Author: admin

“Libertarian Party Rebuffs Mises Uprising,” ran the headline on my first dispatch from the L.P.’s biennial national convention, which talked about how the party’s growing Mises Caucus fell far short in its effort to dislodge Party Chair Nicholas Sarwark.

This analysis did not prove popular among the Libertarian friends of the Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI) in Auburn, Alabama. “Reason Editor Gets it Wrong,” was the headline on Eric July’s video response. “Someone’s been eating Gary Johnson’s edibles,” tweeted Comic Dave Smith. Mises Caucus Chair Michael Heise, in a rebuttal email to me, wrote (among many other things): “We have been directly credited by Tom Woods and Dave Smith joining the party which has caused a number of new members to join the party and the caucus. We are the biggest and quickly coming up on the strongest caucus in the party. We were able to knock down resolutions that downplayed the importance of property and I spoke against them which rallied the delegation floor.”

Then something interesting happened. Rather than wash their hands of a party they have criticized for drifting too far from core philosophical principles, the friends of the Mises Institute doubled down on their involvement. Smith and podcaster Jason Stapleton announced post-convention that they were joining the L.P. The biggest fish of all to become a sustaining member of the party was LvMI Senior Fellow and popular podcaster Tom Woods. In August 2017, in the wake of the Charlottesville riots, these people and Libertarian Party leadership were engaged in a war of words. Eleven months later, they’re all under the same big tent.

It was in that spirit that the quick-witted anarchist media weirdo Michael Malice invited Tom Woods and myself to a bread-breaking edition of Malice’s “YOUR WELCOME“ show. The three of us discussed any number of internecine divisions within both the libertarian and Libertarian movements, perceived snubs from Reason, incrementalism vs. Evangelism, Murray Rothbard, the old Ron Paul newsletters; you name it. You can watch here:

Related reading: Brian Doherty’s 2009 essay “A Tale of Two Libertarianisms,” our magazine debate forum that same year on “Are Property Rights Enough?“, and this 2011 piece from me. Bonus Michael Malice-related content here. ALSO: Watch your mailboxes for a forthcoming issue of Reason that includes all manner of libertarian debates.

A convicted murderer on death row in Nevada has one simple request: He wants the state to kill him.

By all accounts, 47-year-old Scott Dozier is a bad man. He already had one second-degree murder conviction under his belt when he was sentenced to death in 2007 for first-degree murder. In the latter case, the torso of Jeremiah Miller was eventually found crammed in a suitcase and dumped in the trash. The body was missing its head, arms, calves, and feet.

Dozier denies having committed both murders. But he says he’s ready to die anyway, especially after his lethal injection was postponed for the second time last month. Nevada should “just get it done, just do it effectively and stop fighting about it,” he tells the Associated Press.

Civil libertarians and classical liberals have long argued against capital punishment on the basis that the government shouldn’t kill its own citizens. “The death penalty is uncivilized in theory and unfair and inequitable in practice,” the ACLU argues. “Well-publicized problems with the death penalty process—wrongful convictions, arbitrary application, and high costs—have convinced many libertarians that capital punishment is just one more failed government program that should be scrapped,” Ben Jones writes at Libertarianism.org.

But what about cases where the defendant wants to die? In this case, one might argue that the state wouldn’t be murdering Dozier; it would simply be granting his last wish. Then again, while the state of Nevada wants to kill Dozier, it has no desire to let him go out on his own terms: he was put on suicide watch following the most recent postponement of his execution.

Dozier claims he’s not suicidal. He doesn’t even want to die that much; he just prefers death to prison. But his execution has turned into a complicated legal affair that sheds still more light on the messy business of capital punishment.

Hours before Dozier was set to be executed in July, Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez of Nevada’s Eighth Judicial District Court said the state couldn’t use a sedative called midazolam. That’s because the drug’s manufacturer, Alvogen, successfully argued that “serious harm” would be done to its business if the sedative was used in an execution.

Since then, the makers of the other two drugs that were set to be administered Dozier have also joined the fight. Neither Hikma Pharmaceuticals—which makes the opioid fentanyl—nor Sandoz Inc.—which manufactures the muscle relaxant cisatracurium—want the state to kill Dozier with their products.

Dozier, though, just wants it to all be over. “I want to be really clear about this. This is my wish,” he tells the AP. “They should stop punishing me and my family for their inability to carry out the execution.”

