The Euro's True Value: Post-Westphalianism

The Westphalian system has three main components:

1. The principle of the sovereignty of states and the fundamental right of political self determination
2. The principle of (legal) equality between states
3. The principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state

As a Post Nationalist, I am a firm believer that all three of these tenants should be undermined on a global scale.  Sure, national sovereignty is the closest thing we have a global religion as every government from China to Russia to the U.S. all jealously defend the ideology of national independence.  But national sovereignty is conveniently ignored whenever one those nations finds a way to dispute the 'sovereignty' of a rival.  For instance, failed states like Afghanistan are not really given national sovereignty, neither are those suspected of genocide like Serbia, nor states suspected of violating the NPT, like Iraq.  (This includes Iran, but not Israel.)  Or Taiwan, where both China and Taiwan give lip service to 'One China', while both sides retain their mutually exclusive claims to control both nations.  State sovereignty is not always used for good. I don't think I need to go down a list of examples that would include the North Korea, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and just about any country needing to justify a self-serving narrative. 

First, let me say that nationalism has not always been detrimental to human society and development.  Nationalism was first used to overcome tribalism and feudalism, a dark period when each cluster of people were loyal to their own bosses and humanity was far more divided and war-prone than modern times.  At its outset, nationalism was a tool to overcome mutual isolation and unawareness.  Nationalism actually helped unite larger groups of people into economic free trade zones and broader definitions of the in-group, while shrinking the ominous out-group.  Though nationalism is the primary reason for every modern war and trade dispute, it was actually an improvement on the previous system. 

The particular brand of nationalism that is widely credited to the Peace of Westphalia faces many challenges. While failed states and non-state actors like Al-Queda are certainly a challenge the Westphalian System, those problems have been attacked by attempts to reinforce the system of state sovereignty.  The U.S. is trying to set up a nation in Afghanistan (failing...but trying), the U.S. is giving billions in aid and military equipment to Pakistan (a potential failed state), Kyrgyzstan (out of the news-but fail), Yemen (an undeclared failed state), and many others.  The U.S. response to the threat posed by failed states on the Westphalian order has been to try to build states that can uphold the model.  The jury is still out on this technique...my guess...fail!  At any rate, the cost of maintaining the Westphalian system under modern geopolitical conditions is just too high.

Despite the importance of existential threats to the current system, the most important development in post-nationalism is without a doubt the EU, specifically the Euro.  The Euro is at its core an indirect and roundabout assault on the concept of Westphalian Nationalism.  Though the Euro founders claimed that they intended for nations to keep their sovereignty, anyone can see that a monetary union will require a fiscal union to succeed in the long term.  Erratic fiscal policies under a single monetary policy will inevitably lead to crisis just like the one we are witnessing now.  In fact, low interest rates needed by economies like Germany provide skewed incentives in countries like Ireland whose rapid growth demanded higher interest rates.  In Spain for example, national economist Angel Ubide explained that the government would've needed to run 5-6% surpluses just to offset the negative real interest rates available under the Euro.  This is functionally impossible in a democracy, where people want to spend their money or have it returned to them immediately.  It is left for us to decide whether the founders of the EU actually intended for crisis to occur in order to further political integration, or whether they truly believed that the basic principles of economics could be ignored.  

Putting that debate aside, the core of the matter is that the Euro is the future of money.  As my new favorite person Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa (head of Notre Europe, former member of ECB's executive board) explains, "the dynamics of history consist precisely of the search – largely unguided, often painful but inexorable – for an optimal distribution of power along the scale of ever-wider human aggregations, which are tied by common interests more than by tribal identity."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7596170a-5ec0-11df-af86-00144feab49a.html#axzz17rXMiXmz

As it is obvious to everyone on both ends and even some in the middle of the political spectrum that global corporations, global terror networks, global environmental problems, and global human rights all require an ever-widening scale of government; the Euro is a great tool in advancing beyond the seductive tribalism of nationalism.  Since Euro members have so much invested in the success of the Euro, it is nearly impossible to resist the inexorable march toward a more centralized (and less democratic-yay!) system that gives economists a veto over the spending initiatives, labor laws, and other purview of national legislatures.  This is after all, the only way to sustain a supranational monetary union. 

