If the Democrats are wondering what John Kerry’s case of foot in mouth disease has cost them, they should consider this. I WAS planning on returning to my normal voting pattern of voting the strait Libertarian Party ticket, after voting for Republicans in 2002 and 2004.
I dislike the president, especially his position on civil liberties and the budget. I WAS thinking that if the Democrats took control of one house, that might not be such a bad thing. Then John Kerry opened his mouth and reminded me of everything that I loath about the modern Democratic party.
I heard about Kerry’s “joke” or “misstatement” and could not help but think of Kipling’s poem “Tommy.” The one that begins,
“I went into a public house to get a pint of beer,
The publican he up and says, We serve no red coats here.”
And concludes with the famous lines.
“Don’t mess about the cook room slops, but prove it to our face
That the Widow’s Uniform is not the soldier man’s disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, and Tommy that, and “Chuck him out, the brute!”
But it’s “the savior of his country,” when the guns begin to shoot
And it’s Tommy this, and Tommy that, and anything you please
But Tommy ain’t a blooming fool you bet that Tommy sees!”
If the Democrats want to win elections, they have to make sure that me and a million voters like me don’t remember what we dislike about their party right before election day. Maybe then we will either vote for them or at least not vote for the Republicans. They ought to always keep in mind the old saying “it is better to remain silent and appear ignorant than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.”
Friday, November 03, 2006
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Anglosphere Flag Proposal
I designed this a while back and thought my readers, such as they are might be interested.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Anglosphere Institute Event Video
There is a great video of the inaugeral event of the Anglosphere Institute by Professor Claudio Véliz. The brilliant talk titled "The Optional Descent of the English Speaking World," is well worth the investment of an hour and half.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
American Indicted For Treason
Adam Yehiye Gadahn was indicted by a California Grand Jury for having committed treason against the United States. He is the fellow who has been producing propoganda films for al-Qaida, the story is here.
This is interesting not only as it is the first treason indictment since the second world war, but because, the U.S. law of treason is very much an Anglosphere phenomenon.
The U.S. restricts the crime of treason as follows “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”
The whole definition comes from the English statute law. The first sentence is two of the possible forms of treason under the Treason Act of 1351 (25 Edw. III St. 5 c. 2). The second sentence which requires two witnesses comes from the Treason Act of 1695 (7 & 8 Will. III c. 3).
This is interesting not only as it is the first treason indictment since the second world war, but because, the U.S. law of treason is very much an Anglosphere phenomenon.
The U.S. restricts the crime of treason as follows “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”
The whole definition comes from the English statute law. The first sentence is two of the possible forms of treason under the Treason Act of 1351 (25 Edw. III St. 5 c. 2). The second sentence which requires two witnesses comes from the Treason Act of 1695 (7 & 8 Will. III c. 3).
Friday, September 15, 2006
Two Great Anglosphere Posts
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Happy 4th!
Monday, May 29, 2006
In Memoriam
In Flanders Fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead.
Short days ago
We lived, saw dawn, felt sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch, be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead.
Short days ago
We lived, saw dawn, felt sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch, be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
On Reforming Congress
The recent corruption scandals among members of Congress point to a very serious need for reform. That the Speaker of the House of Representatives is trying to pretend that members of Congress are or should be exempt from search warrants, shows how far the rot of hyper arrogance and or dishonesty has spread.
A further problem is that most of the “solutions” that are being proposed in Washington to the culture of corruption are going to make things worse. This is because most of it centers around “Campaign Finance Reform” which gags free speech and increases the protections for entrenched incumbents.
What is needed is something that will bring fresh blood into the House of Representatives and reduces the cost of Senate elections. I have a few different proposals which I believe would help reduce the corruption in Washington.
First let us deal with the problem of the House of Representatives. The problem is that what is supposed to be the most democratic branch of our federal government is at the current incumbency rates, not that democratic.
Part of this problem stems from the fact that house districts have become unreasonably large. Each member of the House of Representatives represents a district of more than 600,000 persons. U.S. House districts are the second largest election districts of any lower house in the world. Only India with a population more than three times a great has larger districts and even then, their districts are smaller as a portion of the population. The House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Briton and Northern Ireland is almost fifty percent larger than the House of Representatives even though the population of the UK is about an eighth of that of the U.S.
These larger districts make large scale fund raising necessary, because they make grass roots campaigning less effective and TV advertising more effective. This both directly increases opportunities for corruption and tends to entrench incumbents by making it harder for challengers to unseat sitting members since challengers have a harder time raising money and need more to successfully challenge an incumbent.
One of the things we need to do is increase the number of members of the House of Representatives so that each representative has a smaller district. To do this I propose a constitutional amendment something like the following.
“After the next and every subsequent actual enumeration of the population, the Congress of the United States shall increase the number of elected Representatives by one hundred, until such year as the number of elected representatives is greater than or equal to one per 250,000 persons. After such year, at each subsequent actual enumeration of the population, the Congress of the United States shall increase the number of elected Representatives so that the number of elected representatives is greater than or equal to one per 250,000 persons.”
This would do two things. It would start to make House districts smaller and would add a hundred new members to Congress every ten years for the next 70 or so years. This would be like a tidal wave of new blood every 10 years, especially since redistricting already shakes up congress and brings in new members.
This alone should make the House substantially more responsive to the will of the people and reduce the hot house atmosphere that is so conducive to corruption. However to make the house even less subject to special interests, I believe, that we need to consider choosing about a third of the members of the House of Representatives by sortition.
Sortition means choosing the office holder by lottery from among the citizens. This would have problems of course, it would elevate a certain percentage of fools to the House of Representatives (no big change there), but it would also elevate a larger percentage of intelligent public spirited citizens from all walks of life who would not normally be members of congress. Those who did well could then run against the incumbent in their district for a elected seat.
It would mean that a third of the members of congress were not only new members, but ones who most likely would return to their normal life after serving the republic for two years.
If nothing else, it would brake the strangle hold of the legal profession on congress.
As for reforming the senate, I believe that ending the direct election of senators could have positive impact on the huge amount of money spent on senatorial races, Google “repeal 17” or “repeal 17th amendment” for details.
A further problem is that most of the “solutions” that are being proposed in Washington to the culture of corruption are going to make things worse. This is because most of it centers around “Campaign Finance Reform” which gags free speech and increases the protections for entrenched incumbents.
What is needed is something that will bring fresh blood into the House of Representatives and reduces the cost of Senate elections. I have a few different proposals which I believe would help reduce the corruption in Washington.
First let us deal with the problem of the House of Representatives. The problem is that what is supposed to be the most democratic branch of our federal government is at the current incumbency rates, not that democratic.