It’s not like the state of Nevada disagrees. The attorney general’s office says the drug companies are simply trying to improve their public image. “For Alvogen (and similarly situated drug manufacturers), this lawsuit has little downside. Whether it ultimately wins or loses, Alvogen scores points in the public relations arena just for bringing this lawsuit,” lawyers for the AG’s office wrote late last month in a petition to the Nevada Supreme Court. On Monday, 15 states filed an amici curiae with the Supreme Court expressing similar sentiments.

Dozier agrees with what those states are saying. “It just seems like they’re a little late to the party on that whole theory,” he told the Reno Gazette Journal earlier this week, referring to the drug companies. “I don’t really think they care. I think they started caring when it started affecting them, bottom line.”

As Reason has documented in the past, states often operate in the shadows when it comes to obtaining and administering death penalty drugs. In one instance, Texas even sought to procure banned drugs from a shady Indian company. There have also been questions regarding how humane death by lethal injection really is. Transparency is sorely needed, particularly in Dozier’s case, where Alvogen has accused Nevada officials of illegally purchasing midazolam.

For now, Dozier has no choice but to keep waiting. The next court date for the case isn’t until September 10, and prison officials want his execution to be rescheduled for November. “To be clear, this is actually a state of torture, without question,” he told the Gazette Journal. “I mean at least now I know nothing’s going to happen before September 10, so that’s better.”

And while he’s no suicidal, the whole ordeal has made think about whether state-assisted suicide might be the way to go. “I’ve been thinking about writing them and telling them, ‘You know what, would you let (the drugs) be used for state-assisted suicide, because I am in a terminal situation and I’m suffering?” he told the Gazette Journal.

Tax cuts and other fiscally conservative positions are in the backseat of Republicans’ 2018 campaign rhetoric. In fact, the Associated Press (AP) found in a new report that tax cuts have been replaced by something much more alarming: fear.

In December 2017, President Trump signed off on tax-cut legislation that he promised would lead to positive outcomes “for businesses, for people, for the middle class, [and] for workers.” Following passage of that legislation, reports indicated that as many as 90% of employees nationwide would take home more money as withholding rates were lowered. The tax cuts were hailed as such a success that Lowe’s announced it would give bonuses and expand benefits packages in response.

One would think Republican candidates might campaign on these tax cuts, but it appears more are interested in playing up their constituents’ fears of immigration, socialism, and House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.).

“We wish it got the pitch forks out and it doesn’t,” GOP ad maker Will Ritter told the AP in reference to the shift from promoting economic policy success to fearmongering.

In July, at least two congressional Republican candidates in states that don’t touch the southern border gained national attention for their heavily Trump-centric ads. Jason Emert of Tennessee created his own version of a 2013 insurance ad featuring the disgraced former University of Tennessee coach Butch Jones. Unlike Butch Jones, Emert promised, “When I say I’m going to do something, I actually mean it.” Emert went on to pledge his support to the president and his tough immigration policies by literally building a wall in his own yard.

Later in the month, Rep. Ron DeSantis (R—Fla.) released a campaign ad where his wife insisted he was “so much more” than just a Trump supporter. DeSantis demonstrated this by using a “Make America Great Again” sign to teach his children how to read and also building a physical wall with them in the middle of their living room. Unlike Emert’s wall, however, DeSantis’ wall was created with toddler building blocks.

The heavy focus on the wall signals a shift away from fiscal conservatism not just as a campaign talking point, but as a policy goal. Just weeks before Trump’s inauguration, Congressional Republican leaders revealed that U.S. taxpayers would have to pay for a border wall, with one estimate putting the price of the first phase at $18 billion. That does not include maintenance costs, which would be an additional $48.3 billion during the wall’s first decade. Both estimates are likely too low, as the Cato Institute found they rely on “unrealistically cheap construction costs.”

The tribalistic fears that Republicans are running don’t connect well on paper, but Republicans are tying them together regardless and hoping the emotional impact will overshadow the intellectual dissonance. Rep. Claudia Tenney (R—N.Y.), for example, has released several ads tying Democrat challenger Anthony Brindisi’s “dangerously wrong” views on immigration—including claims that he desires open borders—to alleged support for Pelosi. Tenney only mentions tax cuts in one of her ads, and only after accusing Brindisi of supporting Pelosi. Brindisi, who has already announced that he would not support any bid from Pelosi to lead the party in the future, responded to the strategy by saying, “I’d think after almost two years of being in Congress, the first advertisement that my opponent would run would be something about her accomplishments.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders is all over the internet!

