TheAgitator.com
With Us or Against Us, II
Friday, December 12th, 2003Lots of you were pretty critical of me for criticizing the Bush policy of not awarding contracts to countries who didn’t support the war.
I’m not convinced. First, the government is not a private employer, and pretending it is doesn’t make it so. Things change when government is calling the shots.
For example, most libertarians believe private firms should be able to hire and fire at will, for any criteria whatsoever. If I only want to hire white people, or black people, that ought to be my prerogative. Let markets and consumers punish me for those decisions, not bureaucrats. But most libertarians I know would also argue that if the governmen must be an employer, it ought to do its own hiring and firing based on merit and merit alone. Everyone ought to have access to any job that’s funded by the taxpayers.
Same goes with government contracts. The U.S. government owes it to U.S. citizens to be sure our rebuliding-Iraq tax dollars are being spent efficiently, that we’re finding the best combination of frugality and quality when awarding these contracts, and that they’re not being awarded to settle political scores and grudges, or to reward cronies in the industry. When you don’t have to compete for the job, when there’s no danger of another firm bumping you off should you screw up, you tend to feel a little more free to take liberties such as, for example, charging U.S. taxpayers twice the going rate for fuel.
If there’s a German firm that’s willing to do the same reconstruction job and not double-bill us for fuel as Kellog did, are we really saying we’d rather go with Kellog because Kellog supported the war, and Germany didn’t it?
Is it really fair to punish a corporation because it happened to have incorporated 10 or 20 or 100 years ago in a country whose foreign policy we don’t like?
And how is this philosophically different than, say, economic sanctions against regimes we don’t like (which most libertarians also oppose)?
The idea that those who supported this war are able to force those of us who opposed it to pay not only for the war, but also for the decades-long reconstruction is bad enough. But I can accept that. I can’t accept that we’re now forced to pay more than market value for that reconstruction so that the Pentagon can settle petty scores with the countries who didn’t sufficiently cheerlead the effort.
No less war boosters than William Kristol and Robert Kagan are able to see the light, here, gang.
Radley, you might want to check for an unclosed italics tag in this post.
From the article, “A deviously smart American administration would have quietly distributed contracts for rebuilding Iraq as it saw fit…”
And then Bush-haters would have accused him having those whom he awards contracts to in his back-pocket.
It’s better to do something like that in public or people tend to be suspicious.
And btw, the Kellogg/Halliburton deal is not complete. Don’t jump just yet.
“If there’s a German firm that’s willing to do the same reconstruction job and not double-bill us for fuel as Kellog did, are we really saying we’d rather go with Kellog because Kellog supported the war, and Germany didn’t it?”
I think that’s the exact point everyone was trying to make Radley.
US based companies paid for the war through tax dollars; French and German companies did not. As a libertarian and one who speaks against the unfair tax burden in the US you should know this. These other nations are attempting to capitalize on the hard work of Americans and get a free ride.
And I can tell you that the main reason why any French or German company would be able to under bid an American company is because their profits are being subsided by their backward socialist governments. It’s real easy not to be subject to the laws of economics when your profits are being inflated by socialists. In a way, comparing the contracts of American companies and French/German companies is like comparing apples to oranges.
To the hardworker goes the spoils and not to the person who sits on their butts is definitely a libertarian principle.
And if our tax dollars are paying Kellogg, doesn’t that mean that Americans are getting paid and jobs are available to Americans? I would rather it be this way than the other.
If you were talking about American companies being excluded, I could sympathize. But these are FOREIGN companies. We have no obligation to protect thier rights to bid. You are also trying to compartmentalize the government.
“The U.S. government owes it to U.S. citizens to be sure our rebuliding-Iraq tax dollars are being spent efficiently, that we’re finding the best combination of frugality and quality when awarding these contracts, and that they’re not being awarded to settle political scores and grudges, or to reward cronies in the industry.”
They also have a responsibility to handle foreign policy. I see mixing the two as appropriate in this instance.
“Lots of you were pretty critical of me for criticizing the Bush policy of not awarding contracts to countries who didn’t support the war.
I’m not convinced. ”
No disrespect intended, Radley, but it doesn’t surprise me that you were unconvinced by the arguments posted in the original comments section.
I don’t recall any instance in the past where debate has changed your mind about ANY subject.
In fairness, though, I’ve only been reading you for the last couple of years…
Halliburton has 58 offshore tax haven facilities and uses foreign labor in Iraq. I’m not quite sure how that qualifies as “jobs available to Americans” but what do I know?
If the French can make better use of my tax dollars than Bermudian corporations like Halliburton, I have no issue at all.