So, we've learned that Euro was designed to fail, and that the only way forward while saving face is to build a supranational fiscal union.  The only way to give coherence to the persistence of national governments would be to allow them to continue making fiscal policy, subject to review by the center.  This is my ideal!  It destroys the basic tenant of state sovereignty by taking away the ability to control fiscal policy. It undermines the idea of equality between states because no one will truly consider a state without control over either fiscal or monetary (or ostensibly foreign) policy, equal to a state with sovereign control over these aspects of policy.  By giving a review of legislation to a central authority, the principle of non-intervention is completely obliterated, and the era of nation states begins its decline!

Once the death grip of nationalistic ideology has been weakened, regional monetary unions could spring up across the globe.  Asia is prime real-estate, though it would have to endure the long foundation laying process just as Europe did.  Whether it is an alliance of Japan, South Korea, and India to counter China's growing influence, or an even larger union including China, the endgame is the same...the eventual merging of regional monetary unions under a single global system that does away with currency manipulation as trade protectionism, vetoes unsustainable spending by national legislatures and executives eager to buy votes, equalizes labor and environmental laws to level the competitive playing field, and imposes transparent and universal rules on multistate actors like financial institutions who seek to play states against each other and demand bailout money by holding discreet economies hostage. 

The Post-nationalistic world order also does away with the ability of states to resort to hyper-nationalistic (and dangerous) propaganda when their local power is threatened by the international community.  This takes away one of the most important tools of control of any authoritarian regime.  The China Nobel situation is an example.  I will post on that next.

We all Hate Propaganda...But What is It?

In the argument section of FP magazine, there is a rather dubious and predictable piece warning of the dangers foreign government sponsored propaganda infiltrating Google News.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/11/19/the_autocrat_s_algorithm?page=0,0

Joshua Keating is very worried about Americans being exposed to propaganda.  He's worried because Google News doesn't sort out propaganda, quoting a professor in an obvious expert capacity as saying 'is Google News doing the right thing for us by prioritizing that state broadcaster?'  Oooh, scary, google is providing search results that prioritize original reporting, local content, and frequently read sources.  (Naturally these tend in some cases to lean to the advantage of state run media who are the sole news providers in some locales and some populations.)

What's the problem here?  People won't know propaganda when they see it?  It's Google's job to prevent us from reading what Keating believes is propaganda?  We're all just little sheep waiting to be warped by whatever perspective is the top result on Google's search? 

Is it possible to give people any less responsibility for their own ideas?  JK implicitly contends that individuals are incapable of recognizing bias when they see it.  While stupidity is a reality for many people, at least Google news gives many different biases (giving us the best chance to be aware of the bias of any given perspective.)

Keating regales us with stories of unfair reporting in Russia, which mysteriously (and he seems to imply suspiciously) show up in the Google News rankings.  In the news about the Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout recently extradited from Thailand to the US, JK gives two examples of headlines:   (Typical U.S. headline: "Alleged 'Merchant of Death' Pleads Not Guilty." Typical Russian headline: "Bout was psychologically pressured during flight to U.S.")



Alleged Merchant of Death v. Psychologically Pressured During Flight.  Which of these has a strong bias? 


If your answer was both, then you're catching on.  The truth is American media is also biased, in a predictably pro-American government fashion.  Of course the American media will use the phrase 'Merchant of Death', while the Russian media will use a personalizing name and sympathetic concepts like psychological pressure.  I am by no means implying that the respective biases are morally equivalent, since I believe protecting a crony of the Putin regime who sells illegal weapons to pariah states is deserving of very little sympathy.  I am implying that both sides have an entrenched bias.  The only way to bring the world closer, is to expose the bias of all sides, even the American side.  JK and the vast majority of American media believe that they are above any bias...a contention that is so absurd it makes me grimace.  The American media certainly has more diverse perspectives than most state-run medias, but even the most opposed perspectives carry common threads of bias that someone who has never consumed foreign media might not recognize. 

