by: Ronald Bailey

Researchers at the University of Chicago have done a series of experiments looking at how people regard God's intentions about issues. As the study notes: Religion appears to serve as a moral compass for the vast majority of people around the world. It informs whether same-sex marriage is love or sin, whether war is an act of security or of terror, and whether abortion rights represent personal liberty or permission to murder. Many religions are centered on a god (or gods) that has beliefs and intentions, with adherents encouraged to follow ‘‘God’s will’’ on everything from martyrdom to career planning to voting. Within these religious systems, how do people know what their god wills?

Well, it turns out that God generally agrees with each individual believer. The researchers find:

Intuiting God’s beliefs on important issues may not produce an independent guide, but may instead serve as an echo chamber that reverberates one’s own beliefs.

The scientists conducted a number of studies, but one of the more fascinating was an fMRI brain scan in which they looked at which parts of believers' brains were activated when they were asked about what they believed, what other people might believe, and what God believes about ten different moral issues. It turns out that thinking about what God believes activates the same brain areas as thinking about one's own views. 

The researchers conclude:

[T]hese data provide insight into the sources of people’s own religious beliefs. Although people obviously acquire religious beliefs from a variety of external sources, from parents to broader cultural influences, these data suggest that the self may serve as an important source of religious beliefs as well. Not only are believers likely to acquire the beliefs and theology of others around them, but may also seek out believers and theologies that share their own personal beliefs. If people seek out religious communities that match their own personal views on major social, moral, or political issues, then the information coming from religious sources is likely to further validate and strengthen their own personal convictions and values. Religious belief has generally been treated as a process of socialization whereby people’s personal beliefs about God come to reflect what they learn from those around them, but these data suggest that the inverse causal process may be important as well: people’s personal beliefs may guide their own religious beliefs and the religious communities they seek to be part of.

Finally, these data have interesting implications for the impact of religious thought on judgment and decision-making. People may use religious agents as a moral compass, forming impressions and making decisions based on what they presume God as the ultimate moral authority would believe or want. The central feature of a compass, however, is that it points north no matter what direction a person is facing. This research suggests that, unlike an actual compass, inferences about God’s beliefs may instead point people further in whatever direction they are already facing.

Talk about confirmation bias!

by: Tad DeHaven

Huge deficit spending, a supposed stimulus bill, and financial bailouts by the Bush administration failed to stave off a deep recession. President Obama continued his predecessor’s policies with an even bigger stimulus, which helped push the deficit over the unimaginable trillion dollar mark. Prosperity hasn’t returned, but the president is persistent in his interventionist beliefs. In his speech yesterday, he told the country that we must “spend our way out of this recession.”

While a dedicated segment of the intelligentsia continues to believe in simplistic Kindergarten Keynesianism, average Americans are increasingly leery. Businesses and entrepreneurs are hesitant to invest and hire because of the uncertainty surrounding the President’s agenda for higher taxes, higher energy costs, health care mandates, and greater regulation. The economy will eventually recover despite the government’s intervention, but as the debt mounts, today’s profligacy will more likely do long-term damage to the nation’s prosperity.

Some leaders in Congress want a new round of stimulus spending of $150 billion or more. The following are some of the ways that money might be spent from the president’s speech:

• Extend unemployment insurance. When you subsidize something you get more it, so increasing unemployment benefits will push up the unemployment rate, as Alan Reynolds notes.”

• More infrastructure spending. This will lead to misallocation of resources since only markets can allocate resources efficiently. Governments allocate capital on the basis of politics instead of economics.

• “Cash for Caulkers.” This would be like Cash for Clunkers except people would get tax credits to make their homes more energy efficient. Any program modeled off “the dumbest government program ever” should be put back on the shelf. 

• More Small Business Administration lending. A little noticed SBA program created by the stimulus bill offered banks an “unprecedented” 100 percent guarantee on loans to small businesses. The program has an anticipated default rate of 60 percent. Small businesses need lower taxes and fewer regulations, not a government program that perpetuates more moral hazard.