Part of this problem stems from the fact that house districts have become unreasonably large. Each member of the House of Representatives represents a district of more than 600,000 persons. U.S. House districts are the second largest election districts of any lower house in the world. Only India with a population more than three times a great has larger districts and even then, their districts are smaller as a portion of the population. The House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Briton and Northern Ireland is almost fifty percent larger than the House of Representatives even though the population of the UK is about an eighth of that of the U.S.
These larger districts make large scale fund raising necessary, because they make grass roots campaigning less effective and TV advertising more effective. This both directly increases opportunities for corruption and tends to entrench incumbents by making it harder for challengers to unseat sitting members since challengers have a harder time raising money and need more to successfully challenge an incumbent.
One of the things we need to do is increase the number of members of the House of Representatives so that each representative has a smaller district. To do this I propose a constitutional amendment something like the following.
“After the next and every subsequent actual enumeration of the population, the Congress of the United States shall increase the number of elected Representatives by one hundred, until such year as the number of elected representatives is greater than or equal to one per 250,000 persons. After such year, at each subsequent actual enumeration of the population, the Congress of the United States shall increase the number of elected Representatives so that the number of elected representatives is greater than or equal to one per 250,000 persons.”
This would do two things. It would start to make House districts smaller and would add a hundred new members to Congress every ten years for the next 70 or so years. This would be like a tidal wave of new blood every 10 years, especially since redistricting already shakes up congress and brings in new members.
This alone should make the House substantially more responsive to the will of the people and reduce the hot house atmosphere that is so conducive to corruption. However to make the house even less subject to special interests, I believe, that we need to consider choosing about a third of the members of the House of Representatives by sortition.
Sortition means choosing the office holder by lottery from among the citizens. This would have problems of course, it would elevate a certain percentage of fools to the House of Representatives (no big change there), but it would also elevate a larger percentage of intelligent public spirited citizens from all walks of life who would not normally be members of congress. Those who did well could then run against the incumbent in their district for a elected seat.
It would mean that a third of the members of congress were not only new members, but ones who most likely would return to their normal life after serving the republic for two years.
If nothing else, it would brake the strangle hold of the legal profession on congress.
As for reforming the senate, I believe that ending the direct election of senators could have positive impact on the huge amount of money spent on senatorial races, Google “repeal 17” or “repeal 17th amendment” for details.
On Judicial Corporal Punishment
What follows has little to do with the anglosphere directly. It is rather the exploration of an idea I have been thinking about for some time, the infliction of physical pain as a form of punishment for those convicted of a crime. I call this Judicial Corporal Punishment to distinguish it from parental corporal punishment.
Today, the punishment for crimes consists chiefly of fines, imprisonment, and forms of probation. While some anglosphere states do have capital punishment, it is infrequently applied and thankfully only for the most serious offenses.
The problems with the current system are as follows: it is expensive, it is often to lenient on first offenders, it is often to harsh on multiple offenders, it is not as effective a deterrent as it could be because it often fluctuates wildly between excessive leniency and excessive harshness.
The current system of incarceration is expensive and its expense is in a sense an injustice against law abiding citizens. There is no way of getting around the fact that jails cost money and so do jail guards. That the prisoner must be feed, clothed, etc. is an additional expense. That prisons are needed for certain types of offenders, is undeniable. Murderers who are not put to death, rapists, strong arm robbers, those who have committed assault with a deadly weapon, and multiple offenders all need to be incarcerated for the protection of the public and as a form of punishment. However it must be remembered that incarceration, being expensive inflicts a harm on the public.
Because there is no intermediate form of punishment between fines and imprisonment under the current system, many first offenders are treated with excessive lenience, they are sentenced to the term that the crime they have committed calls for, but the sentence is suspended on the condition of good behavior. While this may deter some criminals, because they don’t want their suspended sentence imposed, it is important to remember that the criminal mentality is often a short term and concrete bound one. That is to say, they see not the punishment that hangs over them if they re-offend, but the lack of punishment. Also for a concrete bound mentality, the psychological pain of imprisonment is fairly abstract, especially if never previously experienced.
The excessive harshness of the system on some multiple offenders is a result of the excessive leniency. Firstly, the punishment for first misdemeanor offenses being basically nothing, often not much effort is put into catching those who commit them. Then when the lack of punishment has not deterred a budding young criminal and he or she commits a felony often the sentence is still only a suspended one. The lack of punishment having encouraged further malefaction, the book is now thrown at the criminal. In the worst instances this may even include the “three strikes and you’re out law.” In this most serious instance, the criminal has never been effectively punished until society is stuck with paying for his life incarceration. To call such a system absurd is to be polite. Even when the “three strikes law” does not come into play, a criminal must be incarcerated for two long terms of imprisonment, the one suspended and the one for the new felony. (As for the nonsense of concurrent sentences, don’t get me started.)
This is clearly not an effective way to deal with criminal justice. It does not deter, and often it is not just. Not to the public who has to pay for long prison stays that might have been prevented and not to the criminal who might have learned the error of his ways had his early crimes been meet with appropriate punishment. I believe that corporal punishment could be an effective intermediate punishment between fines and imprisonment which would solve the problem of over leniency and over harshness.
Corporal punishment has a number of benefits. First, it is cheap compared incarceration. Secondly, it is a deterrent that even concrete bound minds can understand. Third, it allows for fine gradations of punishment. Fourth, it does not ruin the criminals life the way even a two or three year prison term could. Fifth, it allows the person punished to benefit society by acting as an example for others.
Even if we had to buy a new whip for each person, corporal punishment would be cheaper than even a short six month prison sentence. Since it is the innocent who pay for the penal system, cheapness is not to be despised. By saving money, corporal punishment is more just than incarceration.
A real problem with suspended sentences and the incarceration model is that for a concrete bound mentality, it is not a very strong deterrent. In contrast everyone knows that pain isn’t fun. We all try and avoid it. Corporal punishment is therefore a practical form of punishment.
Like incarceration, corporal punishment allows for gradations of punishment with minor crimes receiving a lesser punishment and serious ones a harsher penalty. For example, misdemeanor crimes could be punished by up to 12 strokes of the lash, lesser felonies by up to 24 strokes and serious felonies by up to 36 strokes. With in these broad categories, even finer gradations could be made. This allows the punishment to fit the seriousness of the offense which of course is just.
Unlike incarceration, corporal punishment does not ruin the life of the convict. A person thrown in jail for any substantial period of time has his life thoroughly ruined. Youngsters can’t finish school. Prisoners lose their job and possibly all their material positions. Single parents lose custody of their children. These ill effects do not fall only on the convict, but effect spouses, children and society at large. Corporal punishment punishes the convict without the side effects that harm others. Because it does not cause the side effects, corporal punishment is more just than incarceration.
