Farm subsidies and ecological destruction, how government conservation can be libertarian, and how Obama's energy plan could make it all much worse

I was reading a pretty sad article in the Washington Post about how federal government subsidies are destroying what would otherwise be more-or-less wild prairie lands, and two things in particular stuck out to me: federal ownership and conservation of land might actually be a more libertarian arrangement on net, and that this sort of creeping ecological destruction could get a lot worse with Obama's plans to subsidize non-food biofuels.

Regarding federal lands: the most obvious libertarian position on federal land ownership is that it's a bad idea, though when you consider the bigger picture, Kevin Carson's distinction between atomistic and dialectic libertarianism comes to mind:

Fighting the trend is an array of hunting and conservation groups. The political circumstances in the West have forced them to try to protect the grassland without making it a national park or a federal preserve. "There is still strong resistance in the West to extending federal ownership of land," said Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group.

Scott Stephens, director of conservation planning for Ducks Unlimited, estimates that the Prairie Pothole Region of the Dakotas and Montana could lose an additional 3.3 million acres of native grassland to farming over the next five years if prices stay high and federal policy does not change.

The situation is not ideal – theoretically you'd want to do away with the farm subsidies and the federal ownership, leaving the land's development as an product of its actual productivity – but if federal control will achieve an outcome closer to the free market equilibrium, it's hard to argue that selling the land on the unfree market is a step in the right direction.

Regarding non-food biofuels: this one's a lot scarier. Last month I wrote about an environmental group's warning that non-food biofuels could end up being just as environmentally and economically destructive as corn-based ethanol, and that the definition of "marginal lands" is subjective and prone to exaggeration. And here we have a perfect example of that: this land is land that would not be productive without crop insurance subsidies, because of its inhospitable growing conditions. The WaPo article even uses the same word that the ETC Group told us to look out for: "fragile land that is of marginal use for farming."

These Great Plains climates are exactly the kind that biofuel boosters like Obama intend to use to grow crops like switchgrass. And while switchgrass might be more native to the area than corn and other crops that subsidized farmers are planting now, you can bet that the farming techniques that are eventually used to cultivate the non-food biofuels won't in any way approximate the natural environmental equilibrium or the free market economic equilibrium. The Great Plains might not be the Amazon rainforest, but just because a place looks desolate doesn't mean that it isn't important to the greater ecological balance. I hope that Obama's biofuel investment plan will properly weigh the costs of subsidization of these sorts of non-food fuels against their benefits, though I fear that the chances of this happening are slim to none.

75th anniversary of the end of Prohibition

Today is the 75th anniversary of the repeal of alcohol prohibition in the United States, and lot of libertarians and anti-drug prohibition advocacy groups have taken the opportunity to remind the public of the fundamental sameness of 1920's era alcohol prohibition, and modern day drug prohibition. Radley Balko has an article up at Reason commemorating the day and relating it to our current prohibition, and he makes a point that I hadn't thought of before:

But there's one positive thing we can say alcohol prohibition: At least it was constitutional. The prohibitionists built support for their cause by demonizing alcohol from state to state, winning over local legislators one at a time. When they'd built a sufficient national movement, they started the momentum for a constitutional amendment. Congress didn't pass a blanket federal law, Constitution be damned. They understood that the federal government hasn't the authority to issue a national ban on booze, so they moved to enact the ban properly.

When America repealed prohibition, we repealed it with a constitutional amendment making explicit that the power to regulate alcohol is reserved for the states. Even today, when Congress wants to pass federal alcohol laws (such as the federal drinking age, or the federal minimum blood-alcohol standard for drunk driving), it can't simply dictate policy to the states. Instead, it ties the laws to federal highway funding, a blackmail that while distasteful, at least carries the pretense of adherence to the Constitution.

Contrast that to drug prohibition, where Congress (and the Supreme Court, when it upheld it) made no attempt to comply with the Constitution in passing the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA), the law that gave us the modern drug war.

