Block and Futerman make case for Israel

A small excerpt from Marco den Ouden's review of The Classical Liberal Case for Israel by Walter Block and Alan Futerman. 

A New Book Makes a Solid Case for Israel and Zionism | Savvy Street | Marco den Ouden:

May 30, 2024 - "I was asked to review a new book supporting both Israel and Zionism, The Classical Liberal Case for Israel by Walter Block and Alan Futerman.... I had a review of well over 5000 words divided into a discussion of Block and Futerman’s book followed by a critique based on ... elements they chose to ignore. I opted to publish the critique as a stand-alone essay called The Battle for Israel’s Soul without mentioning the book. Now I am presenting the other side of the story: Block and Futerman’s compelling case for the moral right of Israel to exist and the moral right of the Jewish people to have a homeland, namely Zionism.... 

courtesy Amazon..com.

"The authors argue forcefully for the legitimacy of the state of Israel as a Zionist enterprise. They provide considerable documentation to support their charges.... The basic thesis of their book, they state, is that 'The Land of Israel was built up and developed by Jews who were unjustifiably expelled from their homeland thousands of years ago and are now back to reclaim their lost property and add to it by building and developing otherwise virgin land. It is really as simple as that.” (xxvi)....

"In Chapter 1 they argue that some parts of ancient Judea are demonstrably of Jewish origin.... They also contend that there are Jews alive today who can be genetically traced to these ancient Jews.... In Chapter 2 — Zionism — they argue that Zionism, the political movement promoting a Jewish homeland state, namely the country of Israel, is justified on a number of counts. They point out that emigration to Palestine took place long before the 1948 UN partition that created the state. 'It arose from the spontaneous actions of hundreds of thousands of Jews who returned to Zion in order to build their homes, and only much later their state.' (37) Cultural Zionism preceded political Zionism.... They challenge the idea that 'the Jews somehow stole the land from Arabs,' arguing that Jewish migrants to Palestine purchased land from existing owners, some of them absentee landowners. They purchased uncultivated land, and in many cases, land that had been regarded as uncultivable. And they homesteaded unowned (government-owned) land.... 

"Chapter 3 on The Palestinian Fiction Factory, the longest chapter in the book at 70 pages (excluding bibliography) argues that claims that Palestinians were expropriated and/or forced from their land are false.... Jewish land was either bought at exorbitant prices, much of it from non-resident Arab landowners, or it was homesteaded on land declared as uncultivable. Jewish entrepreneurship turned much barren land into productive farmland. As a result, there was an influx of Arabs, increasing the Arab presence in the area. They were drawn by Jewish wealth and the opportunities it presented. So, far from ethnic cleansing, Jewish settlement encouraged Arab immigration into the area.  All Jewish land was either purchased or homesteaded, they aver. None was forcibly taken.... 

"Section 4 of the chapter on The 'Expulsion' Plan discusses the immediate aftermath of the UN declaration. It argues that Israel’s Arab neighbors launched an aggressive war to destroy Israel and that Israel had the legitimate right to self-defense. The Arab aggressors warned Arabs resident in Palestine to flee for their own safety. Many did. The objective of the war was Israeli genocide, to wipe Israel off the map. Israel encouraged Arabs to stay. Arabs who opted to stay in the state of Israel now comprise twenty percent of the population.... Regarding alleged massacres of Arabs such as Deir Yassein, 'there was no policy of massacres, and Israeli authorities investigated and even condemned such incidents.' (emphasis added) (Benny Morris in Kramer et al., “Counter-Error: Separating Fact from Fiction in the Middle East,” The Washington Institute, October 27, 2016, page 95)....

"[In] Chapter 6: Critique of the Classical Liberal Case for Anti-Zionism — the authors critique Murray Rothbard’s analysis of the Israel/Palestine conflict.... Rothbard’s position is that Zionism was an offshoot of British imperialism..... But this is untrue, the authors argue. They cite Ilan Troen’s 2011 study which argues that the first forty years of Jewish migration to the area took place under the Ottomans. It had nothing to do with imperial expansion.... While they acknowledge that the Balfour Declaration supported the Zionist enterprise during the British Mandate, in fact, according to Charles Bard, the British reaction to waves of Jewish immigration in the '30s following the rise of the Nazis was to restrict such immigration to appease the Arabs.... 

"The authors argue that Rothbard is totally wrong in his analysis of events post-partition in 1948. 'Contrary to Rothbard, the Jews accepted the partition and the Arabs who already lived in Jewish areas were an integral part of the new State of Israel (and treated as such)'.... But at the time of partition, 'seven Arab armies invaded Israel after it was completed. Why should Israel be blamed for the resulting situation when it was only defending itself from outside attack?' (265) Moreover, Rothbard offers 'no explanation of why and how a new state built virtually entirely on homesteaded or purchased areas, labored on and developed by Jewish majorities, constitutes an aggression against the collective of Arabs of the entire Middle East'.... 

"As I noted earlier, I also found a lot to disagree with, points I elaborate on in my separate essay, The Battle for Israel’s Soul. But this essay looks at the positive points they make, points that should be noted and bear repeating:

1. Zionism was a cultural movement long before it became a political one. Jews started emigrating to Israel, their historic homeland, from the late 1800s on, decades before the creation of the state of Israel.
2. No land was usurped from Arabs. It was either bought, often at exorbitant prices, or homesteaded on unowned land deemed uncultivable.
3. Arab antisemitism was rife before the creation of the state of Israel. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem himself was a virulent antisemite and concluded a pact with Hitler to exterminate the Jews.
4. When the state of Israel was created, its seven Arab neighbors launched an immediate war against the new state, expecting a quick and easy victory. Israel was, from day one, a victim of aggression by its Arab neighbors.
5. Decades of peace talks and attempts at a two-state solution have been consistently rejected by Palestinian authorities, no matter how favorable the deal was for the Palestinians.
6. Israel has repeatedly been the victim of suicide bombers and rocket attacks by Palestinians.
7. The Palestinian Authority pays and incentivizes Palestinian terrorists to the tune of $300 million a year or 22% of its foreign aid budget.
8. The Palestinian Authority forbids trade with Israel and selling land to an Israeli is a capital crime.
9. Hamas uses human shields and builds missile launch sites and tunnel hideouts under and near schools and hospitals and other areas populated by civilians. It uses its citizens to create martyrs.
10. Anti-Zionism in the form of BDS is completely one-sided. Only Israel is targeted. Egregious tyrannies and dictatorships are completely ignored.
11. There are double standards in the treatment of Israel, even by its parent and creator, the United Nations. Israel has been condemned by the UN more often than every other country in the world combined. The violent, fascist, repressive, misogynistic state of Iran has been censured a mere six times by the UN compared to 68 times for Israel. Russia the invader of Ukraine, Cuba the operator of extensive repressive political prisons (See Against All Hope by Armando Valladares), and China the largest mass-murdering regime in the history of the world, have never been censured by the UN. Not once!

"These are just a few of the points that Block and Futerman make. Despite some drawbacks that I pointed out in my other essay, this book deserves a hearing."