While incarceration causes society additional harm in the form of the expense, corporal punishment has the potential to benefit society because its infliction can be used as an example to others. First offenders whose crime is not serious enough to merit the whip could be sentenced to watch it applied to another criminal. Further when a convict returns to his usual haunts, his healing wounds will bring before the eyes of his compatriots the penalty for breaking the law. Instead of the injustice of further harming the law abiding, corporal punishment includes an element of restitution.
While the forgoing points out defects of the current system and some of the advantages of corporal punishment, it does not address the belief of some that corporal punishment is so degrading that it is beyond the pale. My view on this is two fold. First of all, I am not convinced that the violence and ennui of prison life are any less soul destroying than a whipping. Secondly, punishment is supposed to be unpleasant, that is what, we hope, will deter people from committing crimes. I recognize that will not convince some, but I think most readers will see the sense in them.
If corporal punishment is a proper intermediate punishment, how is it to be used? I suggest the following as a starting point for discussion.
For first offenders who commit a misdemeanor, a sentence of between 2 and 6 strokes suspended on the condition of good behavior for the next 20 years plus a sentence of involuntary observation of between 24 and 48 strokes applied to other convicts. This would let the convict see with his own eyes what further malefaction would bring him and put a number of lashes hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles.
For second offenders who commit a misdemeanor, a sentence of between 4 and 12 strokes depending on the offence would be appropriate. This would be a strong punishment when added to his suspended sentence. Also the second offender should have an appropriate jail term imposed with all but a week of the sentence suspended on the condition of good behavior for the next 20 years. This would give the offender a weeks taste of prison, but leave most of the sentence as a deterrent against further crime.
For subsequent misdemeanor offences, a sentence of between 9 and 12 strokes of the lash depending on the offence and a jail term would be appropriate. This would be both a strong corporal punishment and for third offenders a relatively long jail term adding the suspended sentence. Hopefully these terms combined would be a taste of long term incarceration (i.e. 6 months to two years) that would warn off the criminal from further malefaction.
For first offenders who commit a lesser felony, a sentence of between 12 and 24 strokes and prison term of 1 to 4 years with half the lashes and all but a week of the prison term suspended on the condition of good behavior for the next 20 years would be appropriate. This would allow the felon to feel on his own back the consequences of continuing a life of crime and leave half his corporal punishment hanging over him along with the majority of the prison term.
For second offenders who commit a lesser felony, a sentence of 24 strokes and a prison term of 3 to 6 years would be appropriate. This would both be a very significant corporal punishment and would put the convict in prison for a relatively long time, especially if he had a suspended felony sentence.
For subsequent offenders who commit a lesser felony, a sentence of 24 strokes and a prison term of 6 to 9 years would be appropriate.
For first offenders who commit a more serious felony, a sentence of 24 to 36 strokes and a prison term of 6 to 9 years with half the lashes and two thirds of the prison term suspended on the condition of good behavior for the next 20 years would be appropriate.
For second offenders who commit a more serious felony, a sentence of 24 to 36 strokes and a prison term of 9 to 12 years would be appropriate.
For subsequent offenders who commit a more serious felony, a sentence of 36 strokes and a prison term of 12 to 18 years would be appropriate.
For the most serious non capital offences such as assault in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, rape, and manslaughter, the following would seem to me appropriate.
For first offenders 36 lashes plus a term of imprisonment of 15 years.
For second offenders 36 lashes plus a term of imprisonment of 18 to 21 years.
For subsequent offenders 36 lashes plus a term of imprisonment of 21 to 30 years.
The most serious crimes murder, treason, and slaving, are not in my opinion a fit topic for this post as they fall under the rubric of the debate over capital punishment, which I hope to write about at future date.
One thing that I have not mentioned thus far is the limits of corporal punishment. I certainly don’t think that it can eliminate crime. People have freewill; therefore some will chose to live by violence and parasitism, rather than by productive work. The only hope I put forward is that a more rational system of punishments might teach some that a life of crime is not the right course. For just this reason, I believe that there must be a limit to corporal punishment. The purpose of corporal punishment is to punish and teach, not to torture.
Thus those who are demonstrably unteachable (i.e. habitual offenders) should not receive corporal punishment. They must instead receive long prison sentences so that the public is protected from their predation. Thus something like the “three strikes” law is necessary, though I believe that a more complex approach is needed. Likewise people sentenced to life in prison or to death, should not receive corporal punishment as it will accomplish nothing.
So there it is, my proposal for reforming the penal system in as far as non capital crimes are concerned. I am sure some will denounce me as a fascist, but what the heck, I have been thinking about this for some time and it seams to me this is an idea whose time has come.
Today, the punishment for crimes consists chiefly of fines, imprisonment, and forms of probation. While some anglosphere states do have capital punishment, it is infrequently applied and thankfully only for the most serious offenses.
The problems with the current system are as follows: it is expensive, it is often to lenient on first offenders, it is often to harsh on multiple offenders, it is not as effective a deterrent as it could be because it often fluctuates wildly between excessive leniency and excessive harshness.
The current system of incarceration is expensive and its expense is in a sense an injustice against law abiding citizens. There is no way of getting around the fact that jails cost money and so do jail guards. That the prisoner must be feed, clothed, etc. is an additional expense. That prisons are needed for certain types of offenders, is undeniable. Murderers who are not put to death, rapists, strong arm robbers, those who have committed assault with a deadly weapon, and multiple offenders all need to be incarcerated for the protection of the public and as a form of punishment. However it must be remembered that incarceration, being expensive inflicts a harm on the public.
Because there is no intermediate form of punishment between fines and imprisonment under the current system, many first offenders are treated with excessive lenience, they are sentenced to the term that the crime they have committed calls for, but the sentence is suspended on the condition of good behavior. While this may deter some criminals, because they don’t want their suspended sentence imposed, it is important to remember that the criminal mentality is often a short term and concrete bound one. That is to say, they see not the punishment that hangs over them if they re-offend, but the lack of punishment. Also for a concrete bound mentality, the psychological pain of imprisonment is fairly abstract, especially if never previously experienced.
The excessive harshness of the system on some multiple offenders is a result of the excessive leniency. Firstly, the punishment for first misdemeanor offenses being basically nothing, often not much effort is put into catching those who commit them. Then when the lack of punishment has not deterred a budding young criminal and he or she commits a felony often the sentence is still only a suspended one. The lack of punishment having encouraged further malefaction, the book is now thrown at the criminal. In the worst instances this may even include the “three strikes and you’re out law.” In this most serious instance, the criminal has never been effectively punished until society is stuck with paying for his life incarceration. To call such a system absurd is to be polite. Even when the “three strikes law” does not come into play, a criminal must be incarcerated for two long terms of imprisonment, the one suspended and the one for the new felony. (As for the nonsense of concurrent sentences, don’t get me started.)