Therefor, let me be the first to thank Google for the service of providing every perspective, without using some high-minded know-it-all to rank what is biased and what isn't.  The only way to make progress toward truth is to be exposed to opposing points of view.  Google (and many others) are doing a great service for mankind.  My only complaint is the difficulty of being considered amongst Google's news sources.  The requirements for number of viewers and repeat viewers is problematic for small, but genuinely independent sources of news and opinion.

Capitalism, Collectivism, and the Third Way

Nigel Meek provides a fascinating, scholarly, and insightful review of Maurice Glasman's Unnecessary Suffering: Managing Market Utopia. I cannot oppose such fantastic analysis, but I hope I can add something.
http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2010/11/20/nigel-meek-on-maurice-glasman-a-new-labour-peer/

First, a quick review.  Glasman seeks to find a 'third way' between state control and unfettered free markets.  His basic strategy is to accept private property and market competition while rejecting unlimited managerial prerogative, the commodification of labor, and profit maximization as the primary driver of economic decision making.  He seeks something called democracy in the workplace.  The supposed problem with the free market is the 'compulsion' in the form of the labor contract.  The labor contract is supposedly compulsory (a common theme amongst the rabble) because the boss holds the means of subsistence for the employee. 

Meek's objections to categorizing this activity as compulsion are valid of course: voluntary exit is possible, lower forms of employment are always available, and one employer cannot compel another to refrain from hiring a fired employee.   I would add my own: 

It is the individual's moral duty to ensure that they are worthy of being hired and/or retained.  If an individual makes herself indispensable by means of hard work, creativity, leadership, or special skills, then firing is not a sentence of starvation...not in a modern dynamic capitalist economy.  Not by a long shot.  If an individual fails in her personal responsibility to herself i.e. fails to wholeheartedly pursue success in her chosen field of work, then she has earned the fate she receives.  Why should those who have lived up to their personal moral actualization be forced by gunpoint to support a morally deficient person?  If productive individuals choose, they can of course provide support for whomever they like, but the morally successful should not be subjected by threat of imprisonment to surrender property to the morally deficient. 

In response to Glasman's claim that private charity cannot meet modern need, Meek argues that the state has crowded out private charity, which explains the reason modern charity is not sufficient to cure all of society's ills.  This is undoubtedly part of the problem.  Another, perhaps larger reason for insufficient charity is the welfare system's habit of rewarding idleness.  If large swaths of the population are content on the welfare rolls two things happen:  First, those on welfare are not properly incentivized to maximize their potential as contributors to society, the economy, and their own happiness.  Second, others who are not happy in their current jobs are drawn toward the lifestyle of the idle instead of retraining, moving to a more promising economy, or even seeking promotion and reassignment within their own corporation.  In a world that incentivizes such behavior, there will never be sufficient voluntary charity to cover all of those on welfare.  Nor should there be.  Only in a world of coercion will the productive subsidize the unproductive to such an unhealthy extent. 

Glasman would replace the socialist nation with a collection of “vocational organisations, public libraries, universities, artisan institutions and municipal government.”  He suggests that this is his 'third way', his middle ground between socialism and pure capitalism.  After all, it does not result in a top-down dictation of economic activity and also does not emphasize the individual as the primary actor in the economy.  Meek is absolutely correct when he says that there are only two types of relationships, coercive and voluntary.  The free market is the only way to ensure that all relationships are voluntary (and of course many similar institutions to those that Glasman reveres would exist under a voluntary association scheme).  As Meek notes, all of these social organizations proposed by Glasman would have the implicit backing and funding of the state and would have their rules take the force of law.  Thus, membership will be coercive rather than voluntary. 