For more on our modern day war on drugs and why it's so inevitably doomed, I suggest buying and reading Cop in the Hood by Peter Moskos, who joined the Baltimore police force for over a year and wrote a book about what it's like being on the front line of the war on drugs. Basically his conclusion was that the whole thing is a big sham, and that both current techniques and the entire idea of prohibition in general is hopeless. The writing style is very accessible, and I highly recommend the book.

Parallels between Indian and American gun control laws

A few days ago I wrote about how gun control laws hampered Mumbai hotels' ability to properly defend their guests, and not soon after India's business community – led by tech multinational Infosys' chief security office – petitioned the government for the right to bear arms, including automatic weapons. The Indian government's aversion to permitting weapons seems to run so deep that even armed police officers were reluctant to shoot at the Mumbai terrorists.

That got me to thinking about the roots of India's strict gun control laws, which led me to this op-ed by an Indian gun owner, in which he quite eloquently details the colonial roots of modern-day Indian gun control policy. The British were especially vigilant in disarming the natives, and peaceful Gandhi himself said that "history will look upon the [gun control] Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest" of the crimes of the British in India.

The history of gun control in America follows a similar path – after the Civil War, states began enacting laws disarming freed slaves, and as a Reason book review tells it, and the first gun licensing and permitting laws were "passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers... [and] never intended to be applied to the white population," as one Florida judge said at the time.

As with American gun control laws, which are mainly championed today by non-racist mayors of heavily-black urban areas, India has lost the underlying reason for the laws, and yet, the vice is as tight as ever. The malevolent and racist British were replaced with the uncompromising license raj, and the gun controls laws have stuck. Like in the US, where big city mayors advocate gun control despite the laws' obvious failure where they would seem to be needed the most, Indian politicians are trying to prevent a problem that doesn't exist: legal guns being used for illegal purposes. By the late '80s the Indian government was tightening its grip on legal arms markets, banning almost all imports – though as Singh's op-ed points out, black market guns in India are cheaper than legal ones, so there's really no incentive at all for anyone to buy weapons through legal channels. And sure enough, the Mumbai terrorists are reported to have had connections with Mumbai's underworld, and that's supposedly where they got their guns from.

Hopefully this appeal by Mumbai's business community for increased access to arms will break the traditional Indian authoritarian approach to gun control, but judging from the past experience, it doesn't seem likely.

Using eminent domain to blight neighborhoods

The Weekly Standard has a comprehensive and compelling piece of investigative reporting on Columbia University's attempt to acquire 17 acres in the heart of the Manhattanville section, north of its Morningside campus. The tale is a classic example of eminent domain abuse – the university worked hand-in-glove with the government to designate the area as blighted and eligible for eminent domain action, and the university's lawyers pushed the limits of rational argument so far and yet look like they'll probably come out on top.

But perhaps more importantly in this process of acquiring the necessary Manhattanville land on which to build its gleaming new Campus upon a Hill (and under which to build a mammoth garage complex) is not the explicit use of eminent domain, but rather the threat of the land being taken by force. Whereas Columbia's initial land acquisitions before the expansion plans were made public were probably not made under duress, as time went on, Columbia's plans became known, and, as a holdout landlord's leasing agent put it: "At some point along the line, with all of these concerns, the knowledge that Columbia University can or will invoke eminent domain has caused [ground floor retail renters] to seek out alternative space arrangements." This is a phenomenon that affects all negotiations with the government and big institutions like Columbia – and, post–Kelo, even private buyers – and which makes it very difficult to be sure that the owner didn't sell for less than they'd have liked (or, indeed, might not have wanted to sell at any price).

As it is, the land that Columbia has already acquired – 70% of what it wants – is largely vacant and most definitely more "blighted" than the land it wants to buy, however the relevant (and irrelevant) acronymed planning agencies made sure not to recognize any of their own studies that come to that obvious conclusion. So while the school is gathering all the land it wants, the buildings are vacant and the neighborhood is deteriorating. And even once it gets what it wants, the university's own plans admit that they have not decided what they will build on some of the land, meaning even more years of blight.

