Totalitarianism Today
Tuesday, November 5, 2002
WHAT BRAND OF RADICAL DO YOU SUPPORT?
It seems the paleolibertarian question is hotter than ever, as indicated in an email I recieved whcih directed me to this well-expressed piece. I've always found the variance of views within the libertarian community encouraging and fascinating. However, being able to call one's self "this" or "that" does matter in the arena of public discourse, where party affiliation provides public statements with legitmacy. The pragmatic argument for running as a Republican (in the style of Congressman Ron Paul) is an especially powerful one during times of national crisis or war. That said, I still don't know where I stand on this question.
Tuesday, November 5, 2002
REFERENDUMS TO WATCH TODAY
Hubris inclines me to express my own views on the elections and their potential ramifications, while time constrains the extent to which I might be able to do so convincingly or logically. It is certainly exciting that ten women are running in gubernatorial elections, one of which is none other than Massachusetts Libertarian Carla Howell.
As usual, the referendum questions are more interesting than the candidates in most states. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, there will be 202 proposals on state ballots, including 53 resulting from citizen petition drives. The others were drafted by legislators. Noteworthy among these referendums are the following:
1. The South Carolina referendum on state retirement investments promises to be interesting. Technically, the question is as follows: "Must Section 16, Article X of the Constitution of this State relating to benefits and funding of public employee pension plans in this State and the equity securities investments allowed for funds of the various state-operated retirement systems be amended so as to delete the restrictions limiting investments in equity securities to those of American-based corporations registered on an American national exchange as provided in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or any successor act, or quoted through the National Association of Securities Dealers Automatic Quotations System or similar service?" More simply put, the current state constitution provides that state retirement system funds invested in the stock market must be invested only in American companies traded on the American stock exchanges. A "no" would maintain this current system while a "yes" might open investment to overseas companies.
2. San Francisco will vote on whether to reduce payments to the homeless and begin a program of city-grown marijuana. Margie Mason describes it as a "sense of the voters' measure that would make it official city policy to explore the establishment of a marijuana growing-and-distribution program". Mason calls the initiative a "response to a series of raids by the federal Drug Enforcement Agency on marijuana distribution centers that give or sell pot to people with a doctor's recommendation".
3. Nevadans will vote on whether their state should be the first to legalize marijuana and also on an amendment to reinforce an existing ban on gay marriage.
4. Florida voters are expected to approve a sweeping ban on smoking in enclosed workplaces, including restaurants. How will the Cubans swallow this one?
5. Voters in Tennessee and North Dakota will decide whether to approve state lotteries. That would be a milestone for Tennessee, which at present joins Hawaii and Utah as the only states without legalized gambling.
6. And my personal favorite (though a friend did raise some doubts on it in a close discussion last night)-- the referendum to abolish the state income tax in Massachussets by the Libertarian Party. If you are interested in my friends objections, email me and I'll fill you in.
Drink well, think well, and go to sleep with visions of the soft-porn bombing that will commence in Iraq as soon as elections (or the excuse for Republican momentary military restraint) are over.
Tuesday, November 5, 2002
MORE OPINIONS ON PALEOLIBERTARIANISM AS COMPARED TO PALEOCONSERVATISM
This one is from my big brother....
"Seriously, as far as I am aware, the term "paleolibertarian" was first used in a 1990 article by Lew Rockwell in Liberty. Lew called on culturally conservative libertarians to break with the "hippie" part of the movement, as well as the Cato yuppies, and form a [populist movement aimed at appealing to the middle-class. Paleolibertarinism had two functions one was to form a broad-based populist anti-state movement based on an alliance between the paleo libertarians and associated with the Misses'; Institute and the paleo conservatives of the Rockford Institute. That paleo cons where rethinking there devotion to eh American Empire in light of the collapse of the Soviet Block, and where also in the mist of a brutal feud with the neocons. Paleolibertarians also represented Murray and Lew's break with the new left element for the libertarian movement -- those who spurn Christianity and all traditional values and oppose the drug war not because of any commitment to liberty but because they like to get stoned. A large part of Murray and Lew's revulsion at the left-libertarians stemmed from the hostile voiced by some libertarian to the pro-left, Christian Ron Paul when he sought the LP nomination in 1988.