• More aid to state and local governments. State and local government should be using the recession to implement reforms that will prevent them from going on another unsustainable spending spree when the economy recovers. Also, we need fewer state and local government employees – not more – as they’re becoming an increasing burden on taxpayers.

The president said his administration was “forced to take those steps largely without the help of an opposition party which, unfortunately, after having presided over the decision-making that led to the crisis, decided to hand it to others to solve.” Mr. President, nobody has forced you to do anything. You’ve chosen to embrace – and expand upon – the big spending policies that were a hallmark of your predecessor’s administration.

by Mark Silva

The Obama administration is holding a workshop today on open goverment. It’s closed to the public and press.

The workshop is being held by the Justice Department’s Office of Information Policy for the public liasons at federal agencies who field requests for records filed under the Freedom of Information Act. The administration, vowing greater “transparency” about government actions, is outlining procedures for working with a new U.S. Office of Government Information Services, set up to resolve disputes over information requests.

“If they’re getting marching orders, why shouldn’t the public be there?” asks Jeff Stachewicz, founder of the Washington-based FOIA Group Inc., which files hundreds of requests each month on behalf of companies, law firms and news organizations.

“We’d like to know, when they’re training agencies, are they telling them the same thing they’re saying in public, that they’re committed to making the Freedom of Information Act work well and make sure that agencies are releasing information whenever possible while protecting important issues like individual privacy and national security,” said Rick Blum, coordinator of the Sunshine in Government Initiative.

Melanie Ann Pustay, the official running the conference, says she wanted government employees to be able to speak candidly, and the conference is being held in an auditorium at the Commerce Department, where a government ID is required for admittance. The press, however, is routinely admitted to government buildings.

Pustay promises to say the same things at the workshop that she would say publicly, and is seeking to improve how the government responds to information requests, which cost roughly $400 million each year to handle.

As Obama’s first year in office ends, his record on issues surrounding the Freedom of Information Act — one of the principle mechanisms that citizens use to request information — is uneven so far, the Associated Press reports today, in noting the closed-door conference on open government.

“The government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears,” Obama told government offices on his first full day as president.

Just last week, a State Department deputy assistant secretary, Llewellyn Hedgbeth, said at a public conference that “as much as we want to promote transparency,” her agency will protect classified materials that put the United States in a bad light.

by: Chris Dillow

There’s something about the Copenhagen summit that‘s puzzling me. To see it, approach the issue from the perspective discussed by James Buchanan in The Calculus of Consent.

There are, he said, three broad ways of organizing our affairs, each with costs and benefits; he was writing about individuals, but for our purposes, we can replace individuals with governments. These ways are:
1. Simple individual action. In our context, this means national governments setting their own individual climate change policies.
2. Voluntary contractual agreements.
3. Enforced collective action. In the case of the private individuals Buchanan was discussing, this means government action. In our context though, it means a global government with the ability to coerce national ones into reducing emissions.
Now, here’s my puzzle. Politicians seem to think that climate change is best tackled by (2) - hence the summit. Why?
It’s obvious why (2) is superior to (1) - because stopping climate change is a public good. But why is (2) superior to (3)?
There are some obvious possibilities. Maybe climate change isn’t so catastrophic, so the costs of failing to reach an agreement will be too small to justify losing national sovereignty. Or maybe the costs of reaching an agreement are in fact small, so we are in the world of the Coase theorem, where private agreements can be optimally efficient without government action.
However, much of the rhetoric surrounding the summit seems inconsistent with these possibilities. That editorial says:
Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security.
And Brown says:
If by the end of next week we have not got an ambitious agreement, it will be an indictment of our generation that our children will not forgive
But if the costs of failure at Copenhagen really are so catastrophic, and are a serious risk, then perhaps  mode (2) is the wrong way of addressing the problem, and we might need global government instead. And yet, AFAIK, none of the summiteers is suggesting this possibility.
Let's contrast this with smoking in pubs. In theory, private contractual arrangements could control this - either by non-smokers paying smokers to desist, or smokers paying non-smokers for the right to do so. But the UK government decided against this, and imposed a ban. It decided that mode (3) is superior to mode (2). But if this is true for smoking, why is it not true for an issue with allegedly vastly greater costs of failing to reach a private agreement? 
So what’s going on? Is their rhetoric just wind? Are governments ignorant of the basic Buchananite principles for deciding where decisions are best taken? Or do they instead care more about preserving their power than saving the planet, and see Copenhagen as merely a legitimation ritual? Could it be that those calling for radical alternatives to the summit do, in fact, have some logic on their side?