Narrow mindedness does nothing for capitalism or freedom.
The Agitator: First, the government is not a private employer, and pretending it is doesn’t make it so.
Pretending that the â??governmentâ? is not â??We the Peopleâ? in reality, does not make it so either.
The Agitator: Things change when government is calling the shots.
Analogous to saying Things change when â??We the Peopleâ? (as opposed to Radley Balko?) call the shots.
The Agitator: For example, most libertarians believe private firms should be able to hire and fire at will, for any criteria whatsoever.
Agreed.
The Agitator: If I only want to hire white people, or black people, that ought to be my prerogative. Let markets and consumers punish me for those decisions, not bureaucrats. But most libertarians I know would also argue that if the government must be an employer, it ought to do its own hiring and firing based on merit and merit alone. Everyone ought to have access to any job that’s funded by the taxpayers.
What do you mean precisely by â??ANYONEâ?? If an individual rapes and murders your Wife, Sister, or Mother, but that Individual is also the best person for some specific job, are you asserting that we shouldnâ??t punish this rapist murderer because it will damage our collective pocketbooks?
Is my economic prosperity more important than your Wife/Sister/Mother and Justice?
Murderer/Rapist ought to have access to any job that’s funded by the taxpayers???
The Agitator: Same goes with government contracts.
Donâ??t you mean: Same goes with contracts offered by â??We the Peopleâ??
The Agitator: The U.S. government owes it to U.S. citizens to be sure our rebuliding-Iraq tax dollars are being spent efficiently, that we’re finding the best combination of frugality and quality when awarding these contracts, and that they’re not being awarded to settle political scores and grudges, or to reward cronies in the industry.
â??We the Peopleâ? owe it to â??We the Peopleâ? (i.e. We owe it to Ourselves) to be sure our rebuliding-Iraq tax dollars are being spent efficiently, that we’re finding the best combination of frugality and quality when awarding these contracts, and that they’re not being awarded to settle political scores and grudges, or to reward cronies in the industry.
In other words, we need to turn the other cheek, and forget the past because if we start behaving like there are consequences for past actions, then it will put a serious dent in our efforts to pretend that there are no consequences for past actions.
And as any sensible Ayn Rand-fearing Libertarian knows the existence of â??free willâ? (i.e. the absence of consequences for actions (denial of the past)) is â??axiomaticâ?.
The Agitator: When you don’t have to compete for the job, when there’s no danger of another firm bumping you off should you screw up, you tend to feel a little more free to take liberties such as, for example, charging U.S. taxpayers twice the going rate for fuel.
Right, because if a rapist/murderer is the most qualified person to pave our roads it is ludicrous (insane) to put him in â??prisonâ? and prevent him from doing the work. Why should the rest of us have to put up with sub-standard work just because your Mother/Wife/Sister was raped and murdered? Obviously your Mother/Wife/Sister must have wanted to be raped and murdered otherwise they would have used their â??free willâ? to prevent it.
It is the same with France and the Iraq-reconstruction. Obviously without the help of the French we might as well just pick up all of our toys and go home, because we are completely and utterly lost without the unparalleled skill and expertise of the effete French.
The Agitator: If there’s a German firm that’s willing to do the same reconstruction job and not double-bill us for fuel as Kellog did, are we really saying we’d rather go with Kellog because Kellog supported the war, and Germany didn’t it?
So you are saying that if we discover one of the contractors is actually a thief, the best place to go looking for a replacement is in the prison? There is no other company that can do what Kellog does other than in France, Russia, or Germany?
The Agitator: Is it really fair to punish a corporation because it happened to have incorporated 10 or 20 or 100 years ago in a country whose foreign policy we don’t like?
Is it really fair to punish an Individual who grew up in a house with no father and an abusive alcoholic for a mother, just because we donâ??t like that individuals policy of raping our women and murdering our fellow honest citizens???
The Agitator: And how is this philosophically different than, say, economic sanctions against regimes we don’t like (which most libertarians also oppose)?
And how is this philosophically different than, say, economic sanctions against convicted criminals we don’t like because they rape our women and murder our fellow honest citizens? (which most libertarians donâ??t actually oppose, you see real libertarians actually believe that Individuals or groups of Individuals (i.e. Countries) are responsible for their actions).
The Agitator: The idea that those who supported this war are able to force those of us who opposed it to pay not only for the war, but also for the decades-long reconstruction is bad enough. But I can accept that. I can’t accept that we’re now forced to pay more than market value for that reconstruction so that the Pentagon can settle petty scores with the countries who didn’t sufficiently cheerlead the effort.