Read more: https://www.thesavvystreet.com/a-new-book-makes-a-solid-case-for-israel-and-zionism/

Is Zionism a libertarian movement? | גלעד אלפר | October 1, 2023:

Carbon taxes are a perversion of market theory

Carbon taxes are a perversion of free-market economic theory | Financial Post | Terence Corcoran:

November 3, 2023 - "Canada would not be embroiled in a political carbon tax crisis today were it not for the background endorsement of economists who argue that a carbon tax is a principled market mechanism that can be used to correct a 'market failure' such as climate change. In the words of a now-famous 2019 statement signed by 45 market-oriented economists, including former U.S. Federal Reserve chairs Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker, a carbon tax is a sound market-based solution to a global problem. 'By correcting a well-known market failure, a carbon tax will send a powerful price signal that harnesses the invisible hand of the marketplace to steer economic actors towards a low-carbon future.' Since 2019, the statement has been signed by more than 3,600 economic thinkers and is described by the Climate Leadership Council as 'The largest public statement of economists in history'....

"The 'invisible hand' mentioned in the economic statement gives the impression that a carbon tax is aligned with the ideas that enlightenment economist Adam Smith and others — from liberals to neo-liberals to libertarians — have championed over government control and planning. The economists’ endorsement of invisible hand principles in the context of a carbon tax is, at minimum, misleading. The imposition of a carbon price by government — such as Canada’s $170 a tonne target — is nothing but a government price-fixing scheme. 

"In a market economy, prices are not the starting line for economic activity nor are they the means to control supply and demand as implied by proponents of carbon taxation. Prices are the end point of economic activity. In a market economy prices are the product of supply and demand based on the multitude of individual and corporate choices that lead to final transaction prices. The dynamic of supply and demand determines price, a process that takes place outside the knowledge and thought processes of the economic actors. 

“'Every money price of a good on the market, is determined by the supply and demand schedules of the individual buyers and sellers, and their action tends to establish a uniform equilibrium price on the market at the point of intersection.' So wrote the late Murray N. Rothbard in Man, Economy and State: A Treatise on Economic Principles. Another giant of free-market economics, Friedrich Hayek, described the invisible hand process in his 1946 essay “The Use of Knowledge in Society.” In a market economy, no one person or power determines pricing. 

It is more than a metaphor to describe the price system as a kind of machinery for registering change, or a system of telecommunications which enables individual producers to watch merely the movement of a few pointers, as an engineer might watch the hands of a few dials, in order to adjust their activities to changes of which they may never know more than is reflected in the price movement.

"Using tax power to set a price to force a market movement stands the economic system on its head and gets the process backwards. With carbon taxation, the state is imposing a visible hand in an extreme and unprecedented way. For one thing, no participant in a market economy driven by the invisible hand would or could raise prices so as to ultimately reduce demand to zero.... 

"The idea that high and rising carbon prices can be used to remove carbon from the economy runs up against the fact that carbon-based fossil fuels are currently part of the foundation for most economic activity. They are essential today, to the point where industry and consumers cannot do without them. They are, as economists say, price inelastic. A doubling or even a quadrupling via taxation will not end demand for fossil fuels without killing economic activity. According to the 3,600 economist backers of carbon taxation, this little problem can be overcome by returning all the revenue from the carbon taxes to taxpayers 'to maximize the fairness and political viability of a rising carbon tax.' The Trudeau Liberal plan for Canada follows that advice.

"There is nothing invisible about carbon taxes. They are a perversion of free-market economic theory. We should bite the visible hand and axe the tax."

Read more: https://financialpost.com/opinion/carbon-taxes-perversion-free-market-economic-theory

Carbon tax making life unaffordable for Canadians: Sask. premier | Power & Politics | CBC News | March 28, 2024:

Why was Shikha Dalmia 'cancelled'?

by George J. Dance

Reason Foundation senior analyst, and well-known magazine columnist, Shikha Dalmia has been let go by Reason. As yesterday's Daily Beast headline has it: "Anti-‘Cancel Culture’ Reason Magazine Accused of Canceling Columnist for Being Too Anti-Trump." Let the Beast tell the story: 

"After 15 years, the curtains came down for me at Reason today. My views, I was told, had become too out-of-step with those of the organization," Shikha Dalmia announced Tuesday evening in a Facebook post.... The Reason veteran further suggested that her demise came as a result of complaints from the Reason Foundation’s donors — many of whom are also big donors to Republicans and conservative think tanks.... 

Reason editor-in-chief Katherine Mangu-Ward publicly commented on Dalmia’s post, replying, "I disagree with your characterization of our parting, but certainly won’t get into it here on your page." And in an internal memo sent to staffers, obtained and reviewed by The Daily Beast, Mangu-Ward announced Dalmia’s departure on Tuesday evening: “Today is Shikha’s last day, after 15 years at Reason. It has been an honor to work with a person of such tremendous journalistic talent and deep libertarian conviction. Her contributions to Reason have been enormous, especially in the area of immigration policy. This change has been in the works for a while, and I wish her great luck in her next phase.

Mangu-Ward refuses to discuss personnel issues with the media. Which leaves us only Dalmia's interpretation, which is: "I had a staunch and uncompromising anti-Trump voice calling out his authoritarian tendencies unambiguously. That this made many libertarians uncomfortable raises all kinds of interesting questions about the state of the liberty movement." Furthermore, "Defending my work to donors and stakeholders had evidently made me too much of a liability."

I am sure that is how Dalmia sees it; but she is hardly an impartial witness. Even the Beast writer had some trouble with her explanation, pointing out that "Reason has excoriated the president’s trade wars, scorned his calls to crack down on social-media outlets because they 'censor' his fact-free missives, and called out his nativist immigration policies including family separations.... It is unclear how Dalmia’s expressly anti-Trump views would have fallen outside Reason’s 'big-tent understanding' of libertarianism." Dalmia's viewpoint, as the Reason Foundation's immigration expert, was an integral part of the magazine's messaging. 

Nor does Reason reflect any general pro-Trump bias. In this year's poll of "How Will Reason Staffers Vote?", 11 writers chose Jo Jorgensen, 6 chose not to vote, 4 chose Biden, 1 was still undecided, and 1 chose Trump as the 'lesser evil'. (That last was Bob Poole, who runs the Reason Foundation – he and Dalmia may have exchanged words on Trump. But that is his belief, not what anonymous 'donors' tell him to say.) And that list does not include other Reason associates, like Ilya Somin of the prestigious Volokh Society legal blog hosted on Reason's website, who this year went full Bidenista. 

Full what? I made up the "Bidenista" term to be provocative; in fact, Bidenistas do not care a fig for Joe Biden. They are the voters, of all parties, who decided the most important thing this election was to vote Democrat to remove Trump from office – basically, people who bought into Trump's narcissistic narrative that U.S. politics is all about him (when in fact he is no more consequential than, say, Biden). Note that Trump is a narcissist, but not "selfish" - it is not his actual self that he cares about, but his public personality, his reputation or image. He made himself a star with that image on The Apprentice, and used that program's ratings to make himself the star of the 2016 Republican TV debates. That's how he got to be President. Enough about him. 

There are millions of Republicans (mainly new blood) who idolize that image. There are also millions who loathe it as the symbol of all that is evil. The former I've called "Trumptards"; the latter are the "Bidenistas". Both groups suffer from what has been labelled Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS): both wrongly believe Trump's line that his image is the most important thing in American politics. For no other reason than their TDS, both groups have spent this election campaigning against Jo Jorgensen and the Libertarian Party (LP). 

Dalmia herself went full Bidenista during the campaign, writing in The Week that "civic duty as a libertarian requires me to help defeat President Trump by casting my ballot for the only candidate who can defeat him: Joe Biden." (That column, which did not appear in Reason, may have been submitted there and rejected.) In the Washington Post she wrote: 

But even a lifelong Libertarian like me realizes that this time around, voting for my party’s ticket could only diminish my vote against Trump. In the face of Trump’s xenophobic demagoguery and the Democratic base flirting with socialism, Libertarian Party delegates complacently put forth a ticket of ideologically rigid unknowns who are selling theories of libertarianism, as if this campaign were unfolding in a vacuum — or a college dorm.