Meek also points out Glasman's strawman attack against 'market utopianism' which describes a society " in which self-interest is the only acceptable form of rationality."  Meek points out that a surprisingly large amount of time is spent in capitalist societies working for something other than economic self-interest.  I would argue that this is neither surprising nor revolutionary.  Economic self-interest is but one aspect of something far more fulfilling, something I prefer to call enlightened self-interest.  You can look at other posts on my blog for more details, but enlightened self-interest is the pursuit of happiness...something that includes love, family, health, wealth, intelligence, and knowledge.  Under a true free market, people would be free to pursue all aspects of happiness without the tax burden that forces many of us to work an undue amount in pursuit of only one aspect of happiness (wealth). 

Meek's overarching point is one about the wisdom of the U.K joining the EU.  He argues that the EU is founded by Roman Catholics who are motivated by thinking similar to Glassman's, while the UK's Protestant leanings are much more individualist.  While I agree with the general proposition that the EU represents an outgrowth of Roman Catholic thinking, I disagree that all member states of the EU can be categorized as a monolith.  Some are overtly statist, some were former Soviet states where statism and Catholicism are unpopular, and none of the EU states have unanimity of opinion.  Neither for that matter, does Britain.  There are plenty of genuine socialists and even Catholics in Britain, who are quite distinct from Meek's broad characterization of the Anglo-American individualist sympathizers who supposedly come from a more protestant tradition than the EU. 

That said, I loved Meek's analysis, and I will be seeking him out in the future.

9/12 Tea Party and Glenn Beck

There's been a lot of chatter in America this November about the aftermath of the Tea Party and the Republican resurgence.  As an atheist libertarian, I watch the Tea Party with a healthy skepticism.  I saw how Glenn (I cry on cue) Beck raced to the front of the movement and grabbed the flag, then proceeded to proselytize about retaking our Judeo-Christian values.  His 9/12 project did more than anything else to make me suspicious of the Tea Party.  His 9 principles are riddled with iffy propositions of dubious logic.  Here are a few of the Worst Offenders:

1.  America is Good. 

Sigh.  Talk about your oversimplification.  I agree that America is largely a force for good in the world, but come on...America Good...uh derrr...sounds like a damn caveman commercial.  America is always completely good, there are no mistakes.  It was Good!  Period!  No Questions!  No complexity allowed!

2.	I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
	“The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.” from George Washington’s first Inaugural address.

Even if you believe in God and he is the center of your life, Washington's quote or the text of the Constitution itself hardly supports the theory that our government was intended to serve only such people.  If you believe that natural law is the basis for government and that God is the basis for natural law (a far more tenable argument), then you will be interested in a later posting in which I plan to debate such a person.  Still, as a person who believes in limited government but not God, I am strongly disheartened by the exclusionary nature of this tenet. 

5.	If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
	“I deem one of the essential principles of our government… equal and exact justice to all men of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political.” Thomas Jefferson

Clearly inserted as a not-so-subtle stab at illegal immigrants, this idiocy is totally absurd and in direct contradiction to the principles of natural law.  True believers in natural law (such as myself and the horribly misused Jefferson above), know that if a government makes rules that contradict what is truly right, then it is not only acceptable, but proper to disobey those rules and actively seek their reversal.  Should the founding fathers have accepted rule by a distant and unresponsive government?--That was the law!  Should black people have simply followed the Jim Crow rules, or paid the price?  Should women have simply accepted that only men were worthy of voting?  Should rules in blatant violation of natural law be accepted, because they are the rules?  NO!! This is a fundamental tenet of tyranny.  It is abhorrent to true believers in freedom, and is clearly a desperate attempt to co-opt old white people who are suspicious of newcomer immigrants into an increasingly undesirable political movement.

For the record, the ongoing prohibition of marijuana and other drugs is in violation of the proper role of government, as are numerous other laws and regulations.  This is a clear result of libertarian ideology, yet conveniently ignored by most mainstream libertarians because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Disclaimer: This post is not intended to disparage the good things about Glenn Beck, such as principle number 7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.  This sentiment is both valid and widely misunderstood.  Those who earn money should have the exclusive right to determine who is a beneficiary of their hard work.  Any strides Beck makes toward promoting this ideal are to be congratulated.