Where:
â??didnâ??t sufficiently cheerlead the effortâ? = â??Put up, or shut upâ? = â??Lead, Follow, or Get out of the way!â?
The Agitator: No less war boosters than William Kristol and Robert Kagan are able to see the light, here, gang.
Where:
Light = Darkness?
In at least one example, Halliburton is sub-contracting to a Pakistani firm which pays its foreign (non-Iraqi) workers about $3 a day. Should we speculate whether they’re profiting off of this?
Let’s not kid ourselves about what’s really happening here. Politically-connected companies are being awarded lucrative contracts at taxpayer expense and then they are raking us over the coals. It’s not creating American jobs. It’s not cost-effective. And the people who are supposed to be accountable to the public are unrepentent.
Not freedom. Not capitalism.
In at least one example, Halliburton is sub-contracting to a Pakistani firm which pays its foreign (non-Iraqi) workers about $3 a day. Should we speculate whether they’re profiting off of this?
Let’s not kid ourselves about what’s really happening here. Politically-connected companies are being awarded lucrative contracts at taxpayer expense and then they are raking us over the coals. It’s not creating American jobs. It’s not cost-effective. And the people who are supposed to be accountable to the public are unrepentent.
Not freedom. Not capitalism.
Dang it serpent, you spin me right round baby right round like a record baby right round round round… sorry, I needed some levity.
To you, Serpent, what is light and what is dark? Do you think they’re axiomatic or subject to perspective?
Serpent-
Do convicted felons in the US forego rights/protections given by the Constitution?
If I am paying a company X dollars to do work I was contracted to do, and they only pay their employees X-Y to actually do the work, then who’s turning the profit, me or the company I subcontracted? I guess the question would be how much was I paid as the contractor to begin with and how much X is, but still it seems to me that the Pakistani firm would be making the profit.
ANNND the Pakistani employees are probably not complaining about $3 a day since that’s probably what they normally make in a month.
That’s what you call American arrogance.
Ms. Dani: what is light and what is dark? Do you think they’re axiomatic or subject to perspective?
I assume you are talking in general, not specifically in reference to the supreme court?
In my mind, whether or not it is axiomatic depends on oneâ??s level of self-awareness (or â??self perceptionâ? as you might say). As for it being â??subject to perspectiveâ? (Subjective), I would say that ultimately it is an Objective criteria.
Light = Good
Darkness = Evil
The Forces of Light are all of the entities that are ultimately compatible with other entities. They will never knowingly initiate harm.
The Legion of Darkness is all the rest, all of the entities who are ultimately incompatible with other entities. The reason they are incompatible is because their sense of ultimate benefit (their ultimate purpose) depends upon (requires that) other entities be harmed in order to be fulfilled.
I think I keep using perspective when I mean to use perception… oops
Frank N.: Do convicted felons in the US forego rights/protections given by the Constitution?
I think it is pretty obvious they lose some of their rights.
But obviously they are still human beings (Individuals) in some sense as well.
My point was that the Pakistani subcontractor is making a profit. Halliburton (an intentionally un-American corporation which takes advantage of its close ties with the Bush Administration) is making a profit. Assuming that the foreign lackies are happy with $3 a day (which the defecting Iraqi soldiers clearly aren’t), there are a bunch of people making some gravy here WHO AREN’T AMERICANS.
I don’t know about you, but to me, Pakistan isn’t what I’d call a friend of America. In fact, I’d wager that the average Pakistani holds more contempt for Americans than the average Frenchman. But seeing that their leader stands to personally profit from his relationship with George W. Bush, we somehow assume that “Pakistan” (i.e. Mussharraf) is a friend of “America” (i.e. Bush).
There’s no moral clarity here. There’s no free enterprise here. A handful of people in control of public wealth are making deals between one another and the best we can do is vote them out of office or — more likely — embarrass them before the public they claim to serve.
you betcha…they are no longer free citizens of the US, they have no “right” to a job because they are more qualified or will do the work cheaper…as a matter of fact the Constitution allows the ’state’ to imprison the convicted individual, disallowing those very ‘rights’…
Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Someone may have made this point, many of the above comments are long. However, one reason Bush excluded France, Germany, and Russia is to give himself a bargaining chip in negotiating loan forgiveness for Iraq. He has already hinted to those countries that he is open to changing the policy if they are generous in forgiving the large debts owed them by Iraq. This seems to me basic negotiation technique he probably learned in the first few weeks of his MBA program.
I think people here are missing the point. The reason Bush did this was to pressure Germany, France, and Russia to forgive the debts owed to them by Iraq. If there’s anything a libertarian should know, it’s that the apparent reason for action by a politican is rarely the real reason.