by: Coyote Blog

Some good news after years of bad decisions:

New York’s Supreme Court Appellate Division (First Department) handed down a massive victory for property rights yesterday in the case of Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corporation. At issue was the state’s highly controversial use of eminent domain on behalf of Columbia University, which wants free rein over the West Harlem neighborhood of Manhattanville, where it plans to build a fancy new research campus.

As I discussed in an article last February, there is overwhelming evidence that the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) actively colluded with Columbia in order to produce the very conditions that would then allow ESDC to seize property on the university’s behalf. At the time of ESDC’s 2006 blight study, for instance, Columbia owned 76 percent of the neighborhood and was thus directly responsible for the overwhelming majority of blight that the report alleged, ranging from overflowing basement trash heaps to major roof and skylight leaks. As numerous tenants have reported, the university refused to perform basic and necessary repairs, which both pushed tenants out and manufactured the ugly conditions that later advanced Columbia’s long-term interests. Preliminary findings delivered to the ESDC admitted as much, noting “Open violations in CU Buildings” and “History of CU repairs to properties” among the “issues of concern.”

Thankfully, the New York court recognized this shameful mess for what it is: eminent domain abuse. As Justice James Catterson wrote for the majority:

the blight designation in the instant case is mere sophistry. It was utilized by ESDC years after the scheme was hatched to justify the employment of eminent domain but this project has always primarily concerned a massive capital project for Columbia. Indeed, it is nothing more than economic redevelopment wearing a different face.

This, from the Court’s majority decision, was especially heartening post-Kelo:

The time has come to categorically reject eminent domain takings solely based on underutilization. This concept put forward by the respondent transforms the purpose of blight removal from the elimination of harmful social and economic conditions in a specific area to a policy affirmatively requiring the ultimate commercial development of all property regardless of the character of the community subject to such urban renewal.

This was pretty unexpected given how the Atlantic Yards case went.  I am not sure how to reconcile the two decisions.  Damon Root at the link above has the same concerns.

Check out our Video section and watch Fall of the Republic.  It is an amazing film worth your time and can open your eyes to many things going on in our Country.

by: Clifford F. Thies

"I am making a prediction right now that the Republican Party will take both houses of Congress" -- Dick Morris

Ten seats down, with the Vice President being a Democrat, it does not seem possible for the Republicans to take the U.S. in 2010. Yet, Dick Morris says they will.

Video of Morris on Hannity at FreedomsLighthouse.com

Morris names the seats he believes the GOP will take in the Senate: Six fairly easy pickups according to Morris - Dodd in Connecticut, Delaware, Reid in Nevada, Lincoln in Arkansas, Specter in Pennsylvania, and Colorado. He believes the Governor of North Dakota could run and beat Dorgan, and that Rudy Giuliani can run and beat Gillibrand in New York. Morris also thinks Kirk can win in Illinois to take that seat and that Fiorina can beat Boxer in California. That's a pickup of 10. He also mentioned three other seats that could be in play - Washington, New Jersey and Oregon.I have been looking at recent polling data for some of the contests, the tendency of the state in Presidential elections, and a summary of the opinions of the pundits (not including Morris).

