Re: "Islamists Know a Western Civilization Secret: ‘Progress’ Makes Religion Decline"

At Pajamas Media, there was a discussion of the causes of terrorism (here).  My observation with one response were as follows:

"Religious reformations do not produce societal change. Societal change, specifically economic change, produces religious reformation. 

With sufficient economic freedom, men will be too busy making money to spend time at the mosque. Daughters will be sent to school because it will enable them to provide their parents with a comfortable retirement. Business will provide the sense of personal success that Islam promised, but didn’t deliver.

People who drive Mercedes and vacation in the south of France don’t dream of martyrdom."

JD Will - "Hmmm. Didn’t I see some photo’s of the Bin Laden family on vacation in Europe (Switzerland, I think)?"

 
"You are mistaking wealth for economic freedom.

Religious extremism fills a psychological need for a sense of meaning and pride. Wealth can not substitute to fill that void, but the achievement of wealth often can. If you feel that you are a failure in life and are ashamed, winning the lottery will not give you a sense of personal pride. Hard work that results in wealth can be a source of pride in accomplishment. 

This is why the oil wealth of the gulf has increased religious extremism. Riches fall from the sky, but it comes with no pride in accomplishment. Therefore attainment of wealth is discredited as an option for personal fulfillment and people turn to religious fundamentalism as the only remaining option.

As for the case of the Scottish doctors; this is the danger of a class centric society. When economic success is not rewarded with increased social standing, people will turn to other means. This is why Muslim Americans are less radical than European Muslims of equal wealth. In America, hard work is rewarded with increased social prestige.

The common theme is that it is not the wealth itself that inhibits religious extremism, but the psychological and social effects of attaining it that matter.

When you are proud of your accomplishments, and you have the admiration of your society, you will not need martyrdom. Economics is only a convenient arena for that success."

Re: "Pence & Hensarling: Time for a Spending Cap With Teeth"

At the blog LibertyPundits, there is a short article (here) about a proposed constitutional amendment to limit federal spending.  A brief quote:

"As with other constitutional amendments, Congress would be given the authority to enforce and implement it. But for the first time, the federal government would have a limit on its size and scope."

My comment there was:

"Congress can "enforce and implement" other amendments because they are enforced and implemented against others, not against itself. If Congress is left as its own watchdog, it will exhibit exactly the same amount of restraint that it would show in the absence of the amendment.

The Founders knew that only the balancing of powers against each other have the ability to restrain government. An amendment as described would be the equivalent of having Congress be the arbiter of the constitutionality of its own acts."

I thought it was an important enough criticism that it should be documented here.

Regulatory Taking

Under Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992), the Supreme Court established the total takings test. This means that if government regulation deprives an owner of all economically beneficial use, a taking has occurred and just compensation must be provided.

Justice Stevens in dissent argued against requiring compensation for such government action, but in doing so inadvertently made a persuasive argument in favor of requiring compensation for lesser restrictions of property rights.

"The new rule created by the court is arbitrary because a landowner whose property is diminished in value 95% recovers nothing while an owner whose property is diminished 100% recovers the land’s full value."

Justice Stevens was right in principle, if not in intent. When government substantially restricts the use of private property through regulation, it takes from the owner a portion of the value of that property and should be subject to just compensation under the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.

If this principle were to be applied through judicial construction or constitutional amendment, government regulations that have only incidental negative impact on property owners would not be affected. However, if government wanted to impose a regulation that did remove a substantial ownership interest, or imposed a substantial cost, it would be recognized as a partial taking and would require just compensation.

The practical effect would be that the EPA could restrict carbon dioxide emissions all it wanted, but only by purchasing the right to emit from property owners at fair market value. More broadly applied, it would be a powerful bulwark against expansion of the regulatory state by limiting economic regulation to those things the public was willing to pay for.