This is clearly not an effective way to deal with criminal justice. It does not deter, and often it is not just. Not to the public who has to pay for long prison stays that might have been prevented and not to the criminal who might have learned the error of his ways had his early crimes been meet with appropriate punishment. I believe that corporal punishment could be an effective intermediate punishment between fines and imprisonment which would solve the problem of over leniency and over harshness.
Corporal punishment has a number of benefits. First, it is cheap compared incarceration. Secondly, it is a deterrent that even concrete bound minds can understand. Third, it allows for fine gradations of punishment. Fourth, it does not ruin the criminals life the way even a two or three year prison term could. Fifth, it allows the person punished to benefit society by acting as an example for others.
Even if we had to buy a new whip for each person, corporal punishment would be cheaper than even a short six month prison sentence. Since it is the innocent who pay for the penal system, cheapness is not to be despised. By saving money, corporal punishment is more just than incarceration.
A real problem with suspended sentences and the incarceration model is that for a concrete bound mentality, it is not a very strong deterrent. In contrast everyone knows that pain isn’t fun. We all try and avoid it. Corporal punishment is therefore a practical form of punishment.
Like incarceration, corporal punishment allows for gradations of punishment with minor crimes receiving a lesser punishment and serious ones a harsher penalty. For example, misdemeanor crimes could be punished by up to 12 strokes of the lash, lesser felonies by up to 24 strokes and serious felonies by up to 36 strokes. With in these broad categories, even finer gradations could be made. This allows the punishment to fit the seriousness of the offense which of course is just.
Unlike incarceration, corporal punishment does not ruin the life of the convict. A person thrown in jail for any substantial period of time has his life thoroughly ruined. Youngsters can’t finish school. Prisoners lose their job and possibly all their material positions. Single parents lose custody of their children. These ill effects do not fall only on the convict, but effect spouses, children and society at large. Corporal punishment punishes the convict without the side effects that harm others. Because it does not cause the side effects, corporal punishment is more just than incarceration.
While incarceration causes society additional harm in the form of the expense, corporal punishment has the potential to benefit society because its infliction can be used as an example to others. First offenders whose crime is not serious enough to merit the whip could be sentenced to watch it applied to another criminal. Further when a convict returns to his usual haunts, his healing wounds will bring before the eyes of his compatriots the penalty for breaking the law. Instead of the injustice of further harming the law abiding, corporal punishment includes an element of restitution.
While the forgoing points out defects of the current system and some of the advantages of corporal punishment, it does not address the belief of some that corporal punishment is so degrading that it is beyond the pale. My view on this is two fold. First of all, I am not convinced that the violence and ennui of prison life are any less soul destroying than a whipping. Secondly, punishment is supposed to be unpleasant, that is what, we hope, will deter people from committing crimes. I recognize that will not convince some, but I think most readers will see the sense in them.
If corporal punishment is a proper intermediate punishment, how is it to be used? I suggest the following as a starting point for discussion.
For first offenders who commit a misdemeanor, a sentence of between 2 and 6 strokes suspended on the condition of good behavior for the next 20 years plus a sentence of involuntary observation of between 24 and 48 strokes applied to other convicts. This would let the convict see with his own eyes what further malefaction would bring him and put a number of lashes hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles.
For second offenders who commit a misdemeanor, a sentence of between 4 and 12 strokes depending on the offence would be appropriate. This would be a strong punishment when added to his suspended sentence. Also the second offender should have an appropriate jail term imposed with all but a week of the sentence suspended on the condition of good behavior for the next 20 years. This would give the offender a weeks taste of prison, but leave most of the sentence as a deterrent against further crime.
For subsequent misdemeanor offences, a sentence of between 9 and 12 strokes of the lash depending on the offence and a jail term would be appropriate. This would be both a strong corporal punishment and for third offenders a relatively long jail term adding the suspended sentence. Hopefully these terms combined would be a taste of long term incarceration (i.e. 6 months to two years) that would warn off the criminal from further malefaction.
For first offenders who commit a lesser felony, a sentence of between 12 and 24 strokes and prison term of 1 to 4 years with half the lashes and all but a week of the prison term suspended on the condition of good behavior for the next 20 years would be appropriate. This would allow the felon to feel on his own back the consequences of continuing a life of crime and leave half his corporal punishment hanging over him along with the majority of the prison term.
For second offenders who commit a lesser felony, a sentence of 24 strokes and a prison term of 3 to 6 years would be appropriate. This would both be a very significant corporal punishment and would put the convict in prison for a relatively long time, especially if he had a suspended felony sentence.
For subsequent offenders who commit a lesser felony, a sentence of 24 strokes and a prison term of 6 to 9 years would be appropriate.
For first offenders who commit a more serious felony, a sentence of 24 to 36 strokes and a prison term of 6 to 9 years with half the lashes and two thirds of the prison term suspended on the condition of good behavior for the next 20 years would be appropriate.
For second offenders who commit a more serious felony, a sentence of 24 to 36 strokes and a prison term of 9 to 12 years would be appropriate.
For subsequent offenders who commit a more serious felony, a sentence of 36 strokes and a prison term of 12 to 18 years would be appropriate.
For the most serious non capital offences such as assault in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, rape, and manslaughter, the following would seem to me appropriate.
For first offenders 36 lashes plus a term of imprisonment of 15 years.
For second offenders 36 lashes plus a term of imprisonment of 18 to 21 years.
For subsequent offenders 36 lashes plus a term of imprisonment of 21 to 30 years.
The most serious crimes murder, treason, and slaving, are not in my opinion a fit topic for this post as they fall under the rubric of the debate over capital punishment, which I hope to write about at future date.
One thing that I have not mentioned thus far is the limits of corporal punishment. I certainly don’t think that it can eliminate crime. People have freewill; therefore some will chose to live by violence and parasitism, rather than by productive work. The only hope I put forward is that a more rational system of punishments might teach some that a life of crime is not the right course. For just this reason, I believe that there must be a limit to corporal punishment. The purpose of corporal punishment is to punish and teach, not to torture.
Thus those who are demonstrably unteachable (i.e. habitual offenders) should not receive corporal punishment. They must instead receive long prison sentences so that the public is protected from their predation. Thus something like the “three strikes” law is necessary, though I believe that a more complex approach is needed. Likewise people sentenced to life in prison or to death, should not receive corporal punishment as it will accomplish nothing.
So there it is, my proposal for reforming the penal system in as far as non capital crimes are concerned. I am sure some will denounce me as a fascist, but what the heck, I have been thinking about this for some time and it seams to me this is an idea whose time has come.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
A Modest Proposal
The question of immigration has risen to the top of the political heap and I want to air my view, a view I think a lot of Americans share, about how to deal with this issue.
First, the main issue should be protecting our country from terrorists and fanatics who want to come to our country and destroy it.
Second, we rightly want to preserve the culture and political system that has served us so well and which is directly or indirectly the reason people want to come to our country.