I agree with Morris about the AR, CO, CT, DE, IL, NV, NY (if Giuliani runs), ND (if Hoeven runs) and PA. That's nine. More correctly, I should say 7 to 9, assuming Republicans win in every state in which they are at least a toss-up, including win in four states - KY, MO, NH and OH - where Republicans seats are in play.

So, how does Morris get to 11? First, he thinks Carly Fiorina can defeat Barbara Boxer in California. Second, he thinks Republicans could maybe win in one or more of: NJ, OR and WI. If we assume Morris meant to say OR, WA and WI, he would at least be making some sense. I think all four of these seats are a bit out of reach or, to use the expression Morris used, "second tier" opportunities. The difference between California and the other three states in this category is that we have a candidate with star power, who could maybe re-shuffle the deck.

On the other hand, winning the House and picking up at least 5 seats in the Senate would be a spectacular victory.

by: Matthew Avitabile

Especially in the wake of Ron Paul's 2008 bid for the Republican nomination for the Presidency, talk of the split between conservatives and libertarians has heated up. In fact, some libertarians voted for Libertarian Party Candidate Bob Barr and some even voted for Barack Obama himself.

But over a year since the election, it can be seen that this was faulty thinking.

The Libertarians who voted for Obama did so because they believed that he would end the war. In fact, he is sending more troops to Afghanistan and has kept troops in Iraq. This voting was a poor choice, seeing that the President will not only send in more troops, but is still dangerously ill-informed on foreign affairs.

Some voted for Obama because of privacy rights. Candidate Obama railed against Bush Administration policies of eavesdropping to catch terrorists. When actually in power, Obama has expanded these powers, while still talking against them.

Libertarians must remember what they have in common with the conservative movement. Both sides support gun rights and will likely work together to stop any potential efforts of the new Administration to restrict firearms.

Libertarians also believe in property rights. They believe that the right of a citizen to own and use their own property is absolute. Voting for a statist system is likely to restrict these rights. Even the most liberal Republicans support guns and property. Many in the DNC would like to restrict our rights.

We must make sure we set America right. Fighting each other will only strengthen Obama's hand and will assist in his bid for reelection. We must band together for our joint interests and against the hypocrisy of the modern statist Democratic Party.

by: The Humble Libertarian

I have a friend in Canada who sent me a message on Twitter asking about Mike Huckabee 2012. He said Huckabee was coming to his province for a speaking engagement and that he was being talked up really aggressively to libertarians there.

I'm glad he asked me so I can share the following information with you because a lot of people are asking and wondering: "Is Mike Huckabee a conservative? Is Mike Huckabee a progressive? Or could Mike Huckabee even be a libertarian??"

After following up with him very briefly to say that Huckabee is no friend to liberty, I sent him the following list of criticisms of Mike Huckabee based on his record as governor in Arkansas:

------------------------------
Here's a little more about Huckabee's record that worries me:

One of his first moves as governor of Arkansas in the 90s was to campaign hard for ballot Amendment 2 to increase the state sales tax to improve its park system, in essence, the destruction of private, productive capital to fund state projects.

He then moved to expand state spending by millions of dollars for medical entitlement programs and public schools, meanwhile signing a "faith-based initiatives"-style act that allowed religious organizations to contract to do social work for the state on the taxpayer's bill. While it may not be unconstitutional in a strict sense, I think such a policy is contrary to the principles of religious freedom.

Huckabee then made a highly politicized commutation of a convicted rapist's sentence, who then moved to Missouri and raped/killed a woman who lived near his home.

After being re-elected, he endorsed Lamar Alexander's exploratory bid for President in 1999 (a Republican Senator from my state who is extremely anti-Fed audit and who campaigned for Rand Paul's establishment opponent Trey Grayson at a DC fundraiser). Huckabee then changed his mind and endorsed George W. Bush- which I can forgive him for because at the time Bush was talking a lot like Ron Paul before going back on his word entirely as President.