New York Magazine says he is “quietly building a digital media empire.” Mic.com calls it “one of the most powerful progressive media outfits in America.”

This matters because bettors rank Sanders one of the top four Democratic presidential contenders. And as John Stossel observes, Sanders posts a new economically ignorant video most every day.

View this article.

White House aide Stephen Miller, an arch restrictionist, is about to release rules that would make it almost impossible for legal immigrants to obtain green cards, citizenship, extend their visas, or even obtain visas in the first place if they or their American family members so much as qualify for a whole slew of public benefits.

As I note in my Week column, under the guise of protecting American taxpayers from “welfare-mooching” immigrants, Miller is making a diabolical use of administrative powers to restrict legal immigration to only the tippy top. He is also doing an end-run around Congress which pointedly refused to accept Trump’s DACA fix when he attached to it his poison pill to cut legal immigration by nearly 40 percent.

I note:

The perversity of this [Miller’s scheme] cannot be overstated.

An immigrant would be barred from upgrading his status if he married, say, an American woman on Social Security disability till he crossed the 250 percent earning threshold. Or consider, a real-life example of a Haitian green-card holder who works 80 hours a week as a nursing assistant but has a severely disabled American daughter who receives public assistance. His citizenship petition may not have a prayer. In effect, Miller’s plan would penalize immigrants not because they are needy but because they have Americans in their lives who are.

What’s particularly unfair about this is that it’s not like legal immigrants get any reprieve from taxes. With very, very few exceptions, they pay all the taxes that Americans do and then some (if you count all the fees that they and their employers have to constantly cough up to get and keep their visas). Denying them a shot at citizenship would mean creating a permanently disenfranchised class that can be taxed but will be barred from basic assistance (in addition to all the federal means-tested benefits), and won’t be allowed to vote, eviscerating America’s bedrock commitment to no taxation without representation.

Go here to read the piece.

But while I’m at it, let me point out that the restrictionist right had long maintained that it wasn’t motivated by nativist concerns and its beef wasn’t with legal immigration, just illegal immigration. That few on the right have pushed back against Trump’s near daily assaults on legal immigration reveal that claim to be a complete lie. In fact, the right has only egged him on. Just last night, Laura Ingraham ranted on air, “The America we know and love doesn’t exist anymore. Massive demographic changes have been foisted on the American people, and they are changes that none of us ever voted for, and most of us don’t like … this is related to both illegal and legal immigration.” [Emphasis mine.]

Referring to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Latina social democrat who won New York’s congressional primary, Ingraham said, “Let’s face it, they [immigrants] are not too big on Adam Smith and the Federalist Papers.”

Ingraham is, of course, right about Ocasio-Cortez. However, the fact of the matter is that she, Trump, and Miller, aren’t too big on Adam Smith, either—or for that matter The Federalist Papers, or else they wouldn’t show so much contempt for the checks-and-balances that the founders enshrined. They wouldn’t know the Wealth of Nations from Das Kapital if Jesus himself appeared on her show and read it to them. Indeed, Trump’s entire mercantilist-restrictionist agenda is a giant middle finger to Smith’s carefully articulated case for free trade and free immigration in the Wealth of Nations. Trump’s stupid attack on America’s “trade deficit” or what Smith called, “the strong Jealousy with regard to the balance of trade,” is exactly what his magnum opus was debunking.

The reality is that Trump’s scheme to enrich American workers by limiting trade and immigration is more in line with Marx, given that Marx was perhaps the only major political economist of any political persuasion post-Smith to bad mouth immigration.

Marx regarded England’s decision to absorb the “surplus” Irishmen being driven out of their country during the Great Famine not as a benefit but a ploy by the English bourgeoisie to “force down wages and lower the material and moral position of the English working class.” Trump and Miller’s protestations that Third World immigration will “immiserate” the American worker has its genesis in Marxist thought. And their efforts to do an end-run around Congress to implement their anti-immigration agenda are a slap on the face of the Founders.

So if Ingraham wants to restore respect for Smith and the founders of this country, she may want to begin by holding Trump and Miller accountable for their anti-American machinations. Then she should put down her copy of Das Kapital and crack open the Wealth of Nations and The Federalist Papers.