Transatlantic Politics

If anyone needs further proof of the fallacy of America's "War on Drugs", a study published on Monday by Jon Gettman, who has a Ph.D. in public policy from George Mason University and publishes extensively on the pot business, finds that marijuana in America is a $113 billion annual business that costs taxpayers $41.8 billion in enforcement costs and lost tax revenues annually.  $41 billion dollars would go a long way (even for America's fiscal basket case of a federal government).  Plus, it would make sense in "the land of the free", would it not?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Gary Kasparov, the man who was a world chess champion for 15 years in a row is trying now to checkmate Vladimir Putin in politics. Wishful thinking? A mirage of the West projected onto Russia? Maybe. Leader of the opposition movement "The Other Russia", Mr. Kasparov admits quite sincerely: "We are not trying to win the elections, we are trying to have elections!"

A guest of honor at the European Ideas Network in Warsaw last week, Mr. Kasparov made some worrying statements:

Putin doesn't run a country, he runs a corporation. He is the ugliest mixture of Karl Marx and Adam Smith. He is not interested in restoring Russia's influence, he's just interested in Gazprom's and Rosneft's influence. Actually, Putin is destroying the Russian state. If we look at the functions of the state, they are gradually transferred to the state companies: Now the Duma voted that Gazprom and Rosneft can have its own armies. These so-called state companies are run by Putin and his KGB-buddies - him being a sort of "capo di tutti capi."  And for those doing business with KGB Inc., I  remind them that the KGB shareholders are very active shareholders.

In Kasparov's view, the main goal of Russian foreign policy is to raise the price of oil, no matter what - that's why the tensions in the Middle East are so important to Putin:

Selling nuclear technology to Iran is good - you get money and create tensions - selling missiles to Hezbollah through Syria serves the same purpose. North Koreea causes trouble? Excellent! In Putin's view, everything that will raise the oil price is good. But oil money is the main sponsor of terrorism. If we look at a map of the world, most of the dictatorships are based on oil.

Although he admits that the current opposition parties stand no chance in even getting registered for the upcoming parliamentary elections, not to mention the presidential ones, Kasparov seems confident that the Putin regime will collapse before 2012.

 If the price of oil falls under 50 dollars a barrel, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to predict that the regime will fall. But even if the price of oil stays high, the regime will collapse. The problem with this regime is that the oil money disappears, you can't find it in Russian banks or investments. You can find it anywhere from Riga til London, but not in Russia. The Russian banking system is shaky, the infrastructure is old and rusty, from Soviet times, pipelines need investments badly, but nothing of this sort is being done. Inevitably, this will lead to a political crisis. Even if Putin puts his man in charge for four or less years, the balance will be disturbed and there will be massive fighting among the different groups. And the fear of the rich and powerful can be transformed into a dynamic energy which could topple the regime.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The complacency of EU institutions regarding property rights in Eastern European countries cements the post-communist oligarchy, argues Karl Peter Schwarz, journalist at Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, in a speech held at the European Ressource Bank in Bucharest on September 14.

There is no doubt that the communists robbed properties, killed the owners or put them in prisons, annihilated a whole class and thus violently destroyed the spontaneous order of the free market society. The only way to address this injustice after the failure of their bloody social experiment would have been the restitution of the stolen property to the legitimate owners or their heirs, a real and fair restitution, with no restrictions, regardless of nationality, ethnicity, language or religion. Eleven years ago, the Council of Europe adopted a resolution (no. 1096) and warned against the dangers of a failed transition process:

At best, oligarchy will reign instead of democracy, corruption instead of the rule of law and organized crime instead of human rights. At worst, the result could be the "velvet restoring" of a totalitarian regime, if not a violent overthrow of democracy. In the worst case, the new undemocratic regime of a bigger country can also present an international danger for its weaker neighbors.

Regarding restitution, the Council of Europe advised

that property, including that of churches, which was illegally or unjustly seized by the state, nationalized, confiscated or otherwise expropriated during the communist totalitarian regimes in principle be restituted to its original owners in integrum, if possible, without violating the rights of current owners who acquired the property in good faith or the rights of tenants who rented the property in good faith, an without harming the progress of democratic reforms. In cases where this is not possible, fair compensations should be given.

Unfortunately, this didn't happen, or it happened only partially. 

The European Union has no problem with this: it excluded the monitoring of property and restitution legislation from the political criteria imposed to EU candidate countries. The denial or restriction of restitution leads to several negative consequences. If you don't give back the property to the legitimate owner or their heirs, you make way for greedy former communists who try to compensate their loss of political power with economic dominance. This contributes to the lasting power of the communist establishment in post-communist countries, which distorts competition and allows corruption and graft to flourish. 

Yes, there is no more communism, but the communists are still in power. Sometimes they call themselves socialists, or social-democrats, sometimes liberals or even conservatives. In the meantime the old communist ties between state and companies have been inverted. Before, it was the party and the state which controlled and captured the economy. Now, the network of oligarchs captures and controls the state, the government and the political parties. This is one of the real successes of graft and corruption, the second being of course Big Government.