After the election, she hectored Libertarian voters too stupid or gullible to do their identical civic duty – "What’s been disappointing is how many libertarians actually didn’t see through Trump's authoritarianism, how much they allowed him to tarnish Biden as a socialist, ignoring how aggressively economically interventionist he himself was" – in an interview headlined, "Republicans aren’t the only party to be changed by Trump, says libertarian writer.' Sure, that's just one expression of opinion, but consider: Had Trump won, all the Bidenistas would still be screaming it.

No, Ms Dalmia: the Libertarian Party has not been changed by Trump. Jo Jorgensen's presidential campaign, with its obvious similarity to Harry Browne's 1990s campaigns, is enough to show that. Nor has Reason been changed; the magazine has consistently judged all presidential candidates regardless of party not by donors' whims but by the standard of "big-tent libertarianism," and that continues to be its standard. What has been changed by Trump is you. Donald Trump turned you into a Bidenista and an anti-Libertarian. 

If anyone connected with Reason was "uncomfortable" with the anti-Libertarian Bidenista message, that was more likely to have been (1) Libertarian supporters and (2) believers in 'big-tent libertarianism' regardless of party. Since the LP's founding, some libertarians, from Sam Konkin III to Murray Rothbard (initially) to 2016's Liberty Herald, have tried to build a 'libertarian movement' from which the LP was excluded. Reason to its credit never had anything to do with that tendency to divide libertarians, which is one reason it has succeeded as the flagship magazine of the larger libertarian movement. Reason has a role to play in criticizing LP candidates and officers, but there should be no room in it for explicity anti-Libertarian messaging. (Except, as with Mr. Solmin's Bidenista turn, as part of a debate, balancing a pro-Libertarian message.) 

I have appreciated Shikha Dalmia's work at the Reason Foundation and Reason magazine. I hope that another libertarian think tank offers her a position to continue that work. There is far more to the libertarian movement than the Libertarian Party or Reason, and no reason (pun intended) for them or for Dalmia to worry about each other. I wish her all the luck in the world. But I believe that her view of events should not pass unchallenged. 

Hornberger's narrative of wins

Hornberger's narrative of wins

by George J. Dance

May 20, 2020 - Things have certainly changed since my last post on the Libertarian Party (LP) presidential contest, back in April, just after Justin Amash had launched his exploratory committee. I concluded that post by writing: "The 2020 race for the LP nomination has not turned into a coronation of Amash. But it is now no longer a coronation of Hornberger, either. For the first time, it has become a real contest worth paying close attention to."

With Amash deciding not to run, the LP POTUS race is still worth paying attention to. However, there is a danger that it is back to being a coronation of Jacob Hornberger. Hornberger is the wrong messenger, with - not exactly the wrong message, but the wrong strategy of campaigning on that message. Despite his differing background and a belief in limited government, his is essentially the Abolitionist strategy of Murray Rothbard: the wrong strategy, out of sync with the public at large, potential libertarian voters, the majority of registered libertarians, and even (I believe) the majority of party members. Hornberger will have no easier a time getting his message across with his strategy than Vermin Supreme would; if the former gets media coverage at all, it will be only as a scary caricature.

At the same time, Hornberger could be the candidate the membership wants. After all, the LP has run three Gradualist campaigns in a row; why shouldn't the Abolitionists get a turn? Also, many vocal members, from Dave Smith to Tom Woods to the Mises Caucus to Hornberger himself, have spent the last 4 years trying to frame Gary Johnson's last campaign - the one that gave the party a record number of both voters and registrants - as a failure and even a betrayal. Finally, a different sort of framing has also been going on, with Hornberger cast as the rank-and-file members' choice opposed only by the party elite, the LP's very own Ron Paul or Bernie Sanders.

That last picture has been built through a constructed narrative that Hornberger overwhelmingly won the LP primaries. He and his supporters can be expected to puff up his record this way; but even non-Abolitionists like those at Reason have gotten in on the act. For instance, the headline of Reason's story on the Super Tuesday primaries (only one of which he won) began: "Libertarian Super Tuesday: Big Night for Jacob Hornberger...," telling those of use who might have missed it that "the trend line is unmistakable — the Libertarian front-runner at this point is longtime libertarian-movement hand and Future of Freedom Foundation founder Jacob Hornberger,"  adding for good measure at the end that, "for the moment, Jacob Hornberger is your Libertarian front-runner."

After Amash jumped into the race, Reason ran an article which told us in its second paragraph: "Hornberger, the 70-year-old founder of the Future of Freedom Foundation, has, after all, won a clear majority of the party's presidential primaries and caucuses, nonbinding though they may be."  The next day, when Amash jumped back out, Reason told us: "Jacob Hornberger has won by far the most of the party's nonbinding primaries and caucuses."

To evaluate that narrative requires examining the primary and caucus results in more detail; so let us do so. 

Hornberger won a clear majority vote in only two states, Missouri (in which he was the only person on the primary ballot) and Minnesota (after 7 rounds of instant-runoff caucus voting). He also won 47% in Iowa - a genuinely impressive win which began the narrative. He won 2 primaries - Ohio and Connecticut - with less than a third of the vote, and another - California - with less than 20%. And he won New York with no votes at all: that state's Secretary of State disqualified all the candidates but Hornberger, cancelled the LP primary, and simply declared him the winner.

Against these 7 wins we have to balance Hornberger's 4 losses, winning just under 25% in Nebraska, 9.6% in both North Carolina and Massachusetts, and no votes, again, in Maine.

Even throwing out the New York travesty, that gives the man 6 wins and 4 losses; so he definitely won a majority; possibly even a "clear majority" (of states, not of votes, or even of votes in most of the states he won). But the winner "by far'? That sounds as if the LP, in violation of all social distancing guidelines, has clutched Hornberger and Abolitionism to its bosom; which is not what the vote results look like to me at all.

Which is precisely the misleading picture this narrative of wins seems designed to convey. It sends exactly the wrong message to those who haven't chosen Hornberger: that the rest of the party has. I expect Hornberger to last until the final ballot; as other candidates drop off, and their supporters lose their own preference, they may be tempted to vote for Hornberger in the belief that they will be putting the party's interests first.

They will not. This man has trouble getting even libertarians to vote for him; and I expect him to be a disaster as a candidate. But let that wait for the morrow. 

Frank Meyer's "fusionism"

Just Don’t Call it Fusionism - Ben Lewis, Austro-Libertarian Magazine:

August 15, 2019 - "Frank Meyer ... a prominent figure in postwar American conservatism, is best known for his attempted 'fusion' of traditionalist conservatism and libertarianism. Even today, Meyer’s name is nearly synonymous with 'fusionism.' But ... the term most commonly associated with Meyer was not his creation, but rather came as something of a pejorative from his colleague and critic, L. Brent Bozell.... Meyer ... disavowed the fusionist label, saying that he was not attempting to fuse two disparate elements together, but was simply attempting to show that 'although they are sometimes presented as mutually incompatible, [they] can in reality be united within a single broad conservative political theory, since they have their roots in a common tradition and are arrayed against a common enemy'....