Unfortunately, the practice of taking land via eminent domain or otherwise restricting use has a long and illustrious history of not working out too well in the end. In the 1926 landmark Supreme Court Case Village of Euclid vs. Ambler Realty Co. that validated zoning codes as constitutional, the justices dismissed as "mere speculation" the plaintiff's argument that the restrictions aimed at keeping out industrial development would lower the property's value. Obviously this mere speculation turned out to be right, because the property didn't find a buyer until some two decades later, when the city relented, and the land has been used for industrial purposes ever since.

In the most recent land use decision handed down by the Supreme Court, Kelo vs. City of New London in 2005, the justices' decision has also shown itself to be clearly detrimental with respect to the specific property in question. Not two years after the would-be developer succeeded in wresting the holdouts' property from them, the proposed development has fallen flat on its face, and there are no plans to develop the vacant properties.

In my own hometown of Bryn Mawr, a suburb of Philadelphia, the eponymous "non-profit" hospital fought a protracted battle to acquire a good chunk of prime surrounding property (which would be even more valuable under the hospital's desired zoning designation), and while it never used eminent domain, the specter of it led people to sell their properties where they otherwise wouldn't have. Unsurprisingly, the Bryn Mawr Hospital's plans for developing the newly-acquired property seem to have stalled. Of the lots, one had a few houses that were turned into a parking lot that was supposed to replace a different parking lot which was to be developed, but that development never materialized, so now instead of a full parking lot and a house, there's a full parking lot and an empty parking lot. The other lot was a block of row homes, some of the few affordable property left in the area, and they were razed to the ground and now an unused grassy field stands in their wake.

But despite the constant disappointments in eminent domain and zoning outcomes, the courts and local governments don't seem to have learned the most fundamental rule of economics: private actors are better at determining the most efficient use of productive inputs than public ones like land use and eminent domain boards.

Government restrictions are the reason that Somali pirates thrive

Two weeks ago I asked why shippers don't hire private security to deal with Somali pirates off the coast of East Africa, and instead spend hundreds of thousands of dollars avoiding the area by taking a different route. I postulated that the reason they didn't was because they were worried they'd lose their subsidies in the form of states' navies securing the high seas if they showed themselves capable of doing the job themselves, but since then I've heard of another, better reason: they're not allowed to properly defend themselves.

Channeling the investigative powers of the internets, Wired finds that shippers don't forgo effective private defense of their cargo for financial reasons, but rather because they're flat-out not allowed to. The Times of London found that it's "almost impossible to carry firearms through Customs and on to vessels in most countries," and so shippers are left defending themselves with increasingly ineffective non-lethal weapons. It also noted that there are security risks to carrying firearms on board a flammable oil tanker, however the founder of a private security company in his blog doesn't buy this excuse, noting that real militaries mix weapons and ammunition and oil all the time. An analyst with another private security firm echoed this sentiment, noting that "the downstream legal implications of hiring private security are really pretty substantial."

And just for a comparison against the quarter- to half-million dollar hit that shipping companies have been taking by avoiding the Somali coast that I mentioned two weeks ago, the half-baked private security solutions involving non-lethal weapons cost at most £12,000 per journey.

Mumbai terrorists took LSD?? Whatever you say, Daily Telegraph!

From the UK's Daily Telegraph comes perhaps the oddest and most unbelievable story to come out of the recent Mumbai terrorist attacks: the terrorists apparently used cocaine, "other stimulants," and LSD during the almost three-day siege. Yeah, you got that last one right – LSD!

It's tough to even begin describing how ridiculous this story is, but I'll try. First of all, the effects of cocaine wear off within an hour or two, making it totally unsuitable for a 60-hour battle with elite commandoes. Second of all, cocaine is rarely injected, as the article claims the terrorists did. And finally, the most ridiculous item: the LSD. Firstly, the hallucinogenic effects would seem to be a severe drain on one's ability to engage in combat. Secondly, an acid trip doesn't last more than ten hours (unless you take a dosage that would absolutely devestate your ability to do anything coherent, forget guerilla-style warfare!). Thirdly, the comedown from LSD is very tiring, and even if the vaguely energizing effects didn't hamper your ability to fight, the post-trip fatigue definitely would. Fourthly, LSD is rarely if ever injected, contrary to the Telegraph's report that "injections" of LSD were found (what the hell does that even mean??). And lastly, hallucinogenic drugs are known to cause severe psychological introspection – the kind that would make it very difficult to kill someone on. If you gave ten hardened terrorists a couple of doses of acid in the heat of a battle, it seems near certain that at least one of them would walk out of the building with their hands on their head and surrender.