Then Huckabee signed another tax increase on gasoline and diesel in 1999. He concurrently issued state bonds, which is just an IOU from the taxpayer to be paid in future taxes. At this time he also worked to establish a system of standardized state testing for students in Arkansas, and would remark years later during the Bush Administration that he strongly supported Bush's unprecedented and unconstitutional Federal takeover of education, No Child Left Behind.

In 2001, Hucakabee signed the Covenant Marriage Act, continuing the state's intrusion into the private institution of marriage, rather than working to reverse it.

In 2003, Huckabee mandated annual body mass index measurements for all public school children and tax increases on cigarettes and tobacco.

Then in 2005 Huckabee made illegal immigration a central issue, campaigning to make illegal immigrants eligible for state benefits like financial scholarships, calling opposition to his policy "un-Christian." He also apparently considers public drinking in entertainment districts un-Christian, because he vetoed a bill that would allow private citizens and businesses to make that decision for themselves.

The Club for Growth has called Mike Huckabee a "liberal" for fixing labor prices in Arkansas, opposing a repeal of the state sales tax on basic necessities like groceries, and being a tax hiker. And the libertarian Cato Institute gave Huckabee an F in its 2006 Fiscal Report Card. Perhaps the most telling endorsement Huckabee's received is being named one of the 5 best governors in 2005 by Time Magazine.

Huckabee is no friend to liberty!

by: Gary Reed

"Everybody talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it." – Mark Twain
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while Congress is in session" – Mark Twain

On November 6, The Market Oracle posted Robert Murphy's lengthy article, "Freaking Out over Global Warming," a review of Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner's book Super Freakonomics

The whole argument in the book and in the review seems to be centered on the science and economics of climate change.

Unfortunately, climate change isn't about science. Climate change quit being about science almost from the beginning.

Climate change is about raw, naked, unabashed political power.

Climate change isn't, and has never been, about economics either.

Proponents of raw, naked, unabashed political power don't care about science or about economics.

Originally, the climate changers began howling about the Coming Ice Age. First a frozen global hell was proclaimed, and then the proclaimers went looking for "science" to prove their proclamations. They had books to sell and interviews to do and power to accumulate and careers to build and reputations to make and egos to inflate.

When the time of the Coming Ice Age came and went and nothing froze over they turned the thermometer upside down. No more Coming Ice Age. Coming Global Warming.

But it still was never really science. The "scientific consensus" was built on scientific conjecture and flawed computer modeling and government bribe money and true believer's wishful thinking and the virulent human-hating of the environmental messiahs.

A "scientific consensus" is not science. "Consensus" is a political word. Politicians reach "Consensus." Scientists reach "factual conclusions" based on evidence, no matter what the politicians or the opportunists or the true believers want them to reach.

Cherry picking scientific data is not science. Cherry picking is political. Yes, the other side, the warming deniers, can also be charged with cherry picking evidence to prove that man-made climate change is bogus. But that just strengthens the argument; cherry picking, no matter who does it, or why it's done, is not science. It's still just politics.

Once any issue becomes politicized its no longer about that issue. It's then all about politics, and politics is always about power.

Government healthcare isn't about health, it's about power. The drug war isn't about drugs, it's about power. The government takeover of banking and lending institutions isn't about the economy, it's about power. Environmentalism isn't about the environment, it's about power.

Capitalism has won in every successful country in the world except in America where it's maligned and attacked and crippled. Our society, in ways it never should have been, has become deeply politicized, which means it's not about freedom and markets and trade and prosperity, it's about power.

And it's also why libertarians should be worried about the Libertarian Party. Is it really about libertarianism, or is it really just all about the Party?

The only way to ever know if anything is true about climate change is to totally divorce the science from everyone and everything that could possibly benefit from it in any way.

And it's also true about everything else that's been politicized.

Today we can merge Mark Twain's two amusing quotes:

"When power-mad politicians pretend they can do anything about the weather no man's life, liberty, or property is safe."