"[F]ollowing World War II, conservatism was as much a gathering place of opposition to contemporary political and social trends as it was a coherent movement. Two strains of this opposition, however, quickly took form: libertarianism and traditionalism. The libertarians deplored the growth of the state and the collectivization of individuals that was so common in Progressive, socialist and totalitarian societies. The traditionalists, no less concerned about the growth of the state, lamented more the obliteration of traditional society and its methods of communicating enduring values. As these two lines of thought developed, their differences of emphasis led to a tension over which was the true conservatism and the true enemy of liberalism....

"It was this tension to which Meyer devoted much of his writing.... Can the traditionalist emphasis on the attributes of a healthy society – virtue, duty and a rootedness in tradition – be combined with political philosophy that emphasizes the freedom of the individual? For Meyer, the question was not can these emphases be combined, but how they can. His answer began with understanding the proper relationship of the individual to society.

"Meyer believed that 'society is not a real entity'....  What this statement means is not that society as a framework of interrelating individuals, associations, and institutions does not exist, but that it does not exist as an actual entity that can be considered in the same manner as an individual.... 'Society and the state were made for individual men,' he wrote, 'not men for them'....  To Meyer, society is comprised of and made for individuals. It owes its existence to them, and they are its end. All social activity is oriented, fundamentally, towards the individual. Echoing Ludwig von Mises, he concluded, 'Truth has meaning only for persons; beauty illumines the consciousness only of persons; virtue can be pursued only by persons'....

"Meyer was no less concerned about the development of personal and social virtue than were the traditionalists, but he believed that ... virtuous actions could not be truly virtuous if they were not freely chosen.... 'Men cannot be forced to be … virtuous. To a certain extent, it is true, they can be forced to act as though they were virtuous. But virtue is the fruit of well-used freedom. And no act to the degree that it is coerced can partake of virtue – or vice'....

"Meyer’s position on coercion and virtue appears mostly correct, although with some clarification. As Meyer said, it seems that all coercion can do is cause people to act virtuously, not to actually be virtuous.... But the mere appearance of virtue is not the aim of the good society, rather it is actual virtue instilled in the thoughts and voluntary behavior of men.... Whatever the case, even those who have historically accepted a role for the state in the enforcement of virtue must by now admit the truth of Meyer’s statement that, 'If the state is endowed with the power to enforce virtue, the men who hold that power will enforce their own concepts as virtuous'....

"[Murray] Rothbard placed Meyer squarely in the libertarian camp, pointing out that Meyer’s case for the necessity of voluntary choice in the pursuit of virtue not only didn’t clash with the libertarian prohibition of the initiation of force, but was perfectly compatible with it. To Rothbard, Meyer’s appreciation for community and tradition, for the necessary traits of a virtuous society, were not deviations from libertarianism, but were healthy components of the holistic worldview of a thinker who took both political theory and culture seriously.

"Meyer could, perhaps, have made his arguments more appealing to traditionalists by expounding how the moral order could enforce standards of virtue.... Even so, his case against the state performing this task [was] well-argued. In a modern political society, rife with centralization, there is nothing more dangerous to virtue than for its proper defenders to relinquish their duties to the state."

Read more: https://www.austrolibertarian.com/articles/just-dont-call-it-fusionism
'via Blog this'

Immigration and individualism

by George J. Dance

Immigration is one area in which libertarians have a hard time communicating meaningfully with otherwise libertarianish conservatives and centrists. One reason is that  we look at the topic from two different perspectives (or two different "paradigms" as Thomas Kuhn called them), a difference which, if noted at all, is not discussed.

Libertarians are methodological individualists. They look at social interactions in terms of the individual actors involved, and how their actions harm or benefit other individuals. They would look at why a person comes to this country - to make a better life for himself and his family - which means to work and profit from it. They ask if his coming here and working betters or worsens other individuals' lives.

If an immigrant does and achieves what he wants - if he contributes and earns a good living - then he is purely a benefit. Maybe he gets a job that a native-born Canadian could have held, but he does not stop the latter from working. Maybe the immigrant collects too much tax money, which counts as a harm to some taxpayers, but that makes him no different from the Canadian-born guy - that is how the Canadian tax system is designed, to subsidize some at the expense of others - and if we tolerate the one being subsidized, we  should tolerate the other.

The anti-immigration guy, on the other hand, looks at the problem collectively. He is not looking at Manuel or Mohammed coming here and working, but at "Mexicans" or "Moslems" as a group. He worries about the society's racial and cultural composition - which the libertarian, even if he understands the concern, does not see as something to be addressed by the criminal law.

But the idea of cultural composition is very hard for a libertarian to understand by itself. Libertarians do not deny (as anti-libertarian turncoat Murray Rothbard once claimed we did) that there are no group differences. Given their individualist perspective, though, they believe those differences to be insignificant, vastly overshadowed by differences among individuals within a group. The idea of groups is based on the abstract idea of "group identities," which the libertarian's observations lead him to reject: Group identities are simply averages, which say nothing about any actual group members.

When I look at immigration, I do not see an undifferentiated mass of Mexicans or Central Americans; I see Manuel and Manuel, guys whom I worked with at different companies for years. I do not see a homogeneous crowd of Moslems; I see Mohammed and Mohammed, Pakistani and Syrian-born neighbors in my apartment building. And so on: I think of these people and I ask myself: should what those men have done, and are continuing to do, be outlawed? And I have to say no.

In contrast, the anti-immigration guy sees only masses and crowds. He notices more colored faces in the city, for example, or he reads about their numbers and connects that with other numbers (like the fall in Canadian birth rates) to come up with trends that worry him. He focus is on the total social impact, which he thinks only the government has the power to do something about.

The individualist libertarian sees none of that. Like groups, social trends for him are only generalizations about what really goes on in a societry: real people trying to get on with their lives. And he believes that the latter (provided that those people are peaceful) is not something that the government should be trying to "do something" about.

Until we recognize those two different perspectives, and devise a language that reconciles them, there will be no real dialogue, no mutual understanding, and no possibility of agreement between individualist libertarians and their adversaries on this issue.

The Cato Institute's "libertarian success story"

The Academy Is Unstable and Degrading. Historians Should Take Over the Government, Instead. - The Chronicle of Higher Education - Daniel Bessner:

February 27, 2019 - "What does it mean to be a public intellectual? When scholars discuss this question, they generally assume that the primary path to publicness is to engage with a mass audience.... But there is a second way that scholars, particularly those who identify with the social-democratic left, should contribute to public life: by engaging with state institutions through participation in the intellectual technostructure — think tanks, policy schools, university centers — that since World War II has shaped U.S. policy....

"The history of libertarianism, the most influential radical movement in modern U.S. history, ... indicates that intellectuals can effect significant change by working within the strictures of the American political system.... Just 70 years ago, libertarians stood on the fringes of American politics; in the last two decades, however, they have exerted a profound impact on public policy....

"The history of libertarianism’s ascent begins with Murray Rothbard, an economist who ... is today largely forgotten.... Rothbard encountered the radical free-market ideas of the Austrian exile Ludwig von Mises. Specifically, Mises’s influential Human Action (1949) inspired Rothbard to develop a political theory he dubbed 'anarcho-capitalism,' which combined anarchist philosophy with a capitalist faith in free markets.

"Rothbard spent his life spreading the libertarian gospel and organizing the budding libertarian movement. One of his most clever moves was to frame libertarianism as a fundamentally American ideology. As Rothbard argued in his For a New Liberty (1973), the American Revolution was "explicitly libertarian'... The tragedy of American history was that various events, from the Louisiana Purchase to the Civil War to the New Deal, betrayed the revolution.... For Rothbard, the goal of libertarianism was to return the nation to its supposedly anti-statist roots.

