Political Philosophy

The UN: a Case of Regulatory Capture

by

In today’s National Review Online, Mario Loyola argues that conservative esteem for the rule of law should extend to a refined understanding of international law, backed up with consistent enforcement of its principles (in other words, either both Kosovo and Iraq, or neither). Too late. That issue was settled over 60 years ago.

Here is how the Economist defines regulatory capture:

Gamekeeper turns poacher or, at least, helps poacher. The theory of regulatory capture was set out by Richard Posner, an economist and lawyer at the University of Chicago, who argued that “REGULATION is not about the public interest at all, but is a process, by which interest groups seek to promote their private interest … Over time, regulatory agencies come to be dominated by the industries regulated.” Most economists are less extreme, arguing that regulation often does good but is always at RISK of being captured by the regulated firms.

Familiar examples of regulatory capture in the US would include those agencies charged with setting rates, fees, and prices. The ICC, originally meant to keep railroads from overcharging farmers with no other means of shipping their commodities, eventually became a means by which trucking companies and interstate bus lines set prices, limited competition, and allocated routes. The FAA, until deregulation in 1978, assured airlines of an orderly and profitable division of routes, without the prospect of interlopers disrupting the arrangement. Similarly, the United Nations, formed in the very act of destroying a murderous tyranny, came to become a system for regulating tyranny and allocating the areas in which tyrants might operate without interference.

The immediate predecessor of the United Nations was actually not the League of Nations, but the Atlantic Charter between the United States and Great Britain. This was purely an Anglo-American document in terms of its principles as well as its origin. The two signatory nations disavowed any territorial claims, embraced consensual sovereignty and self-determination for all people, and stated their support for international economic cooperation, freedom of the seas, and eventual worldwide demilitarization. Even though the US had not yet entered the war, the treaty embraced the destruction of the Nazi regime as a common foreign policy objective. It also contemplated, but did not establish, “a wider and permanent system of general security.” The original agreement between the two countries was signed August 14, 1941. On January 1, 1942, the representatives of 26 governments, including some governments in exile, signed the “Declaration by United Nations, Subscribing to the Principles of the Atlantic Charter.” The United Nations then became the formal name of the anti-Nazi allies.

The signatories included the USSR. Stalin’s government had no intention of following most of the principles set forth in the treaty; its signing was a transparent fraud. The Atlantic Charter and the United Nations were designed to restrain the practices of aggression, brutality, dictatorship, and government-sanctioned murder, yet the United Nations brought in one of the most brutal and murderous dictatorships as a founding member. Stalin’s USSR set a precedent which is followed to this day.

The contradiction was present from the beginning in the UN Charter:

Preamble
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

These ends were not and could not be harmonized. They were in fact placed in opposition:

Article 2
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.

Article 55
With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote … universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

Note the contrasting strength of the language in these two provisions (“nothing …shall authorize” and “shall promote”). If human rights are truly universal, the interposition of national boundaries must be irrelevant, since they exist everywhere. As a practical matter, Violations of human rights were defined as outside of the scope of the UN, as long as they took place within a country’s borders. It is as though there had been no reason to fight Hitler except for his invasion of Poland.

We cannot defeat tyranny by leaving tyrants safe and secure, as long as they stay close to home. The rights to life, liberty, and property are not just local customs. Either human rights are universal, or they are nothing.

Whatever Hits the Fan is Never Evenly Distributed

by

Consider a bullet. I had one sitting on my dresser as a kid – a Civil War Minnie Ball. Toss it into the air. It tumbles. It hovers, for a split microsecond, pointing at you as it falls. Consider that same bullet in 1862 (I found it on a farm near Antietam). Consider standing in front of the line of Blue (it was clearly a Yankee bullet) with your fellow Virginians. Consider that same bullet again. Fired from a Springfield, heading your way. Take a split microsecond, same length of time as before, and focus in on only the bullet. The situations are almost indistinguishable if looked at on a short enough time scale. The 1862 bullet points at you in the same way the modern one does. In that split microsecond, an observer who happened to just drop in and observe only the bullet would be hard pressed to decide which situation he or she’d rather be in. Practically the same mass of metal. Same shape. But look closer. The 1862 bullet should be warm – evidence of the kinetic energy stored in it. The present bullet should have a coat of oxidation. But there were bullets fired in 1862 that had been dropped in the crick the month before they were fired, and the modern bullet might have been sitting in the sun for a while. There’s always something for the naysayer to latch on to. But take another snapshot a couple of milliseconds later, and the difference between the two situations is instantly clear – the bullet in 1862 has traveled a lot further – and in a much straighter line than the arc of the falling bullet tossed from your hand. Now which situation would our hypothetical observer rather be in?

    

Read more

“Dishonest Words”

by

David Friedman analyzes, with prejudice, the use in argument of loaded words such as “homophobic.” Such words, used thoughtlessly, confuse and indicate confusion on the part of the speaker. Used artfully, they are rhetorical bludgeons intended to stifle rational discussion at the point where rationality would be most helpful.