To maintain the integrity of our boarder, we need to end the industry that has built up to smuggle people across the boarder. To do this we need to do two things, increase boarder security and decrease the incentive to illegally enter the country.
The way to achieve the first of these objectives is to increase the number of boarder guards and build a fence or the like to make crossing the boarder harder. Israel is doing some work in this line and we could benefit from their experience.
The way to decrease the incentive to enter the country illegally is to make it easier to enter legally. That means in essence much easier immigration for those who apply to come to this country.
What I propose is that we should heavily patrol the boarder, but build 50 or so immigration point were anyone wanting to immigrate to the United States will be held for one or two days while a background check is performed so that we do not admit terrorists, criminals, or others who mean us harm. Those who are not found to be a threat to the safety of the republic would be admitted with a green card good for ten years.
How exactly tourists, people visiting friends and family, and people coming for brief business trips would be worked into this system will require more thought, but it is not impossible. For example companies that want someone to visit could be required to pay for a bounty hunter if the person does not leave our country and could have their right to admit people additional for business trips suspended until the first person is caught and deported. Hotels which have tourist come to stay and people who have foreign visitors could also be held to a similar standard.
The system I have proposed would reduce the number of people illegally entering the country and thus reduce the demand for the industry which smuggles people into the country. This would make our country significantly safer.
As for how to preserve our culture and political institutions, I believe that what we need is a strong program of education aimed at assimilating emigrants. Specifically we need to ditch the immoral and impractical multiculturalist ideology in favor of a assimilationist, melting pot, patriotic, Whig-historical ideology.
That is to say we should teach students about how people came to this country and built new and better homes for themselves and their descendants. How the colonists rebelled against the unconstitutional usurpations of George III and built a new constitutional system on the basis of the old English Whig tradition. We should tell our students about how generation upon generation have come to this country and adopted the essential parts of the Anglo-American cultural heritage as their own while also preserving and helping to incorporate into American culture many good parts of their native cultures.
Multiculturalism is just poison and we should get it out of our schools. As Jim Benet says, “democracy, multiculturalism, and immigration chose any two.”
First, the main issue should be protecting our country from terrorists and fanatics who want to come to our country and destroy it.
Second, we rightly want to preserve the culture and political system that has served us so well and which is directly or indirectly the reason people want to come to our country.
To maintain the integrity of our boarder, we need to end the industry that has built up to smuggle people across the boarder. To do this we need to do two things, increase boarder security and decrease the incentive to illegally enter the country.
The way to achieve the first of these objectives is to increase the number of boarder guards and build a fence or the like to make crossing the boarder harder. Israel is doing some work in this line and we could benefit from their experience.
The way to decrease the incentive to enter the country illegally is to make it easier to enter legally. That means in essence much easier immigration for those who apply to come to this country.
What I propose is that we should heavily patrol the boarder, but build 50 or so immigration point were anyone wanting to immigrate to the United States will be held for one or two days while a background check is performed so that we do not admit terrorists, criminals, or others who mean us harm. Those who are not found to be a threat to the safety of the republic would be admitted with a green card good for ten years.
How exactly tourists, people visiting friends and family, and people coming for brief business trips would be worked into this system will require more thought, but it is not impossible. For example companies that want someone to visit could be required to pay for a bounty hunter if the person does not leave our country and could have their right to admit people additional for business trips suspended until the first person is caught and deported. Hotels which have tourist come to stay and people who have foreign visitors could also be held to a similar standard.
The system I have proposed would reduce the number of people illegally entering the country and thus reduce the demand for the industry which smuggles people into the country. This would make our country significantly safer.
As for how to preserve our culture and political institutions, I believe that what we need is a strong program of education aimed at assimilating emigrants. Specifically we need to ditch the immoral and impractical multiculturalist ideology in favor of a assimilationist, melting pot, patriotic, Whig-historical ideology.
That is to say we should teach students about how people came to this country and built new and better homes for themselves and their descendants. How the colonists rebelled against the unconstitutional usurpations of George III and built a new constitutional system on the basis of the old English Whig tradition. We should tell our students about how generation upon generation have come to this country and adopted the essential parts of the Anglo-American cultural heritage as their own while also preserving and helping to incorporate into American culture many good parts of their native cultures.
Multiculturalism is just poison and we should get it out of our schools. As Jim Benet says, “democracy, multiculturalism, and immigration chose any two.”
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
AUN! Thoughts: Selling Peerages
The understandable outrage over the Blair government selling titles for loans to the labour party has caused libertarians to over look one possible positive aspect of the scandal.
What if the new conservative government repealed blair’s “reform” of the House of Lords and began selling titles with the proceeds to go to the treasury. Pay a billion pounds become a Duke, 750 million and you’re a Marquess, 500 million and you’re an Earl, 250 million a Viscount, 100 million a Baron, 50 million a life peer.
This would have the advantages of simultaneously giving a legitimate outlet for rich people who wanted to enter politics and raise money for the state without raising taxes. If 50 titles were sold at an average price of 100 million pounds this would be enough to buy one of the Queen Elizabeth class Aircraft Carriers.
If there is no objection to the decline of the Royal Navy, the money thus raised could instead be put in a fund which would pay a certain amount to the state each year and thus allow a long term cut in taxes.
Some will say this plan would devalue the peerage, but the fact is that most peerages were rewards for services of one kind or another to the state. Many of those were political or military, but I am sure some were for financial contributions as well.
This topic also reminds me of a Churchill quote. He was commenting on the large number of former ministers of the crown that were receiving peerages. He said, “They can’t all have peerages, there ought to be at least some disappearages.”
What if the new conservative government repealed blair’s “reform” of the House of Lords and began selling titles with the proceeds to go to the treasury. Pay a billion pounds become a Duke, 750 million and you’re a Marquess, 500 million and you’re an Earl, 250 million a Viscount, 100 million a Baron, 50 million a life peer.
This would have the advantages of simultaneously giving a legitimate outlet for rich people who wanted to enter politics and raise money for the state without raising taxes. If 50 titles were sold at an average price of 100 million pounds this would be enough to buy one of the Queen Elizabeth class Aircraft Carriers.
If there is no objection to the decline of the Royal Navy, the money thus raised could instead be put in a fund which would pay a certain amount to the state each year and thus allow a long term cut in taxes.
Some will say this plan would devalue the peerage, but the fact is that most peerages were rewards for services of one kind or another to the state. Many of those were political or military, but I am sure some were for financial contributions as well.
This topic also reminds me of a Churchill quote. He was commenting on the large number of former ministers of the crown that were receiving peerages. He said, “They can’t all have peerages, there ought to be at least some disappearages.”
Thursday, February 23, 2006
AUN Opinion: Incitement to Riot, Fighting Words the Right of Free Speech
On Samizdata James Waterton has said he believes that criminalizing incitement to riot is a violation of the right to free speech. I disagree. While laws against incitement could of course be used to suppress legitimate protest, they are not in themselves a violation of individual rights.