Radley, your implication that Haliburton was over charging for gas is completely incorrect. While Haliburton _has_ been charging more for gas delivered from Kuwait that for gas delivered from Turkey, the price difference is due to the different rates charged by it’s suppliers, not because it’s been pocketing an oversized profit:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/11/sprj.irq.halliburton/index.html
To Hell With Them
Radley Balko over at the Agitator makes a very persuasive libertarian case for opening contracts to everyone. From a market perspective, he’s right. His argument is here. This is where I break off from my normal free market leanings. We have a pool of …
I think you are right on on this one, Radley. The US Goverment should ONLY be concerned with getting the most value out of the taxpayer dollers it spends in Iraq. If a french company can do a better job with less money, then they should get the job.
It’s corrupt for the Goverment to use that money for patronage purposes.
Of course, It seems to me that to the extent that you can spend the money using an Iraqi labor force, and Iraqi materials, it does double duty. So that probably ought to be the priority whenever possible.
Bravo, Radley, bravo.
This is great! People who believe in free markets getting behind the idea that companies from France and Germany–which are far more socialist than the USA–should get equal bidding on these contracts. Don’t even come out and start proclaiming “Free Markets! Free Capitalism!” with that kind of position. You want to talk about subsided companies and money corruption between governments and corporations….work and live in freaking Europe for awhile.
What a hoot! This is the best entertainment I have had in a long time! Somebody pass the popcorn…
There are two issues being debated here: Haliburton’s deal and the barring of companies from countries like France and Germany from receiving contracts flowing from the Iraqi reconstruction.
In terms of Haliburton, it seems like there’s a degree of double standards being used here as concerns business ethics. In the private market Andersen:Enron scandal, the prime problem was tied to several factors. Lack of appearance of and actual independence, lack of objectivity and conflicts of interest even appearing to stretch back to the Federal Government. Those standards that are applied to private firms do not seem to be regarded for Haliburton due in part to the extensive links between it and senior government figures.
Moderate libertarian philosophy itself calls for a limited state and separation of it from interest groups that both promote socialist objectives, as well as business interests that promote ‘rent-seeking’ – the currying of economic protection and favour against free market objectives. Haliburton falls into this category.
So in terms of Haliburton, their own behaviour and involvement is inherently not free market. The allegations and reports are then symptoms of the well documented and often repeated trait of rent-seeking and political corruption that is an inherent risk in all government contracts. Haliburton therefore should never have been involved in these contract in any regard, in the same way that several sectors of private economies are either required by law or private policy to avoid wanton nepotism. Nepotism that then feeds back to destroy the free market ideal and efficient government.
In terms of the barring of companies from France and Germany from bidding several people have argued about over-subsidizing of those companies by those governments. Essentially what I understand rankles most is a perception of the French and German governments having taken a morally idealistic stance on the war (while actually having ulterior political motives), and then sitting back and reaping profits from US lives and taxpayer expense on the war with Iraq.
When it comes to awarding of these government contracts, the example of Haliburton demonstrates a need for the awarding to be properly regulated to prevent corruption. This can include inserting stipulations that companies receiving these contracts must not receive any government subsidies, before or after, or carry either a perceived or actual lack of indepence from governments to qualify. This is after all a great aid to libertarian principles of forcing the Federal State to be more efficient as well as promoting proper competition in these contracts – which then benefits taxpayers. It would also allay concerns about ‘immoral’ French or German officials and prominent personalities unfairly profiting on the blood of US soldiers and the taxes of US citizens.
The problem is whether many of the countries whose companies that are allowed to bid, would qualify either based on this. It is after all not just France or Germany that supply socialistic support to their companies after all, but includes those countries allowed to bid as well. It would also be richly ironic if such governments attempt to subsidize these firms with, say, $51 million, to win a $50 million contract where there is very little profit margin and high risk of loss. That is then the destruction of value, a well known flaw of socialism I’m sure that is known by many here. This is tied to the philosophy of how the free market and free trade leads to prosperity and the above opposite destroys it.
French and German companies that are therefore distinct and fully independent from their government should therefore be able to compete – as it should apply to those already allowed to bid. Further, nations, peoples and companies are not one homogenous mass – it is socialistic policy that sees it this way and those companies that are independent did not necessarily vote for or win political power on the back of encouraging anti-American feeling. The primary concern should therefore be how wasteful those firms that are competing for the contracts are, which is tied to the above.