"In 1977 Rothbard helped found the Cato Institute with the aid of Edward Crane, a libertarian operative, and Charles Koch, a right-wing billionaire. Cato quickly developed the two-pronged strategy that still guides it today. First, per Rothbard’s vision, Cato seeks ... 'to identify and develop the future leaders, thinkers, advocates, and supporters of the libertarian movement, thereby promoting the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace'.... Second, Cato embraces the perspective of Crane and Koch, who wanted the think tank to affect public policy directly by producing expert reports and lobbying congresspeople and other politicians. By combining Rothbardian notions of public education with Cranian ideas of policy advocacy, Cato has brought libertarianism to the center of American politics and, according to the University of Pennsylvania’s Think Tanks and Civil Societies program, has become one of the United States’ most influential think tanks, particularly in the areas of economic, education, and social policy.

"Cato’s success has a lot to teach socialist intellectuals. At the most general level, it demonstrates the importance of not limiting intellectuals’ activities to any one sphere.... Specifically, Cato’s history and present influence suggest that think tanks are critical means to develop, promote, and spread ideas that currently stand outside the mainstream. It might therefore be useful for left-wing intellectuals to create avowedly socialist think tanks."

Read more: https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Academy-Is-Unstable-and/245778
'via Blog this'

Ed Crane accused of sexual harassment

Former Cato employees describe years of harassment - POLITICO:

"Three former employees of the famed Cato Institute say they were sexually harassed by Ed Crane, the 73-year-old co-founder and president emeritus of the think tank and one of the most recognizable figures in the libertarian movement.

"One former employee said Crane asked her to take off her bra. Another said he compared her breasts to pornographic images on his computer. A third said he sent her an email on breast augmentation. Crane also settled an additional sexual harassment claim by a former employee in 2012, her lawyer confirmed....

"Crane, who served as president and CEO of the libertarian think tank for more than 30 years before becoming president emeritus after a dispute with Cato shareholders Charles and David Koch, denied several of the incidents or said he didn’t recall them before ending a brief interview. He declined to comment on whether he was involved in a legal settlement in 2012.

"Peter Goettler, who has served as Cato’s president and CEO since 2015, also declined to comment on specific incidents of alleged sexual harassment during Crane’s tenure.... James Davis, a spokesperson for the Koch brothers, said they found out about the 2012 sexual harassment settlement in the midst of their dispute with Crane, at a time when they were already seeking to remove him as president.

"A graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, who spent part of his early career as an investment manager, Crane became a national leader in the libertarian movement.... In 1977, the then-32-year-old Crane co-founded Cato with economist Murray Rothbard and Charles Koch, the billionaire industrialist and political donor. Crane ran the institute on a daily basis, establishing Cato as a top Washington think tank and growing its annual budget to more than $20 million at the time of his retirement. Cato helped to inject libertarian policies — such as privatizing Social Security — into the political mainstream....

"Goettler, Cato’s current president, ... said there was a settlement at the organization in 2012 and another settlement at Cato during that period of time, but declined to provide details on who paid the settlements or whether they involved Crane....

"Goettler ... said the think tank has 'a pretty explicit policy against sexual harassment,' as well as a 'robust complaint process' for employees and an anti-retaliation policy. He said the procedures predate his own time as president, which began in 2015.... Cato also conducted a mandatory sexual harassment training for employees several years ago, Goettler said."

Read more: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/08/ed-crane-cato-institute-sexual-harassment-398989?lo=ap_f1
'via Blog this'

Don't blame the alt.right on Ron Paul

Stop trying to blame the alt-right on Ron Paul | Rare - Jack Hunter:

August 25, 2017 - "Did Ron Paul’s popular presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2012 kick-start the racist alt-right? No, they didn’t. But some are trying to say they did.

"This conversation began with Matt Lewis’ thought provoking 'The Insidious Libertarian-to-Alt-Right Pipeline' on The Daily Beast Wednesday, in which Lewis ponders if the explosion in popularity of libertarianism over the last decade also served as a breeding ground for today’s new generation of young white nationalists. My answer to Lewis is that ... the overwhelming majority of libertarians did not veer in that direction and explicitly reject white nationalism....

"Then Lewis got around to Ron Paul... '"The paleo-libertarian seed that Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard, and Lew Rockwell planted in the 1990s has come to bear some really ugly fruit in the last couple of years as elements of the alt-right have made appearances in various libertarian organizations and venues,” writes Steve Horwitz, an economist who writes at Bleeding Heart Libertarians.... “In a way, Ron Paul is the guy who lit the fuse,” Nick Gillespie says. “And he embodies some of those contradictions" [between libertarianism and the alt-right]'....

"Horwitz, a left libertarian cited by Lewis, has posted negative things about the Pauls for many years, both Ron and Rand, despite the fact that far less people would even know who Horwitz is and other prominent libertarians if not for the Paul family. That said, Horwitz is not wrong about Rothbard and Rockwell’s dalliances with paleoconservatives in the 1990s, how that racially troubling movement (I identified as paleoconservative back then and know the history well) was a precursor to the alt-right....

"[But] whatever questionable actions Ron Paul’s friends were taking in the 90s, the Ron Paul “rEVOLution” a decade later was the exact opposite regarding the current discussion about the alt-right.... I explained my journey from paleoconservative to libertarian in a lengthy Politico story in 2013. Central to that path was how Paul’s influence pushed me away from the kind of hateful ugliness we see even more extremely with the alt-right today:....

"I cannot count the number of liberty movement members I have met over the course of ten years, traveling across the country during both of Paul’s presidential runs and in the years in between, who had a similar journey: Conservatives who once had little reservation about demonizing immigrants, or blacks or Muslims, who due to Ron Paul’s influence had become libertarians and thus embarrassed by their former views. Not to mention the throngs of people younger than me who came to Ron Paul from not only the right, but left, or even many who had been politically apathetic prior. They weren’t right-wingers looking for redder meat. They were attracted to Paul in part because he was the opposite of that kind of politics, which so many had soured on.....

"I could just as easily make the argument that the Paul’s liberty movement is the exact opposite of the alt-right, something Paul touched on himself commenting on the chaos in Charlottesville."

Read more: http://rare.us/rare-politics/rare-liberty/stop-trying-to-blame-the-alt-right-on-ron-paul/
'via Blog this'

Liberty magazine marks its 30th year

We’re Here! | Liberty Unbound - Stephen Cox:

August 28, 2017 - "Thirty years ago, the first issue of Liberty appeared. It was dated August 1987, and it emerged from an old house high on a hill in the little town of Port Townsend, Washington, overlooking the Puget Sound.

"Liberty was born at the moment when technology was making it possible to create a national magazine in one’s own home — if you were willing to perform the backbreaking effort necessary to get it to other people’s homes. R.W. Bradford and Kathy Bradford, who lived in the house on the hill, were willing to do that. Timothy Virkkala was their learned assistant in the project. And this, I suppose, is where I come into the story. I was Bill Bradford’s old friend from Michigan, our home state, who was privileged to become an editor-at-long-distance.... One of Liberty’s first gifts to me was a svelte little plastic fax machine into which I could feed my handwritten copy (or copy embodied in a bad, bad computer printout), so it could be transmitted to Liberty HQ and retyped for publication....

"Within a few years, all copy became digital, human and financial costs-per-word decreased, and Liberty was being mailed to thousands of readers, all over the world. We started at six big issues a year, then went to 11 or 12 big issues. From the start, we had attracted most of the great names in the libertarian movement, and we continued to attract them, from Murray Rothbard to John Hospers to Milton Friedman.... .