Unfortunately most of Beck's nonsense is more like Number 8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.  This contradicts the spirit of number 5 above, but don't look too closely-Beck certainly doesn't.  This statement is rather bland and uncontroversial, adding nothing to the public discussion since it would be difficult to find someone who disagrees.  Regrettably, Beck contributes little to the public debate except a foil for those who despise libertarians and need a self-contradictory strawman to soil our good name.

Kissinger v. Krauthammer

There are two thinkers who I believe provide their readers with more clarity, more honesty, and more truth than any other political authors I have encountered.  They are --like all of us-- often wrong, and they are hardly allies, but they are brilliant political theorists with ideological clarity and consistency.  It is appropriate that I devote my first substantive blog entry to these two heroes.  You should know, the more I respect someone, the more I criticize them when I believe they are wrong.

You might already know that the two worldviews are completely different.  Kissinger promotes a humble, multipolar approach to foreign policy, while Krauthammer is a nationalist unafraid to describe the unique greatness of America.

First, Kissinger and my internationalist tendencies: 
As the man who coaxed Nixon into breathing life into a genuine international order, Henry Kissinger (Hanky Kissmaster to people who've never met him but feel close enough to use a silly nickname)  is truly a man of consequence.  Anyone who pictures a world without the petty confines of incipient nationalism should read and follow the work of the Kissmaster.  His reflexive instinct to apologize for American unilateralism and broadly empower the international government has me somewhat less enthralled than his awesome nickname. 

More recently, HK has become a proponent of an international political order that reflects the emerging globalized economic system. In his January 2009 article, 'A Chance for New World Order' he says, "In the end, the political and economic systems can be harmonized in only one of two ways: by creating an international political regulatory system with the same reach as that of the economic world; or by shrinking the economic units to a size manageable by existing political structures, which is likely to lead to a new mercantilism, perhaps of regional units."

Though I believe in as light of regulation as possible, Kissinger is correct in his implicit conclusion that the current nation-state derived regulatory model is both inadequate and easily manipulated.  I do not believe his alternative of shrinking the economic units to measurable size is either advisable or likely.  Economic disentanglement would truly be world-changing chaos.  Assuming it continues or at least does not reverse, globalization brings the need to harmonize international legal systems to bring international actors under a clear jurisdiction.  Internationalizing political systems will benefit truly competitive businesses as they are no longer required to adapt to specialized legal requirements in every nation: streamlining compliance costs, clarifying legal obligations, and reducing nationalist-based protectionism.  Internationalism also benefits the workers of the world by putting them on even ground with their competition in other countries.  This measure will disproportionately aide lower income workers in poorer countries, but as a person who believes that all global citizens should have the same opportunity to pursue happiness, I am more than happy leveling the playing field for the world.

Next, the venerable Charles Krauthammer:  (Sorry can't improve on Krauthammer--combines KRAUT with the Hammer--sweet name.  But when I want to endear myself I call him Uncle Chuck.).

This man's clarity of thought is only a partial explanation for his incredible persuasiveness.  When it comes to  domestic policy, he happens to be refreshingly thorough and veracious.  Though consistent and understandable, his foreign policy reeks of neocon nationalism...more on that in a later post.  This first introduction of my thoughts should focus on the numerous positive aspects of the man's worldview.

Here's Krauthammer on the interplay of American domestic policy and the International Order: 
'There's much to be said for the decency and relative equity of social democracy. But it comes at a cost: diminished social mobility, higher unemployment, less innovation, less dynamism and creative destruction, less overall economic growth.  This affects the ability to project power. Growth provides the sinews of dominance--the ability to maintain a large military establishment capable of projecting power to all corners of the earth. The Europeans, rich and developed, have almost no such capacity. They made the choice long ago to devote their resources to a vast welfare state. Their expenditures on defense are minimal, as are their consequent military capacities. They rely on the U.S. Navy for open seas and on the U.S. Air Force for airlift. It's the U.S. Marines who go ashore, not just in battle, but for such global social services as tsunami relief. The United States can do all of this because we spend infinitely more on defense--more than the next nine countries combined." 