Post-communist oligarchies represent a collective security risk as well. They can be used and they are being used by a foreign power which tries to regain the influence it once had in this part of Europe. The old communist networks are the natural partner of this foreign power. We have witnessed these days how a Romanian oligarch sold an oil company to the state-run energy company of a foreign state. (see also Kazakhstan sets foot in the EU and Who is behind KazMunayGaz?) What happened was the re-nationalization of the oil company, the only difference from the communist era being that this time, ownership was given to a foreign state. 

Last but not least, the denial of property rights to the legitimate owners undermines the legal order and the rule of law. In order not to give back stolen property, the state does not hesitate to manipulate and undermine the legal order. The government interferes in court proceedings, falsifies documents, controls and puts plaintiffs and lawyers under surveillance. All this doesn't bother the EU institutions, which cover these crimes with a veil of silence. Whoever acknowledges that liberty reigns only in a society where no one's property is molested, violated or taken over by someone else, will understand that the battle for private property rights and the rule of law is all but won in the European Union.

Karl Peter Schwarz offers several examples form the Czech Republic, among which the most prominent is that of Prince Kinsky. Born in 1936, the prince was a child when he inherited the fortune of his family. His father died in 1938, his mother emigrated in 1940 to Argentina, with all her children. Among her papers, after she died, Prince Kinsky found his Czechoslovak passport, based on which his Czech citizenship was re-confirmed. 

The first 5 of 157 claims were successful. The Czech Civil courts confirmed in 2003 that the state had assumed ownership with no legal grounds. Then the socialist Minister of Culture rang the alarm. Politicians from all political parties got together to debate what to do in order to avoid the misuse of what they called "a few formal discrepancies". The Government created a 30 man Special Unit, named "Majetek" (Property) to block all property claims. This specialized police unit focusing on aristocratic restitution investigation asked the intelligence service in 2004 to collect evidence in Austrian and German archives against prince Kinsky. Czech police wiretapped in 2004 not only Frantisek Kinsky, but also lawyer Jaroslaw Capek and recorded the calls between Kinsky and his lawyer, which are considered inviolable. A Czech court approved the wiretapping.  In the meantime the Parliament passed a so-called Kinsky law which enables the state to interfere in ongoing court proceedings with restitution plaintiffs, who are so rude to request properties from municipalities. Now the municipalities get legal aid payed from public funds, something the other party doesn't have the right to. Needless to say, the Czech Republic doesn't have a legal basis in order to allow free legal aid for those who cannot afford to fight for their civil rights. It is therefore an obvious discrimination of individuals and an act of favoritism towards state entities.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

It is time to quit squabbling about who will get the most financial aid, who will get the most pork, who will get the most benefits from governmental redistributions of wealth, or what the treasury or the taxpayers should do next to make our lives "happier."   It is time to engage in serious discussions about whether the US government is doing what it is constitutionally required to do.  To have such a discussion, it is best to start with the language of the Constitution.  I would like to see us begin the discussion with a look at Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution:

US Constitution, Article IV, Section 4:  The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Now, with this definition in mind, I present two easily-answered questions when posed within the framework of the US Constitution:

• Test question #1:  Is the Federal Government protecting the States against invasion?  Compare and contrast the viewpoints of the citizens of Oregon and North Dakota to the viewpoints of the citizens of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, whose states are experiencing an invasion of illegal immigrants.
• Test question #2:  To quell domestic violence in the aftermath of Katrina: the National Guard and federal troops should have been deployed in New Orleans:
• (a) as soon as a federal official thought it prudent, or
• (b) at such time as the New York Times would later assert, after applying biased 20-20 hindsight, was the time when the federal government should have acted, or
• (c) upon application from the Louisiana legislature, or
• (d) upon application from the Governor of Louisiana?

If you missed any of the questions above, I would suggest studying the US Constitution and then following my easy four-step plan: read, appreciate, understand, & apply.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Somehow we have equated permissive inaction with "making laws which establish religion".  Is the phrase, "Separation of Church and State," anywhere in this, the first article of the Bill of Rights?  Even more interesting, is there any language in this article which says that religious messages (Ten Commandments) or religious displays (manger scenes) or religious activity (praying) is not permissible on public property?

US Constitution, Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The politically correct position regarding religion is obscene for its blatant obfuscation and sophistry. Am I the only one who finds it at least curious, if not infuriating, that when trying to identify and define pornography, the Supreme Court applies the following standard (from Miller v. California):

"Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest . . ."

But when defining impermissible religious action there is no such requirement for applying contemporary community standards.  Thus, the standard for the impermissible establishment of religion in Knoxville and Birmingham is the same as in San Francisco, Seattle, and Manhattan.

I submit that we now have a government which is anti-religion and, at the direction and guidance of the ACLU, is actively engaged in and making laws "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  Why is this not in the public discourse and debate?  Where is the leadership from an elected official?  One Alabama judge tried to lead, and paid a heavy personal price when The People refused to defend their rights.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!