Those who say that criminalizing incitement to riot is a violation of the right to free speech are in essence saying that it is a fundamental human right to stand in front of a crowd that one knows or reasonably should know will follow ones orders and state in the imperative that they should commit a crime.
The fact of human free will not withstanding, there are instances when one can know with a reasonable certainty that ones words will cause another to act in a specific way. In such instances one is not free of responsibility for the result when one utters the words. If one knows that if he orders it done, another will violate the rights of a third party, he has no right to order it.
To make this issue crystal clear, I hold that when Rohm ordered his SA thugs to break up a meeting of Jews, Catholics, Liberals, Social Democrats or even of Communists if they were meeting peacefully, he was guilty of violating the victim’s right to free association. To punish Rohm would not be to violate his right to free speech, but to protect the right of free association.
To take a slightly more ambiguous case if one spends several hours whipping a crowd into a frenzy of hate against blacks, whites, Christians, Jews, Moslems or who ever and then brandishes a torch over ones head and yells, “I don’t have to say anything more, you all know what to do,” one is at the very least guilty of criminal negligence when the crowd runs out and burns down the homes and businesses of the people or person he has incited them against.
Now there has been an idea seemingly put forth that because it is o.k. to punish a person for incitement, that some how means the people who carry out the deed are not guilty of a crime. I am not aware of any such legal doctrine and it certainly is not, in my view, an excuse for a crime that one is following the orders of another.
Part of this confusion seems to arise from the idea of a “fighting words” exception which is different than the incitement exception.
To take an example of this legitimate exception to the right of free speech, if one walked up to someone at the funeral of their mother who has just died of HIV and says to them, “your mother was a fucking slut and she deserved to die,” one has a reasonable expectation of being punched in the face.
My understanding of the fighting words doctrine is that it is reserved for just such situations where two people are in a confrontation and one person uses words that he knows or reasonably should know are going to cause an overmastering emotional response in the recipient such that he will attack the speaker. In such a case the speaker cannot claim to have been innocently minding his own business.
To bring this whole question to the most important present example, let’s see how this affects the cartoon war.
The scum marching through London with banners saying “those who insult the prophet should have their heads cut off,” have every right to do so. However if the leader of the protest turns to one of the people in the protest who he has encouraged to carry such a sign and says, “go cut off the head of X,” then I hold he has committed a crime.
When the Danish paper published the 12 cartoons it did so, not in the proximity of the persons who might have been offended and in a forum where offence is to be expected. (i.e. the editorial pages of paper) The most that could be expected was for the Moslem reader to shake with rage and then get a hold of himself. The problem was that instead after the moment of shock was over the Moslem’s did not get a hold of themselves, instead they went out and organized riots.
If instead the editorial board of the paper had marched up to innocent Moslems going about their business in peace and got in their face and said, “Mohammed is a pig who likes to fuck ten year old boys up the ass while they pray,” they would have been punched in the face and they would have deserved it.
There are few things more dangerous than a false understanding of rights. This tends to discredit the very idea of rights and can even lead to their subversion.
While people have every right to have opinions that are offensive to others and they have a right to express them, there are limits. They do not have a right to order a crime committed. They do not have a right to deliberately put another person in the position of having to instantly master the first spike of anger after hearing a deadly insult.
In both instances one is complicit in a breach of the public peace. In one case because one orders it, in the other because one is deliberately causing it by putting someone in a position beyond the limits of normal self control. Defense of the peace is a legitimate action of the state.
Those who say that criminalizing incitement to riot is a violation of the right to free speech are in essence saying that it is a fundamental human right to stand in front of a crowd that one knows or reasonably should know will follow ones orders and state in the imperative that they should commit a crime.
The fact of human free will not withstanding, there are instances when one can know with a reasonable certainty that ones words will cause another to act in a specific way. In such instances one is not free of responsibility for the result when one utters the words. If one knows that if he orders it done, another will violate the rights of a third party, he has no right to order it.
To make this issue crystal clear, I hold that when Rohm ordered his SA thugs to break up a meeting of Jews, Catholics, Liberals, Social Democrats or even of Communists if they were meeting peacefully, he was guilty of violating the victim’s right to free association. To punish Rohm would not be to violate his right to free speech, but to protect the right of free association.
To take a slightly more ambiguous case if one spends several hours whipping a crowd into a frenzy of hate against blacks, whites, Christians, Jews, Moslems or who ever and then brandishes a torch over ones head and yells, “I don’t have to say anything more, you all know what to do,” one is at the very least guilty of criminal negligence when the crowd runs out and burns down the homes and businesses of the people or person he has incited them against.
Now there has been an idea seemingly put forth that because it is o.k. to punish a person for incitement, that some how means the people who carry out the deed are not guilty of a crime. I am not aware of any such legal doctrine and it certainly is not, in my view, an excuse for a crime that one is following the orders of another.
Part of this confusion seems to arise from the idea of a “fighting words” exception which is different than the incitement exception.
To take an example of this legitimate exception to the right of free speech, if one walked up to someone at the funeral of their mother who has just died of HIV and says to them, “your mother was a fucking slut and she deserved to die,” one has a reasonable expectation of being punched in the face.
My understanding of the fighting words doctrine is that it is reserved for just such situations where two people are in a confrontation and one person uses words that he knows or reasonably should know are going to cause an overmastering emotional response in the recipient such that he will attack the speaker. In such a case the speaker cannot claim to have been innocently minding his own business.
To bring this whole question to the most important present example, let’s see how this affects the cartoon war.
The scum marching through London with banners saying “those who insult the prophet should have their heads cut off,” have every right to do so. However if the leader of the protest turns to one of the people in the protest who he has encouraged to carry such a sign and says, “go cut off the head of X,” then I hold he has committed a crime.
When the Danish paper published the 12 cartoons it did so, not in the proximity of the persons who might have been offended and in a forum where offence is to be expected. (i.e. the editorial pages of paper) The most that could be expected was for the Moslem reader to shake with rage and then get a hold of himself. The problem was that instead after the moment of shock was over the Moslem’s did not get a hold of themselves, instead they went out and organized riots.
If instead the editorial board of the paper had marched up to innocent Moslems going about their business in peace and got in their face and said, “Mohammed is a pig who likes to fuck ten year old boys up the ass while they pray,” they would have been punched in the face and they would have deserved it.
There are few things more dangerous than a false understanding of rights. This tends to discredit the very idea of rights and can even lead to their subversion.
While people have every right to have opinions that are offensive to others and they have a right to express them, there are limits. They do not have a right to order a crime committed. They do not have a right to deliberately put another person in the position of having to instantly master the first spike of anger after hearing a deadly insult.