Another purpose of the Palo alliance was to challenge the libertarianism of Cato and Reason which Murray and Lew saw as being to friendly toward the state and ion some cases (e.g. NAFTA) supporting expansions of state power in the guise of achieving libertarian goals.
The core of Paleolibertarianism is that there are iron links between traditional Christian bourgeois culture and liberty. Now Murray and Lew where always culture traditionalists and Murray had for years criticized the hippies and militant anti-Christians in the movement. The only real change in Rothbaridan thought in the Pale period was the explicit incorporation of support for traditional society into the boarder philosophy of liberty.
Murray, Lew, and Justin where all active in the Buchanan campaign of 1992. It was during this period that I become acquainted with Lew and Justin and eventually Murray. Like them, I was active in the Buchanan campaign. The paleo alliance lasted until 96 when Buchan's endorsement of union privilege and industrial policy lead Lew and Hans Hoppe to denounce Pat while Sam Francis and others associated with the Rockford Institute attacked libertarians as being detached from the real world and and lacking any sense of history or culture.
The Cost of War conference from 1994 (which inspired the book you bought) was probably the highpoint of the paleo alliance.
Hans Hoppe's book on Democracy is probably the best statement of paleolibertarians, much of the book is based on ideas Hans first presented at paleo gatherings.
While the phrase "paleolibertarinism" is not used as much as it was, the sprit of paleoism can still be found at the Misses' Institute, on lewrockwell,com and on much that pears on antiwar.com. In addition, Joe Sobran and the folks at the Last Ditch can failry be classified as paleolbiertiarns.
Of coruse, Ron Paul, weho is uncompromisingly pro-liberty, pro-peace, and pro-Cosntitution while also pro-life and pro-family, could be called a "paleolibertarian."
Good histories and explanations of pale libertarianism are avail be ion Justin Raimondo's books on Rothbard and his book on the Old Right. In addition, the Irrepressible Rothbard" contains most of Murray's major essays explaining and development the ideas of paleolibertainisnism."
Tuesday, November 5, 2002
ELECTION PREDICITIONS AND DRINK SUGGESTIONS
For those eager to commiserate with like-minded fools tonight, there is an LP shin-dig at the Boston Dedham Place Hilton beginning at 7 tonight. The main debates will be over the appropriateness of adding liquor costs to campaign-finance reports for Libertarians. It should be truly memorable.
A fairly knowledgeable friend gave me the run-down on what might happen today in an email correspondence. As I respect his opinion, I have posted it below.
"About the election, I don't think we are going to win big, but
just in the past two days the tide has been going our way. The
most important elections are for the Senate.
Here is my
prediction:
Dems will win in Arkansas and Colorado.
Republicans keep New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Texas, and pick up Minnesota, Georgia, Missouri, and South
Dakota. We actually only need to win 2 of those 4 races, so even
if Minnesota and Georgia don't pan out we're still swimming in
gravy.
And if it is a tie after today we are going to take the majority
in the Louisiana run-off on Dec. 9.
We are going to lose some big state governerships: Pennsylvania,
Michigan, and Illinois, but we are going to gain Hawaii and
Maryland for the first time in 40 years, and also hold onto
Florida and maybe pick up Alabama."
The votes are on, the bets have been placed, and the winners will probably NOT be the American people.
Tuesday, November 5, 2002
MEDICAL PRIVACY AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
Sue Blevins comments on the impending gloom for medical privacy in the post-Sept. 11th world. Blevins remarks that until now, medical privacy remained a matter left to the states. However, the Federal government's security blank-check from the war on terrorism threatens to move more state government issues into the domain of the national government.
"Health privacy was considered a matter regulated by the states. Every state has a law to protect citizens' medical records. However, abiding by 50 different state privacy laws has proved difficult for the industries that want to create a national health-information system. National leaders of the medical, hospital, health-insurance, and other industries have been working for over a decade to nationalize standards for electronic claims processing. In 1991 the Workgroup for Electronic Data Interchange (WEDI) was established to lobby Congress for legislation to enable electronic medical records and payment systems."