The Hammer is dead right, the United States is the reason free trade is possible, the reason disaster relief is possible, and the reason that internationalism can be imagined in our future.  He's also right about economic growth in the United States versus Europe, and I strongly oppose what he labels social democracy.  Give me business freedom for entrepreneurs.  Let those who take successful risks reap the rewards, and let people choose how to interact without heavy-handed interference from a myriad of interwoven social regulations. 

On the downside, Krauthammer is an unrepentant nationalist, a supporter of the financial bailout, and a man who rarely sympathizes with anything outside of conservative orthodoxy...making me skeptical of his ideas despite his obvious brilliance.  Still, he is a rabid defender of the good that America has done in promoting the global economy, and global stability.  Something with which I must agree.  Internationalism would not be conceivable without the public goods of security and peace which are enforced primarily through American might.

To sum up briefly, Krauthammer is undoubtedly the most influential commentator in the United States (according to the Financial Times and myself), and for good reason.  Kissinger is perhaps the most important internationalist who has ever lived, and a personal hero of mine.  Still, nobody deserves to go unquestioned, and my skepticism applies even to them.

Most importantly, to make the next century an internationalist century, we must heed Kissinger's suggestion. 'The Sino-American relationship must be taken to a new level.'  That means less reliance on America alone to provide international public goods.  No matter how great America is or has been, it cannot continue to shoulder the burden of international security alone.

Welcome To Ebag Xor's Libertarian International Blog

Hello everyone and thank you for reading.  Ebag Xor (your author) is a world citizen with a curious mind and a passion for both personal and economic freedom.  After acquiring advanced degrees in the United States, I have traveled the world, pursuing happiness in my own way but until recently lacking an outlet for my political passions.  Two countries are of particular interest to me, the U.S. and China.  I believe that the relationship between these two countries will shape the future of mankind for the remainder of history.

So aside from vanity, why am I writing this?  So many 'news' outlets masquerade as 'journalists' when they are clearly pundits or even slack jawed lackeys for one political orthodoxy or another.  I believe that anyone commenting on the news brings his or her own perspective, values, and judgements to the table.  Even if a person is genuinely trying to be fair (which I will always attempt), preconceptions and worldview will subtly impact the phrasing and the delivery, slanting the objective facts.  That is why I am always skeptical, and that is also why I encourage people of alternate worldviews to comment here, and help me achieve a more objective understanding.  Please heed two guidelines: no ad hominem and no real names.  Notice: I don't give a shit about vulgarity.  This really is the anti-news.

So if everyone has a bias, what is mine?  Hopefully the name of the blog is elucidating, and the entirety of the blog helps to bring meaning to the term Libertarian Internationalist, but I will attempt a short explanation.  I am deeply skeptical of the motives of people who wield power (including governments, businesses, and scientists), but I am a disciple of the Henry Kissinger school of internationalism, making me quite different from your average libertarian.  I truly believe that all human beings (not just those in the United States) should be free to pursue happiness, a feat that requires the protection of life, liberty and property.  I am a proud individualist who believes it is the responsibility of each person to decide their own path in life.  I respect any person who makes different decisions with good reason, but I am deeply suspicious of any person who believes it their right to make choices for others.

A few specific lifestyle choices I have made:  I am a vegetarian who loves animals, nature and scenery.  I am an aspiring writer of both fiction and nonfiction.  I am a follower of science and an atheist because there is insufficient evidence to convince me that either Allah or Zeus is real.  I love running, Kung Fu, weightlifting, and mountain climbing.  I eat healthy, love deeply, and hope to someday do some small part to bridge the wide gap between the United States and China.  I have lived in both the U.S. and China and I have deep family ties to both nations.  I speak two languages (though my Chinese is not yet great), and above all I love to learn.  I hope you join me.