"In December 2005, Bill died in his house on the hill, after a long and heroic struggle with cancer. One of his last concerns was the future of Liberty. We talked on the phone, a couple of weeks before his death, and I agreed to take the job as editor in chief. The good thing about me was that I had been an editor from the start and had been the only person, besides Bill himself, who had written something for every issue. The bad thing was that I lacked Bill’s gargantuan energy, his intimate knowledge of everything libertarian, and his . . . just everything that distinguished him as a great human being. For me, the good thing about my new job was that I got to collaborate with the amazing people who did the real work: Kathy Bradford, Mark Rand, Patrick Quealy, and Drew Ferguson....

"In 2010, Liberty passed into its third technological era. Print journalism was on its way out. Fewer people wanted to wait for Liberty to arrive by mail. Bill had once been proud that we had subscribers in virtually every real country in the world, but changes in postal rates had nearly eliminated our worldwide audience. We needed to make a change, and we did: in late 2010, we became an online journal....

"Substantial writing is writing that endures, and I think you’ll find that the great majority of the writing we’ve published retains its interest in a way that journal writing ordinarily does not."

Read more: http://www.libertyunbound.com/node/1751
'via Blog this'

Paleolibertarianism's appeal to the alt.right

The Rhetoric of Libertarians and the Unfortunate Appeal to the Alt-Right - Bleeding Heart Libertarians - Steve Horwitz:

August 4, 2017 - "The paleo-libertarian seed that Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard, and Lew Rockwell planted in the 1990s has come to bear some really ugly fruit in the last couple of years as elements of the alt-right have made appearances in various libertarian organizations and venues. Back in February, alt-right hero Richard Spencer stirred up a fuss at the International Students for Liberty Conference in DC after being invited to hang out by a group of students calling themselves the “Hoppe Caucus.” Hans-Hermann Hoppe, long associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute as well as a panoply of racists and anti-Semites, is perhaps the most popular gateway drug for the alt-right incursion into libertarianism.

"And within the last couple of weeks, Jeff Deist, president of the Mises Institute delivered a talk to students at Mises University entitled “For a New Libertarian.” In that talk, he knocks down an extended strawman of what he thinks constitutes the libertarianism he wants them to reject – what many might call “left-libertarianism'.... Most controversially, Deist, after continuing to argue that family, faith, and the like are the cultural glue that humans need and that libertarians should focus on, decided to end with:

In other words, blood and soil and God and nation still matter to people. Libertarians ignore this at the risk of irrelevance.

"For those who know something about the history of the 20th century, the invocation of 'blood and soil' as something that libertarians should recognize as a valid concern and should appeal to should be chilling. That phrase, which has a history going back at least to the 19th century, was central to the Nazi movement and was at the core of their justification for eliminating those people who did not have connections to the German homeland. It remains a watchword of the nastiest elements on the right, as a quick visit to bloodandsoil.org will demonstrate....

"Perhaps Deist didn’t know all of that. If so, one would expect a decent person to immediately apologize for using that phrase that way in that context. To my knowledge, no such apology has appeared. On the assumption that he is not, in fact, a Nazi, the explanation left standing is that he and his defenders have no problem using rhetoric that will attract those sympathetic to Nazi-like views about nativism and Jews. It’s that lack of concern about engaging in that sort of rhetoric, if not a positive willingness to do so, that is so troubling here, and it is eating away at the liberal roots of libertarianism.....

As I pointed out with the Paul newsletters, all of this appeal to nativism, racism, and anti-Semitism and the like is in deep conflict with libertarianism’s liberalism. It’s particularly in conflict with the liberal cosmopolitanism of someone like Mises. And the use of Nazi language is especially galling as it was the very 'blood and soil' crowd who drove the Jewish Mises out of Vienna....

"Our history is one of liberal tolerance, universalism, and cosmopolitanism, putting the freedom and harmony of all people ahead of the supposed interests of any parochial sub-group, and especially ones defined by the artificial boundaries of nation-states and their subsets. Libertarians ignore this at the risk of irrelevance."

Read more: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2017/08/rhetoric-libertarians-unfortunate-appeal-alt-right/
'via Blog this'

Libertarians should support climate action, iff...

Should Natural Rights Libertarians Support Carbon Mitigation? The Answer May Surprise You - Niskanen Center - Kevin Vallier:

July 18,2017 - "Here are the conditions under which natural rights libertarians should support a carbon mitigation policy.

1. The actions of human beings generate carbon emissions significant enough to pose a non-trivial risk of violating property rights (in one’s body or external objects) of persons whom the state has a duty to protect.
2. A carbon mitigation policy (CMP) will provide an effective protection against the risk.
3. The CMP will not in itself violate property rights, or take an excessive risk of violating them, because it will generally be targeted at persons or groups that generate problematic carbon emissions (and persons don’t have rights against restraints upon their rights-violating actions), where: a. The CMP coerces the smallest number of people sufficient to deter the emissions;  b.  The CMP is the least coercive means of deterring the emissions.
4. No non-governmental, non-rights violating alternative to CMP is socially or politically feasible....

"A complication with condition 1 is that no one person or small group produces enough carbon emissions to pose a non-trivial risk to legitimate property holdings. But this did not prevent Murray Rothbard from arguing that ... these threats should be handled through class-action lawsuits. But appeals to Rothbard aside, it’s clear enough that libertarians should be prepared to hold large, diffuse collectives accountable for property damages....

"Condition 2 is critical because the coercion involved in imposing a CMP can only be justified if it actually protects property rights. Condition 3 is critical because natural rights libertarians are not consequentialists. You cannot justify violating John’s property rights in order to protect Reba’s property rights more effectively....  Condition 4 is critical because if there is a non-coercive, non-governmental solution to a negative externality, the natural rights libertarian will hold that this solution is morally superior to a CMP.... .

"But how can ... anarchist natural rights libertarians, support governmental action to do anything? Well, in lieu of abolishing the state, presumably libertarians ... will insist that states be as just as possible. So if justice requires protecting people from negative externalities, then states should act to protect people from negative externalities....

"I fully acknowledge that a CMP will be imperfect. But the mere fact that it will be imperfect doesn’t mean we should forgo our libertarian duty to support policies that protect property rights, a duty we have even if the costs of protection are large....

"[A] CMP has to impose no greater burden on people, and on no more people, than is required to prevent the rights violation. And it is a virtual certainty that the CMP will be either too stringent or too lax. But that again is not a reason to not have a CMP, any more than the fact that the police are usually too stringent or too lax is a reason not to have them stop thieves and killers....

"However, there is an alternative to a CMP: geo-engineering, such as cloud-seeding with sulfuric compounds, diamond dust, or calcium carbonate, which can prevent rising sea levels by reflecting more sunlight from the Earth. These solutions are in principle far less economically costly than any proposed CMP and are much easier to coordinate (the US could do enough cloud seeding for the whole world all by itself). Moreover, while many climate change activists don’t take geo-engineering seriously and few support it, it is not obviously infeasible that the way in which Rothbardian mass-class-action lawsuits are. Most importantly, geo-engineering solutions appear to violate property rights less in comparison with CMPs....

"Geo-engineering is seriously problematic for lots of reasons. But there is nonetheless still some case for qualifying support for a CMP by making it conditional on the infeasibility or excessive risk of geo-engineering solutions that violate property rights less (if there are any)."