How the issue of medical privacy might be construed under the current Supreme Court's Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence remains to be seen. Ratified in response to post-Civil war problems concerning citizenship and the contrasting rights schemes offered by Reconstruction-era Republicans, the Fourteenth Amendment resolved the issue posed by the 1856 Dred Scott v. Sanford case, decided on the basis of Fifth Amendment interpretation. The argument for narrow interpretation might focus on the Rehnquist court's pro-state's rights bias in cases like Bush v. Gore. On the other hand, the Court's commitment to a narrow interpretation of the Fourteenth has been shaky at best and rather partisan at worst, especially in the remarkable decision according the Federal government a trump-power over state referendums on legalizing medical marijuana in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative (00-151).
Next term, the USC will decide whether the Ninth Circuit's decision in Nevada Department of Human Resources, et al., Petitioners v. William Hibbs, et al. withstands constitutional scrutiny. At issue will be the extent to which anti-discrimination law at the state level can be trumped by federal construal of the Fourteenth. O'Connor is expected to play her usual swing-vote role.
Indirectly, the Court's upcoming review of the First Circuit's decision in Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America,
Petitioner
v.
Kevin Concannon, Commissioner, Maine Department of Human Services, et al. might shed some light on how its Fourteenth jurisprudence will continue to evolve. The pivotal question in such cases, however, will be the extent to which a decision deferring to states' rights might upset the more conservative social norms and mores championed by Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas, whose comments about the Oakland decision are telling.
Monday, November 4, 2002
ANARCHISM AND CONTRACTS
Philosopher Jan Narveson explores the view that government is a mistake (i.e. "the anarchist option") from the perspective of contractarian theory.
Sunday, November 3, 2002
AS GOOD AS IT GETS
I have to thank my fellow former Kochers Mike Lorelli, Emily Schleicher, and Ryan Hecker for one of the most interesting weekends of conversation since the Mises conference. Boca Grande will never be the same since the battle cry "fight for your foreskin" was uttered there. While the debate about religion rocked, clearly, we failed to hit
all the bases. Can't imagine how we missed the all-important umbilical question. Was Adam the first man without a belly-button?
Another subject we did not breach is the legal and/or moral question of situations under which the sin of rape might be "overlooked" or more readily excused:
1. If it is a captive in war
“And when the Lord thy God hath delivered [a city] into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women…shalt thou take unto thyself” (Deuteronomy 20:13-14).
2. If it is a slave-girl
“And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all remeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make atonement for him” (Leviticus 19:20-22).
3. If the girl is someone you're willing marry with a father you're willing to pay
“If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found: Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife” (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). Admittedly, this last one sounds more like a modern courtship, so I shouldn't get too excited...
Sunday, November 3, 2002
GOOD ARTICLES FORWARDED BY RAM
Walter Williams makes a convincing case against the argument that the President should begin a program of job creation to assist the economy. Rather than begin another ill-fated bureaucratic shyster-pleaser, the Bush administration should reevaluate its immigration policy to accomodate the economic changes of the last decade. Ram suggested that the recent Federal Reserve decision to lower interest rates in a last-ditch rescue bid might be a good reason to pitch your tent (and your cash) in equities.
Sunday, November 3, 2002
BECAUSE BOSTON IS BEAUTIFUL AND THE SCENT OF CRUSHED LEAVES ON SPOONER'S GRAVE LINGERS
An excerpt from the poem To My Son Parker, Asleep in the Next Room
by Bob Kaufman
On this shore, we shall raise our monuments of stones,
of wood, of mud, of color, of labor, of belief, of being,
of life, of love, of self, of man expressed
in self-determined compliance, or willful revolt,
secure in this avowed truth, that no man is our master,
nor can any ever be, at any time in time to come.
Sunday, November 3, 2002
COMMENTS ON THE "PALEOLIBERTARIAN" LABEL
I recieved some interesting comments from friends on the question of what it means to be labelled a "paleolibertarian". Robert Higgs, author of Crisis and Leviathan, described paleolibertarianism in such a way that made me very comfortable with Kelly Jane Torrance's description of me as such. Higgs calls the term
"A designation for libertarians who trace their roots to the so-called Old Right (shorthand for anti-New Deal) of the 1930s and 1940s--people such as H. L. Mencken, Robert Taft, John T. Flynn, and their comrades in (for the most part, opposing) arms. The paleo-libertarians distinguish themselves nowadays from what are sometimes called left-libertarians. The paleos tend to respect the workaday conventions of civil society and to oppose the left-libertarian flouting of such conventions in the form of, say, outrageous personal conduct or attire."