(Note also the comments to the post, including one comment that straightforwardly defends the use of dishonest words, in a way that unintentionally makes the opposite case, though the comment is perhaps a parody.)

“…Oath or Affirmation…”

by

I have to disagree with my friend Verity on this one. She objects vociferously to newly elected Congressman Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress, taking his oath of office on the Koran.

Ellison’s website shows him as an unremarkable Democrat from the African American Left wing of his party. As most people here in the USA know, the African American community has generated all kinds of Muslims over the years, many of them far from orthodox, to say nothing of not being Wahhabi or Jihadi or anything else. As a matter of fact, his views on the gay marriage amendment would probably get him beheaded in Saudi Arabia. I am way to the right of him on religious grounds on that one, anyway.

The U.S. Constitution provides maximal latitude on the question of being sworn in. The pertinent article, Article VI provides, inter alia, as follows:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Our Founders were wise and practical men, and this provision, like every one in the Constitution, reflects that wisdom and practicality. They made provision for a religiously diverse country, as it was even at the time of the Founding. So, there is no requirement that a member �swear� at all, let alone on a Bible. The House is free to make any requirements it wants for the swearing in of its members, within the scope of the foregoing. Furthermore, there is the express statement that no �religious test� be imposed as a qualification for office. Hence, requiring a Catholic to swear on the King James Bible would not be acceptable. Mr. Ellison is free to swear or to affirm on any book, or no book, as he wishes, when he takes his oath. If using the Koran is a gesture on his part, whatever he or others may take that gesture to mean, it is a gesture Mr. Ellison is free to make.

What matters, and what the public should judge him by, is Ellison�s performance in office. If the people in his district like him, they will do so mostly for reasons unrelated to his religion. If they like him, he could probably switch to the worship of Satan and he�d be reelected. If his Islamic faith makes him in some way a poor congressman, he will be voted out. Or, if he is a poor congressman for some other reason, or if a stronger opponent runs against him, or if a rotten year for the Democrats rolls around, or any of a bunch of other possible things were to happen, he’ll be voted out. That’s politics.

Does Mr. Ellison’s religion make him a security risk since we are in a �war on terror� and our enemies are self-professed Muslims? I doubt it. But my doubt, or not, is irrelevant. There are rules, which Mr. Ellison is bound by. We should presume he is honest and plans to comply with them until we have some concrete reason to think otherwise. If he betrays secrets or otherwise betrays the trust placed in him, the Department of Justice will come after him. Or, he could be removed by the other member of the House.

As to whether Muslims generally think it is OK to lie to nom-Muslims, I have read this, and I have also read outraged opposition to the idea. I think you take people as you find them. Ellison�s honesty, or not, will be subject to scrutiny. In that he is no different from any public official. If he makes a habit of dishonesty, for any reason, there are plenty of people who would like that congressional seat, and they will be taking notice, and will run against him. That is how the process is supposed to work.

It is up to Ellison to make the most of his historic �first�. Congratulations to him, good luck to him, and I hope that the GOP takes his seat away from him in 2008 (unlikely though that is — a subject for another time).

Bottom line, I see no cause for alarm here. The system is working.

Discuss this topic at the Chicago Boyz Forum.

Why this pinprick in the dyke must be plugged stat

by

Newly elected Congressman Keith Ellison, a Muslim, must not be allowed to take his oath of office on the Koran.

First, as Town Hall columnist Dennis Prager wrote, Mr Ellison does not get to decide how he takes his oath. America does. Second, it has not bothered America�s many Jewish Congresspeople down through the decades to take their oath on the Bible, although the New Testament has no religious significance to them. Similarly, atheists/securalists have voiced no objections. This is the way you get sworn into the Congress of The United States of America.

But most important of all, Mr Ellison�s stated intention is yet one more Islamic attempt to breach the dyke to allow Islamic habits, customs and laws to seep in slowly at first, and then gain in volume until the dyke is breached. The aggression of this religion cannot be overestimated and those who surrender one-quarter of an inch to people like Mr Ellison, thinking it really doesn�t matter and �we all worship the same God�, are mistaken.

But most critically, what most people are unaware of is, an oath taken on the Koran means absolutely nothing. Muslims are instructed from childhood that they may take such an oath and lie � if it is to advance the cause of Islam. In other words, they cannot swear in a court of law, on their Koran, �No. I swear I did not rob that bank� if they really did. That�s a sin. But if it is to advance the islamic cause, then it�s not only OK, but is to be desired.

That is why such reasonable sounding requests must be resisted. A Muslim can swear on the Koran that he does not know a suspected terrorist, has never even heard of him and has no idea if he is stockpiling chemical weapons in his basement. Because the lies are to advance the cause of Dar-es-Salam � the house of islam � they are seen as a righteous grabbing of an advantage in the 1500 year war with Christianity and Western civilization.

This new Congressman must not be indulged. Mr Ellison is not big enough to defy America, and neither is his belief system.

Discuss this post at the Chicago Boyz Forum.