Read more: https://niskanencenter.org/blog/natural-rights-libertarians-support-carbon-mitigation-answer-may-surprise/
'via Blog this'

DeVos picks libertarian for Civil Rights position

DeVos pick for Office of Civil Rights opposes racial preferences, feminism – TheBlaze - Brandon Morse:

April 17, 2016 - "Candice Jackson, 39, is an attorney who graduated with honors from Stanford University. She got her law degree after graduating — with honors again — from the Pepperdine University School of Law. Since 2002, Jackson has been practicing law, specializing in entertainment and politics.

"She’s now been hired as the deputy assistant secretary in the Office for Civil Rights. Since this position requires no senatorial approval, Jackson will act as head of the office until the position can be filled by an approved nominee.

"But ... Jackson once wrote that she once suffered discrimination on campus because she was white. This discrimination occurred when she attempted to seek help with her advanced calculus class ...  but she was rejected because [the program] would only allow in minority students.

"'I am especially disappointed that the University encourages these and other discriminatory programs,' she wrote in the Stanford Review.... 'As with most liberal solutions to a problem, giving special assistance to minority students is a band-aid solution to a deep problem,' she would later write. 'No one, least of all the minority student, is well served by receiving special treatment based on race or ethnicity.'

"Jackson stands opposed to race-based programs, and focuses more on individual liberty. She did a summer fellowship at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a think tank of free market Libertarian scholars. While at the Mises Institute, she gave some editorial assistance to a book consisting of a collection of essays put together by Murray N. Rothbard, the institute’s co-founder.

"Rothbard opposed mandated schooling, as he wrote in his 1999 book, Education: Free and Compulsory.... Rothbard also opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, calling it 'monstrous,' though not for racially prejudiced reasons.... Jackson, a fan of Rothbard’s work ... wrote of his 1982 book, The Ethics of Liberty, that it 'shines as a monumental achievement, meeting Rothbard’s goal of setting forth ‘a positive ethical system … to establish the case for individual liberty’....

"In ... another article penned for the Review during her senior year, entitled, 'How I Survived Stanford Without Entering the Women’s Center,' she condemned feminism on campus....

"'In today’s society, women have the same opportunities as men to advance their careers, raise families, and pursue their personal goals,' she wrote. 'College women who insist on banding together by gender to fight for their rights are moving backwards, not forwards.'"

Read more: http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/04/17/devos-pick-for-office-of-civil-rights-opposes-racial-preferences-feminism/
'via Blog this'

WWE wrestler Kane to run for mayor

WWE's Kane Runs For Mayor - Being Libertarian - Brandon Kirby:

March 25, 2017 -  "Best known for lighting people on fire and chokeslamming his enemies, World Wresting Entertainment’s Glenn Jacobs, better known as Kane, sets his sights on the political ring to run for Knox County [Tennessee] mayor, according to the Associated Press.

"Standing at 6’9 and weighing over 324lbs, The Devil’s Favourite Demon had a successful 22-year career in the WWE.... Outside of the world of wrestling, Jacobs and his wife own and operate Jacobs Insurance Associates, LLC, offering auto, business, flood, home, life, and motorcycle insurance.

"The successful businessman and entertainer’s bid for mayor is sure to excite libertarians. Jacobs is actively involved in libertarian politics, supporting Ron Paul’s presidential campaign, is a member of the Free State Project, and spoke at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum and the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

"In an interview with Fox Business, Jacobs cited Harry Browne, Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, and Mary Ruwart as influences on his political thinking. The former world champion also cited the non-aggression principle as his guiding principle.

"In an interview with Tom Woods, Jacobs elaborated, 'Then I realized that it really is a philosophy that we’re talking about, you know — the nonaggression axiom, that the government should be bound by the same moral laws that the rest of us are. Once you realize that, you’re like, "Oh!" Your entire world opens up, and then your entire paradigm changes.'

"In the interview he also indicated that he believes taxation is theft."

Read more: https://beinglibertarian.com/wwes-kane-runs-mayor/
'via Blog this'

What the U.S. Libertarian Party 'pledge' means

"To validate my membership, I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals." – Libertarian Party membership pledge

I pledge allegiance ... to what? | KN@PPSTER - Tom Knapp:

February 25, 2006 - "Often, when debating the meaning of 'the pledge,' Libertarians cite David F. Nolan, the 'founder' (with a few others, but generally recognized as the prime mover in the founding) of the Libertarian Party, to the effect that 'the pledge' was simply intended to let the FBI know that the members of this new political party weren't bomb-throwing revolutionists who would shortly be assaulting the Nixon White House with molotov cocktails.... [see video below - editor]....

"I've stated the content of the pledge. In every form I've seen, it includes the very specific phrase 'initiation of force.' That's important. That phrase has a history which pre-dates the formation of the LP by at least a decade-and-a-half and possibly longer. It is a phrase which carried great weight among the adherents of two particular schools of libertarian thought throughout the 1960s: The Objectivists and the Misesian "anarcho-capitalists" (i.e. the disciples/compatriots, respectively, of Ayn Rand and of Murray N. Rothbard).

"Nolan – or at least those who cite him – expect the rest of us to believe that the occurrence of the phrase in the LP's membership pledge was a mere coincidence: That it did not arise from the ubiquitous use of that phrase within the movement from which the party emerged. Even at first blush, that assertion looks pretty untenable.... In the very first paragraph of the article which he wrote in 1971, promoting the formation of the Libertarian Party ... Nolan describes the movement to which he belongs, and which he hopes to form into a party, as a coalition of 'Randists, Miseists (sic), and elements of the old "radical right"'....

"Nolan's biography at the Advocates for Self-Government site specifically lists Ayn Rand as a writer who 'cemented his innate libertarianism.' Is it possible that someone who regarded Rand in such terms, and whose libertarianism took the form of political action, would entirely miss the core principle of the political branch of her philosophy?

'Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate -- do you hear me? No man may start -- the use of physical force against others.' -- from Galt's Speech in Atlas Shrugged (1957), and For the New Intellectual (1961), by Ayn Rand....

"Next let's look at Rothbard -- leader of the second faction which Nolan wanted to form a party around....

'The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence ("aggress") against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory.' --- from "War, Peace and the State" (1963), by Murray N. Rothbard

"The actual phrase 'initiation of force' seems to have crept into Rothbard's personal vocabulary later rather than sooner....

'The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the 'nonaggression axiom.' 'Aggression' is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else.' – from For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto (1973), by Murray N. Rothbard....

"Taken in its obvious historical context, the pledge clearly derives from a Randian and/or Rothbardian worldview and therefore – at a bare minimum – clearly and indisputably binds its takers to a no-coercive-taxes approach (which even the 'Randian minarchists' held to), and less clearly and less indisputably (but still arguably) to Rothbardian anarchism.

"The only way to get around that conclusion is to assert that the framers of the pledge were a bunch of drooling morons who in some strange trance state spontaneously and collectively forgot the entire content of the ideas they stood for, while simultaneously functioning efficiently enough to put together an organization to politically support said ideas ... and who just happened to randomly pick words out of the dictionary which were identical to nearly two decades of predominant phraseology relating to those ideas, for the purpose of saying something entirely different."

Read more: http://knappster.blogspot.com/2006/02/i-pledge-allegiance-to-what.html  'via Blog this'
Published under a Creative Commons CC0 Public Domain Dedication

Remembering Leonard P. Liggio (1933–2014)

RIP: Leonard P. Liggio (1933–2014) « Antiwar.com Blog - Sheldon Richman:

October 18, 2014 - "I lost one of my favorite teachers this week, as did so many other libertarians, not to mention the freedom movement as a whole. Leonard P. Liggio, 81, died after a period of declining health....