The ever-charming Mises scholar David Gordon pointed out a more political aspect of this label in a recent email correspondence which puts the term in use around 1989-- a big enough year for those of us born in communist countries.
"The term "paleolibertarian" I think came into use around 1989, after Murray Rothbard broke with the Libertarian Party. He and Lew Rockwell then allied with a group centered at Chronicles magazine, who included Tom Fleming, Sam Francis, and Paul Gottfried. This group, the paleoconservatives, supported traditional family and social values,and opposed what it deemed an ideologically driven neoconservative foreign policy. The paleolibertarians, then, were Rothbard and his followers who were sympathetic to these views. Rothbard condemned the LP for what he regarded as the libertine attitudes of many of its members. "
I've never been comfortable with political labels, sensing them as an unfreedom of sorts, or a designated pigeon-hole-- a discomfort I can attribute mainly to my fear of becoming dogmatic or ridiculous. In spite of my personal recalcitrance to commit myself to one label, perhaps "paleolibertarianism" does indeed sum me best. I'll leave the book open.
Sunday, November 3, 2002
THE HAWKISH LEFT, OR HUMANITARIAN ARGUMENTS FOR THE INSTITUTIONALIZED INHUMANITY OF WAR
Richard Goldstein takes a keen kaliedoscope to the new left pro-war positions. An excerpt from the tongue-in-cheekishness:
Greil Marcus is a discerning radical humanist. So it was a shock to pick up the progressive paper First of the Month and find him dissing leftist intellectuals for their skepticism about the war on terror. Marcus is not the only member of the counterculturati to find the hawk within. Dan Savage, the shoot-from-the-hip sex columnist, has lately become hip to the shoot. Then there's Christopher Hitchens, the ex-socialist who has found an occasion in 9-11 to revise his ideological profile. He is now a latter-day incarnation of the Cold War liberal. Hitchens's recent homage to George Orwell includes a remarkable defense of his work for the British government during the McCarthy era, when Orwell supplied lists of suspected com-symps, dutifully noting who was homosexual—or Jewish. Hey, says Hitchens, Orwell wasn't lying.
Saturday, November 2, 2002
AGAINST THE INVISIBLE HAND
The US government has long exhibited a concern for the secrecy of its covert operations abroad. Common sense, right? If the other side finds out, then it will interfere with the success of the operation. Unfortunately, such an explanation overlooks the extent to which, in the last 50 years, showing America's hand has become less of a threat to national security and more of a threat to the current unaccountable status of our political and military leaders.
Truth be told, covert operations are no longer "covert" in the sense that would matter for their success, as most of the governing regimes (or at least large political elite groupings) in the countries where they are conducted know full well the extent of the US government's financial, military, and political involvement. If the history of US covert operations isn't enough of an argument against increasing budgetary allocations (how many times have we tried to kill Castro now?), then the near past should be. Take the cases of recent US covert involvement in stuations as diverse as the Colombian insurgency, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Indonesia, Iraq, and China, among others. Most successful US foreign policy moves have been far from covert. In fact, the characteristic of openness and transparency is, I believe, directly related to the success of our Japanese foreign policy.
Perhaps the only people from whom the US hand remains a secret are US citizens. The status and power of American leaders is the real security issue here. It's hard to get votes when you are placing US troops all over the world for personal and often self-defeating or self-contradictory reasons. Have we learned nothing from the Church Committee investigation of the Vietnam war and the often unsavory and uneffective role of intelligence in that war? (If your answer is "yes", then watch the film The Trial of Henry Kissinger.) The consequences of ineffective US security policy will probably not hurt our leaders. Chances are most likely that it is the average unassuming American that will suffer or die in a terrorist attack. Unassuming Americanism does not pay. It is time to check our premises.
Saturday, November 2, 2002
FORGET THE FLOWERS
If you haven't yet visited Stand Down, it's better than any regurgitated intellectual pretensions you might find in the bars tonight.