This story has got to take the prize for this year's most laughably underinformed newspaper article about illegal drugs. I don't doubt that someone passed this information along to the Telegraph, but they have shown serious disregard for journalistic integrity in not asking the most obvious questions that would cross the mind of anyone vaguely informed about the effects of cocaine and LSD.

Don't blame the trans fats

John Tierney has an interesting article at the NYT about the paradox of supposedly healthier foods inducing people into making unhealthy choices, and how the government can exacerbate this phenomenon. After doing a relatively non-rigorous survey of New Yorkers and non-New Yorkers, researcher Pierre Chandon found that foods with a "trans fat free" label on them were more likely to have their healthiness overestimated by New Yorkers (who were subjected to a recent public debate about trans-fats), whereas those visiting from outside the area were better at guessing the caloric value "of an Applebee’s Oriental Chicken Salad and a 20-ounce cup of regular Pepsi." The results suggest that the NYC government's action against trans fats in restaurants might have done some harm, in that food makers can now exploit the fact that their products don't have trans fats, labeling their food as such and inducing customers into thinking that they're healthier than they really are.

Tierney hints at the inanity of the trans fat ban in the first place, in mentioning that some scientists believe that there are worse ones out there. And whenever I hear debates over particular nutritional elements being good or bad (first it was fats and calories, then carbs, now trans fats, with dozens of fads in between), I think about this NYT Magazine cover story from early 2007 about how little we really know about food, and how it's much more important to follow general guidelines – the kind that you don't need a nutritional analysis for – than to harp on the details.

Oldest marijuana in the world found in northwestern China

Via Slashdot, the Toronto Star has a fact-filled article about the discovery of the oldest known cultivation of cannabis clearly for psychoactive purposes. The stash was found in Xinjiang province in northwestern China, and dated back to about 700 BC. They found 789 grams of smoking-grade weed stored with a "light-haired, blue-eyed Caucasian" male shaman mummy for his journey in the afterlife – about 1.75 pounds, which would be worth at least $5000 on the streets today in the US.

Contrary to the government line (especially popular in Britain, where supposedly ultra-potent "skunk" is the new reefer madness), today's pot is no more potent than in years past, as "the marijuana was found to have a relatively high content of THC," though the sample was too old to get a more accurate reading. And contrary to the latest round of American anti-pot commercials, the tomb where the drugs were found had indications that the man that was buried in it was of "high social standing."

Also, at the end of the article they mention that Xinjiang – where this weed was found – "is considered an original source of many cannabis strains worldwide," though there's no attribution.

Follow-up on Beslan and the FSB

As a follow-up to a post I made about a week ago about Russian security forces' involvement in the Beslan hostage tragedy, someone over at La Russophobe has translated the original Novaya Gazeta article by Ella Kesayeva into English, in which these accusations are made and detailed. The translation is surely not authorized and likely in violation of some sort of intellectual property law, but thank god that laws aren't always enforced, or non-Russian speakers wouldn't have access to this sort of information.

Gun control angle on Mumbai

Via Radley Balko, here's a pretty disturbing paragraph from the WSJ about the recent attacks in Mumbai and India's gun control policies:

At about 9:45 p.m., two gunmen, slender and in their mid-20s, ran up the circular driveway at the entrance to the Trident. They shot the security guard and two bellhops. The hotel had metal detectors, but none of its security personnel carried weapons because of the difficulties in obtaining gun permits from the Indian government, according to the hotel company’s chairman, P.R.S. Oberoi.

Now, it's quite possible that these employees wouldn't have had the time/skill to ward off the attackers with whatever guns they were given, but it's hard to argue that hotel employees carrying guns would have made the situation worse.