anything worse that working for what is
essentially, the Irish thought-police. I imagine staff at the IHRC
sitting in a batcave-like office, waiting for word from around the
country that someone's Human Rights have been violated, causing them
to spring into action to liberate someone.

I always thought we had police and courts for this sort of thing, but
now we have an new tier of protection against misbehaviours of all
kinds. But do they always protect the right people, and which side do
they take when Human Rights collide (as they inevitably do when the
list of them gets longer)?

Take a recent case.

A new Bill, which the IHRC "is still in the process of examining"
(must be short staffed), wants to make it possible for Gardai to 'move
beggars on' where they are in certain locations, such as near private
home or, interestingly, near ATMs.

Now, any fool can see what this law is about, but for a certain type
of person, it is a human rights issue, i.e. the rights of beggars. The
IHRC, in spite of the fact they haven't read it yet, claim the Bill
"could result in criminalisation of vulnerable people". It may be
worth asking, but, at 3am on a Saturday morning, when a lone woman
stands at an ATM on O'Connell street next to a drunk 30-year-old man
with an outstretched hand, who exactly is the 'vulnerable' party?

Now, from a Libertarian point of view, there is nothing criminal about
an individual walking up to another individual in a public place and
initiating a conversation, even if that conversation involves request
for money. It's a free country, we might say. (The law is, however,
curiously not broken when money received ostensibly for the purchase
of a sandwich is instead spent on Dutch Gold - and yet if I were to
extract a euro from you "for Haiti", say, and instead spent it on a
sandwich, that would constitute fraud. hm.)

The free-country argument, however, rests on the assumption of Individual
Freedom, which has traditionally been understood as the basis of all
human rights, "we hold these truths to be self-evident", etc.

But the modern concept of Human Rights as embodied by the IHRC does
not mention that. Their concept seems more of a juggling act between
different sets of 'vulnerable groups', be they beggars or anyone else.
Human Rights rather takes the place of freedom, even when, in this
instance, an argument based on individual freedom is what best serves
the interests of the vulnerable.

This nicely illustrates a difference between a classically liberal understanding of Human Rights, and that of the IHRC - or what I tend to refer to as the Equality Industry. The Equality Industry in Canada for example, which is far more advanced down the thought-police path  than is Ireland's fledgling Commission, routinely ignores Supreme Court rulings, see here,

More on this later :)