In both instances one is complicit in a breach of the public peace. In one case because one orders it, in the other because one is deliberately causing it by putting someone in a position beyond the limits of normal self control. Defense of the peace is a legitimate action of the state.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
AUN! Thoughts: Anglosphere Humor
How do you define Pan European Patriotism? An acute emotion caused by a temporary failure in Brithish foreign policy.
Friday, February 03, 2006
AUN! Thoughts: Stand by the Danes
The danish cartoon crisis has become a vital front in the global war against Islamic extreamism. So I advise that you looke at the cartoons that have europe and the radical parts of the Islamic world on the brink of a trade war, here. I also sugest that you support the buy danish movement, here. Buy Danish!
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
AUN! Opinion: Harper's Anglosphere Option
Jim Bennett has a great post at Albion's Seedlings on the steps Steven Harper can take to move away from the Trudeaupian legacy of historical amnisia regaurding Canada's glorious history.
the Prime Minister's office is a pretty good bully pulpit, and he would
be smart to use it to start deconstructing the Trudeavean deconstruction of the
old Canada. He should make sure the Canadian troops in Afghanistan are
decorated in a visible and public ceremony, exactly what has been denied to them
to date. He should make a show of honoring the Canadian WWII veterans
conspicuously and repeatedly, and having a substantial ceremony on every one of
the big Canadian military anniversaries: Vimy, Dieppe, D-Day, etc. He
might bring back the Red Ensign in a historical context -- ordering it flown as
a "veteran's memorial flag" on select days like D-Day, and for Canadian ships to
fly the Blue Ensign on a suitable day as well, maybe November 11th. It
would be very hard for people to criticize him for remembering the veterans more
conspicuously. And perhaps he might even consider a surprise visit to the forces
in Afghanistan.Read the whole thing
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
AUN! Opinion: A Great Day For Canada
The rejection of the sleazy and usurping Paul Martin and his Liberal cronies at the polls Monday was a victory not only for Steven Harper's Conservative Party of Canada, but for all Canadians.
In addition to the Tories gain of 26 seats in the House of Commons, the New Democratic Party won 29 seats up 11 seats from the previous parliament. Of the opposition parties only the Bloc lost seats with 51 down from 53.
The important thing is that Martin's usurpation was not given the imprimatur of a win at the polls and that the corrupt Liberal Party is going to be investigated.
To celibrate for our Canadian cousins you might want to listen to O'Canada.
In addition to the Tories gain of 26 seats in the House of Commons, the New Democratic Party won 29 seats up 11 seats from the previous parliament. Of the opposition parties only the Bloc lost seats with 51 down from 53.
The important thing is that Martin's usurpation was not given the imprimatur of a win at the polls and that the corrupt Liberal Party is going to be investigated.
To celibrate for our Canadian cousins you might want to listen to O'Canada.
Sunday, December 25, 2005
AUN Thoughts:Christmastide Collect PEC BCP 1939
AlmightyGod who has given us they only-begotten son to take our nature upon him, and as at this time to born of a pure virgin; Grant that we being regerate and made thy children by adoption and grace, may daily be renewed by thy Holy Spirit; through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who livith and reignith with thee and the same Spirit ever, one God, world without end. Amen.
Merry Chirstmas to all and to all a good night!
Merry Chirstmas to all and to all a good night!
Thursday, December 15, 2005
AUN! News:A Sad Day
Oxford University has given into Blair Government over admissions. No longer will each college admit its own students. Now students will be admitted centrally and distributed among the colleges by the university. The independence of the colleges has added much to the diversity of the University as I have seen it (granted a limited experience). This will now be wiped away in the name of egalitarianism. Sickening! The story is here.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
The Gold Standard a Defense
James Hamilton at Econbrowser wrote a post on the gold standard and the Great Depression, that needs an answer. Since I studied economics in college and am an advocate of commodity money, I’ll take a swing at it.
The first problem with Mr. Hamilton’s argument is that he defines the gold standard in only one of its historical forms, the government run bank note system at the end of the thousands of year long history of commodity money. But most advocates of the gold standard are not in favor of such a system, precisely because of the problems it creates some of which James then goes on to outline. He defines that system as follows.
“Under a pure gold standard, the government would stand ready to trade dollars for gold at a fixed rate.”
But the problem is, this definition leaves unanswered one of the most important questions, does the government have the gold or other commodity to meet all of its obligations. To be technical goes the government run a fractional reserve gold standard or a 100% reserve gold standard. In layman’s terms if the government promises to give an ounce of gold for every thousand dollars does it have gold to pay out one thousandth of an ounce of gold for every dollar in circulation
If it doesn’t have the gold to pay off all its obligations then it is operating a fractional reserve system which is indeed vulnerable to attacks by speculators. This is because the value of the gold the government is willing to pay for its notes is greater than the value of the notes. The government in such a situation is in fact systemically bankrupt, it does not have the gold to meet its obligations and it has no prospect of getting enough gold to pay off its obligations. That such a system is highly unstable goes without saying. The government or other issuer under such a system is in the same position as the government of Argentina under its dollar peg.
If on the other hand, the government or other issuer does have enough gold to meet its obligations and it will not issue additional dollars unless it receives enough gold to fully back the new notes, it is operating a 100% gold reserve standard. Such a system is in no way open to speculative attack. On the contrary all that would happen if people came to the central bank or other issuer and demanded gold is that they would have a sack of gold coin or bullion bars instead of an easier to carry around wad of notes. Under such a situation, the notes would have a value equal to or greater than the gold because of the convenience of the notes for large quantities of money.
As for the question of the country leaving the gold standard that is of course possible, but it applies as an argument against any better system of doing things. (i.e. Person A “I think we should build huts instead of living in a cave.” Person B “But we might stop building huts in which case we would have to go back to living in caves.”) To remove the temptation for the government to steal peoples gold by going off the gold standard, we could just have privately issued notes or electronic currency and the government could just perform its usual and proper function of preventing fraud and enforcing contracts. I personally think this is the better option. In fact, e-gold runs just such a system. You take them gold, silver, platinum or palladium bullion, and they account for the bullion and allow you to transfer it from one account to another to make payments.
Mr. Hamilton’s most important argument is that a gold standard causes instability because investors doubt the ability of the government to meet its obligations and redeem all of its notes. He puts his argument this way.
“I argued in a paper titled, "The Role of the International Gold Standard in Propagating the Great Depression," published in Contemporary Policy Issues in 1988, that counting on a gold standard to enforce monetary and fiscal discipline in an environment in which speculators had great doubts about governments' ability to adhere to that discipline was a recipe for disaster. International capital flows became more erratic, not less, as doubts were raised about whether first the pound would be devalued and then the dollar. Britain gave in to the speculative attacks and abandoned gold in 1931, whereas the U.S. toughed it out by deliberately raising interest rates in 1931 at a time when the economy was already near free fall.”