So in conclusion, the US shouldn’t entirely exclude German, French, Russian or Chinese companies from the process. However it should bar those with links to their governments regardless of the matter of Iraq itself – the same as it should do with its own companies and those of its allies – and as it should have done with Haliburton.
Then again, as others have also suggested, perhaps a wider political gambit is under way.
Um, most of the major French companies that would be involved are partly or wholly owned by the French government. So by denying them contracts you are directly affecting the government. I am not sure but I believe that Germany is less interventionalist and less of a shareholder in its major companies than the French.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to take this into account when handing out contracts. Wayne is correct in his assertions.
Well said, Wayne.
With regards to the “double-billing” for fuel: apparently you missed that this fuel was delivered by Kellog to the military in war-zones. I don’t know what price increase is justified by this fact, but it sounds pretty fair to charge significantly more money to provide fuel in an area where bullets and rockets are flying. You can’t just look at the price independent of the context and conclude (or imply) that cronyism is at work.
Wayne, you are definately on to something there but you will be hard pressed, I believe, in finding companies based in Germany and France that are not under the government’s socialist thumb. If there are, then let them in. But if they start coming up with figures for contracts that are way off the mark then they really need to be looked at closer.
An intelligent Christmas
I would like to remember you that for Christmas make an intelligent present is mandatory.
I would like to remember you that your company may grow up if you promote it doing something good for all.
By the way instead of making silly presents or nothing at all, you can help people spend only few money buying presents in good ethical products made by people of poor countries.
By the way instead of giving a diamond to your wife you can give a surgical operation to a child that absolutely needs it, or a year of scholastic education to a whole children class in India or Africa.
I give you one of the many possible chances that I like, whith no intermediates and wastes: just go to the site of The Shantidhara Social Servcice Society, (click here
http://www.shantidhara.org/) and let you give a school to thousands children with a small donation;
they are used to do everything with only few money.
Here many other ways to start immediately and be useful to everyone: http://www.liberaassociazioneilpopolo.it/inglese/attivazioneimmediata.html
I know problably you know and do these things, but don’t be afraid to talk about it with your friends!
So do your own act; because it’s easy to talk to stop wars, but where you don’t sow love, there is only hate that grows up.
Domenico Schietti
2010 Poverty Elimination
http://www.liberaassociazioneilpopolo.it/
Was that a spammed charity-mercial or what? Anyway, some things should be earned; Bush did the right thing. No pay-in, no pay-out.
This money should either be given to American companies, as we are the ones footing the bill…or another option would be to upstart some Iraqi companies to do the work. I can’t support that though, knowing that it is our money, and shouldn’t be spent in the first place.
I really like the “upstart Iraqi companies” idea… wouldn’t that be a great way to encourage democracy and capitalism and to soften anti-American sentiment among people in the region and around the world who think we are there to take over Iraq?
I like this: “If there’s anything a libertarian should know, it’s that the apparent reason for action by a politican is rarely the real reason.” I’ve been wanting to say this forever but couldn’t put it into words, thanks!
In other words, just because someone walks out of a bank holding cash in his/her hand, doesn’t mean he/she just robbed the bank.
Has anyone forgotten that before we retook Iraq that it had been dicovered that Germany and France had been doing business with Iraq, dispite UN tarde Sanctions to the contrary! They were members who voted for the sanctions!! Hello!?! The fucks were using the trade embargo as a means to secure exclusive trade relations with a country they had agreed to sanction!! Screw France and Germany; they are just reaping what they have sown…………….socialist pricks!
“The U.S. government owes it to U.S. citizens to be sure our rebuliding-Iraq tax dollars are being spent efficiently, that we’re finding the best combination of frugality and quality when awarding these contracts, and that they’re not being awarded to settle political scores and grudges, or to reward cronies in the industry.”
Why?
I thought the idea of a republic was that representatives were supposed to do as they saw fit and then voters could turn them out at their discretion.
John Kennedy: I thought the idea of a republic was that representatives were supposed to do as they saw fit and then voters could turn them out at their discretion.
Your problem is you have yet to provide a superior alternative which is empirically verifiable.
Unless:
Empirically Verifiable = Based entirely on Faith
France, by opposing us and giving succor to our enemy (in this case, Saddam), actively cost us money and lives. They reportedly actively encouraged Saddam to resist us and the U.N. demands, telling him that we would not actually attack. France cost us by their lack of support, and should not be rewarded for those actions. At the same time, those countries that did support us deserve something for their help.
The suggestion that past actions should not have consequences in the present (it’s just not FAIR!) is a mutation of Moral Relativism: “They didn’t do anything wrong in any real sense; that’s just our opinion, and thus not a valid basis for discussion.”