"Since the early 1950s, before he had reached the age of 20, Leonard was a scholar and activist for individual liberty, the free-market order, and the voluntary network of social cooperation we call civil society. He was in Youth for Taft in 1952, when the noninterventionist Sen. Robert Taft unsuccessfully sought the Republican presidential nomination....

"In his long career, Leonard was associated with the Volker Fund (a pioneering classical-liberal organization), the Institute for Humane Studies, Liberty Fund, the Cato Institute, and finally, the Atlas Network. He was also on the faculty of several universities, including George Mason Law School, after doing graduate work in law and history at various institutions.

"Leonard studied with Ludwig von Mises and a long list of eminent historians. He knew the founders of the modern libertarian movement: F.A. Harper, Leonard Read, Pierre Goodrich, Ayn Rand, and more. He was an early member of the Mont Pelerin Society, founded by F.A. Hayek, and eventually president of the organization. As a young man he became close friends with Murray Rothbard, Ralph Raico, George Reisman, Ronald Hamowy, Robert Hessen, and others who comprised their Circle Bastiat. He literally was present at the creation of the movement and helped to make it what it would become."

Read more: http://antiwar.com/blog/2014/10/18/rip-leonard-p-liggio-1933-2014/
'via Blog this'

Koch bio shines light on libertarian billionaires

Koch Brothers: The Real Thing - Justin Raimondo, The American Conservative:

July 9, 2014 - "According to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Koch brothers are responsible for global warming and much else that’s wrong with the world. This is part of a strategy to demonize Charles and David Koch — the principals behind the country’s largest privately-held company — and make them the issue come Election Day. There’s a big problem with this strategy, however: a recent poll shows that most of Reid’s own constituents haven’t the slightest idea who the Brothers Koch are.

"Daniel Schulman’s much anticipated book, the first biography of the Koch family, may help voters bridge the knowledge gap — but Democrats are going to be disappointed if they think it will help their smear campaign. Indeed, it is likely to do the opposite....

"The story starts with Fred Koch, a son of Dutch immigrants who ... was at the 1958 meeting where [Robert] Welch first laid out his plan to fight the Communist menace and roll back the New Deal. The John Birch Society was a hybrid of Old Right libertarian economics and the McCarthyite paranoia of the 1950s, and Fred — by this time a tycoon — relentlessly lectured his four sons on the evils of collectivism and the value of hard work....

"When he took over from his father, Charles not only immersed himself in the details of the business but also undertook a systematic study of philosophy, economics, political science, and history because he understood that the success of his company — his life’s work — depended on the condition of the society it was selling to and serving. This was his doorway to libertarianism.

"In the early 1960s, Charles attended the Freedom School, a modest lodge surrounded by little cabins set amid the scenic foothills of Colorado’s Rampart mountain range. There he listened to the lectures of the school’s founder and leading light, the libertarian pacifist Robert LeFevre, an idiosyncratic figure whose charisma and absolute devotion to the idea of a stateless society ... sent one of the wealthiest and most politically influential figures on the American right down the road to a more humane and enlightened philosophy.

"A fork in that road was Charles’s developing relationship with the economist Murray Rothbard.... At a seminal meeting at a ski lodge in Vail, Colorado, in the winter of 1976, the two discussed what course to take — and what came to be known as the 'Kochtopus' was born.

"Rothbard wrote a lengthy memo outlining an ambitious plan that would come to fruition with the injection of a large amount of Koch funding. There would be a think tank, a magazine, a campus group, seminars and grants for promising libertarian scholars — all of which came to pass in the form of the Cato Institute; Inquiry, a biweekly directed at the left; a movement magazine, Libertarian Review; and a campus group dubbed Students for a Libertarian Society (SLS).

"To manage this operation, Charles and Rothbard recruited Edward H. Crane III, a young financial consultant and stockbroker whose tenure as head of the barely four-year-old Libertarian Party had demonstrated rare organizational abilities."

Read more: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/koch-brothers-the-real-thing/

Sons of Wichita: How the Koch Brothers Became America’s Most Powerful and Private Dynasty, Daniel Schulman, Grand Central, 432 pages.

Libertarian economics behind Silk Road website

Libertarian economics underpinned Silk Road Bitcoin drug website - FT.com - John Aglionby:

October 3, 2013 - "The goods and services traded on the semi-secretive website Silk Road since February 2011 with the virtual currency Bitcoins were so varied that the Federal Bureau of Investigation described it as 'the most sophisticated and extensive criminal marketplace on the internet today'.

"Its philosophical underpinnings, however, were ... according to the FBI complaint published on Wednesday after the site was shut down, 'Austrian economic theory' and the works of Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard, economists closely associated with the Mises Institute, in the US state of Alabama.

"The libertarian institute’s website says it 'seeks to advance the Misesian tradition of thought through the defence of the market economy, private property, sound money and peaceful international relations, while opposing government intervention as economically and socially destructive'.

"Ross Ulbricht, Silk Road’s alleged founder who was arrested on Wednesday and allegedly made millions of dollars from running the trading site, had a user profile on the Mises Institute site and linked to the website, and cited the economists’ work in Silk Road forum postings, the FBI complaint said."

Read more: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2c1f0f78-2c17-11e3-acf4-00144feab7de.html#axzz2grWVCfoC
'via Blog this'

America's Libertarian Moment; an interview with David Boaz

America's Libertarian Moment - Molly Ball - The Atlantic:

August 18, 2013 - "Libertarianism is on the march. From the rapid rise to prominence of first-term Senator Rand Paul to the state-level movements to legalize gay marriage and marijuana, the philosophy of fiscal conservatism, social liberalism, and restrained foreign policy seems to be gaining currency in American politics. But it's nothing new, of course. (New York Times Magazine, 1971: "The New Right Credo: Libertarianism.") A lonely band of libertarian thinkers have been propounding this philosophy since the 1960s, when the late thinker Murray Rothbard published his first book, Reason magazine was founded, and, in 1974, Rothbard teamed up with Charles Koch and Ed Crane to found the Cato Institute, one of Washington's most influential think tanks.

"David Boaz, Cato's executive vice president, has been with the organization since 1981, giving him a good perch to put the current libertarian vogue in perspective. In an interview this week, we talked about the political currents propelling libertarianism into the political mainstream, the Supreme Court's libertarian turn, whether Paul will be our next president, and much more....

"What is the significance of Rand Paul to this discussion?
"Rand Paul is clearly the most significant libertarian-leaning American political figure in a long time. There are a couple of issues I disagree with him on, but when you look at issues that cut across left-right boundaries, like his interest in reduced spending, less regulation, reining in our adventurous foreign policy, protecting America's rights against surveillance -- that's a combination of issues that libertarians have waited a long time to find together in one candidate. I think he can have a lot of appeal. A lot of libertarians, including those who came out of the Ron Paul movement but also others, are very interested in seeing how far his political ambitions might take him....

"Are there other libertarian-leaning politicians you're interested in besides Rand Paul?
"One of the problems for libertarians is they aren't much interested in politics. The three most libertarian governors of past decade -- the brilliant lawyer William Weld, the true citizen-politician Gary Johnson, and the eccentric entertainer Jesse Ventura -- all walked away from politics. In the House you have Justin Amash [of Michigan] and Thomas Massie [of Kentucky] -- I once did a study that determined that Kentucky was the least libertarian state in the country by several criteria. Then they elected Rand Paul and Thomas Massie, so maybe I have to reconsider."

Read more: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/americas-libertarian-moment/278785/
'via Blog this'