This is true, but only of a fractional reserve system. The problem is as I have said, a government operating a fractional reserve gold standard is in fact bankrupt, it is promising something it can’t deliver. It is in a state of perpetual crisis. If the Fed were to declare a gold standard today at $525 an ounce I would oppose it. It could be a nothing other than a disaster. For a gold standard to work the issuer must have enough gold to cover its obligations. At present that means a dollar gold price of $2,000 an ounce or greater.
James continues his argument,
“Because of this uncertainty, there was a big increase in demand for gold, the one safe asset in this setting, which meant the relative price of gold must rise. If everybody is trying to hoard more gold, you're going to have to pay more potatoes to get an ounce of gold. Since the U.S. insisted on holding the dollar price of gold fixed, this meant that the dollar price of potatoes had to fall. The longer a country stayed on the gold standard, the more overall deflation it experienced. Many of us are persuaded that this deflation greatly added to the economic difficulties of those countries that insisted on sticking with a fixed value of their currency in terms of gold.”
Again, this is true, but only of fractional reserve systems. Under a 100% system, there would be no reason to hoard money in this way because the system would be highly liquid. If banks and the government had enough gold to pay their demand obligations, the redemption of notes and withdrawal of money from bank accounts could not cause a liquidity crisis.
The real truth is that a fractional reserve gold standard is not really a system of commodity money, it is a system of fiduciary money. As long as the central bank is allowed to create debts in excess of its ability to pay them, the money system will be unstable. Even if there was no crisis, the continued issuance of uncovered obligations would mean that the same amount of gold would back an ever increasing quantity of notes eventually this would mean virtually no gold backing the notes, i.e. no gold standard.
If James is interested in continuing this discussion, I would be willing to write about how I would handle the transition and how such a system would-could work so he could respond to that.
The first problem with Mr. Hamilton’s argument is that he defines the gold standard in only one of its historical forms, the government run bank note system at the end of the thousands of year long history of commodity money. But most advocates of the gold standard are not in favor of such a system, precisely because of the problems it creates some of which James then goes on to outline. He defines that system as follows.
“Under a pure gold standard, the government would stand ready to trade dollars for gold at a fixed rate.”
But the problem is, this definition leaves unanswered one of the most important questions, does the government have the gold or other commodity to meet all of its obligations. To be technical goes the government run a fractional reserve gold standard or a 100% reserve gold standard. In layman’s terms if the government promises to give an ounce of gold for every thousand dollars does it have gold to pay out one thousandth of an ounce of gold for every dollar in circulation
If it doesn’t have the gold to pay off all its obligations then it is operating a fractional reserve system which is indeed vulnerable to attacks by speculators. This is because the value of the gold the government is willing to pay for its notes is greater than the value of the notes. The government in such a situation is in fact systemically bankrupt, it does not have the gold to meet its obligations and it has no prospect of getting enough gold to pay off its obligations. That such a system is highly unstable goes without saying. The government or other issuer under such a system is in the same position as the government of Argentina under its dollar peg.
If on the other hand, the government or other issuer does have enough gold to meet its obligations and it will not issue additional dollars unless it receives enough gold to fully back the new notes, it is operating a 100% gold reserve standard. Such a system is in no way open to speculative attack. On the contrary all that would happen if people came to the central bank or other issuer and demanded gold is that they would have a sack of gold coin or bullion bars instead of an easier to carry around wad of notes. Under such a situation, the notes would have a value equal to or greater than the gold because of the convenience of the notes for large quantities of money.
As for the question of the country leaving the gold standard that is of course possible, but it applies as an argument against any better system of doing things. (i.e. Person A “I think we should build huts instead of living in a cave.” Person B “But we might stop building huts in which case we would have to go back to living in caves.”) To remove the temptation for the government to steal peoples gold by going off the gold standard, we could just have privately issued notes or electronic currency and the government could just perform its usual and proper function of preventing fraud and enforcing contracts. I personally think this is the better option. In fact, e-gold runs just such a system. You take them gold, silver, platinum or palladium bullion, and they account for the bullion and allow you to transfer it from one account to another to make payments.
Mr. Hamilton’s most important argument is that a gold standard causes instability because investors doubt the ability of the government to meet its obligations and redeem all of its notes. He puts his argument this way.
“I argued in a paper titled, "The Role of the International Gold Standard in Propagating the Great Depression," published in Contemporary Policy Issues in 1988, that counting on a gold standard to enforce monetary and fiscal discipline in an environment in which speculators had great doubts about governments' ability to adhere to that discipline was a recipe for disaster. International capital flows became more erratic, not less, as doubts were raised about whether first the pound would be devalued and then the dollar. Britain gave in to the speculative attacks and abandoned gold in 1931, whereas the U.S. toughed it out by deliberately raising interest rates in 1931 at a time when the economy was already near free fall.”
This is true, but only of a fractional reserve system. The problem is as I have said, a government operating a fractional reserve gold standard is in fact bankrupt, it is promising something it can’t deliver. It is in a state of perpetual crisis. If the Fed were to declare a gold standard today at $525 an ounce I would oppose it. It could be a nothing other than a disaster. For a gold standard to work the issuer must have enough gold to cover its obligations. At present that means a dollar gold price of $2,000 an ounce or greater.
James continues his argument,
“Because of this uncertainty, there was a big increase in demand for gold, the one safe asset in this setting, which meant the relative price of gold must rise. If everybody is trying to hoard more gold, you're going to have to pay more potatoes to get an ounce of gold. Since the U.S. insisted on holding the dollar price of gold fixed, this meant that the dollar price of potatoes had to fall. The longer a country stayed on the gold standard, the more overall deflation it experienced. Many of us are persuaded that this deflation greatly added to the economic difficulties of those countries that insisted on sticking with a fixed value of their currency in terms of gold.”
Again, this is true, but only of fractional reserve systems. Under a 100% system, there would be no reason to hoard money in this way because the system would be highly liquid. If banks and the government had enough gold to pay their demand obligations, the redemption of notes and withdrawal of money from bank accounts could not cause a liquidity crisis.
The real truth is that a fractional reserve gold standard is not really a system of commodity money, it is a system of fiduciary money. As long as the central bank is allowed to create debts in excess of its ability to pay them, the money system will be unstable. Even if there was no crisis, the continued issuance of uncovered obligations would mean that the same amount of gold would back an ever increasing quantity of notes eventually this would mean virtually no gold backing the notes, i.e. no gold standard.
If James is interested in continuing this discussion, I would be willing to write about how I would handle the transition and how such a system would-could work so he could respond to that.
Monday, December 12, 2005
A New York X Mass
Are any of the readers of this blog in the New York area? I am interested in meeting any who are. If you are going to be in the City on Dec. 18, I am planning a little get together and would be interested in having you come. Please e mail me at steve14530@yahoo.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
