For 15 jurisdictions, today is your first chance to cast a vote in the 2020 presidential election. Of course, it’s not quite that easy if you are not supporting one of the two old parties. For Libertarians in these 14 states and American Samoa, the rules are not all the same. For some, participating in the primary will disqualify them from participating in their Libertarian convention process (heads up Texas, DO NOT VOTE IN THE PRIMARIES if you want to vote in your Libertarian convention). For other states, the convention process is done, and you can sit back today. (We’re talking about you Arkansas, Alabama, and Tennessee). Other states still have conventions coming up (so make sure you know the details, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Utah, Vermont and Virginia). Finally, some states do include Libertarians in the primaries and you can get out and vote today (hopefully you already knew this, California, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Oklahoma).
Whether you are voting today, waiting for your state convention, or still trying to decide what to do, we’re here to help. In honor of the 15 different groups of voters trying to figure out what to do today, here are…
1. The Libertarian Party is the only anti-war party.
You cannot count on Democrats to end the wars — they have been every bit to blame as the Republicans. While in the midst of trying to impeach President Trump, a bi-partisan Congress approved a military budget of over $700 billion. Neither old party has any intention to ease up or end our military interactions. If you are ready for an America at Peace, it’s time to vote Libertarian. 2. The Libertarian Party is the only party committed to eliminating the national debt. Republicans have long been considered the anti-debt party, but that can only be laughed at now. After eight years of calling out President Obama’s reckless spending and increased deficits, they have been silent and/or outright supportive of Trump’s explosive spending that has taken our national debt from $19 trillion to $23 trillion in three years. If an annual deficit of $1 trillion dollars is unacceptable to you, your best move is to vote Libertarian. 3. The only way to stop more government overreach is to vote for the Libertarian Party. Increased taxation for “free” college is promised by the Democrats; tariffs (which are taxes) and bailouts are executed by Republicans. Both old parties are inching or running toward single-payer healthcare, more gun control and granting the executive branch more and more power. The only choice for those who care about personal and economic liberty, separate from the boot of big government, is the Libertarian party. 4. The only way to send a message to the ruling old parties is to vote for the Libertarian candidate. Once again, the only alternative party that will be on every ballot in the 2020 general election is the Libertarian Party. A vote for Trump sends the message that nothing needs to change. A vote for any of the Democratic candidates likely to get the nomination is a message that nothing they do needs to change either. We currently have more people choosing not to vote for anyone than to pick one of the options the Rs or Ds serve up, and that does nothing to wake up these power-hungry politicians. If your hope is to see better candidates coming from any party, the only way to send that message is to scare those who rule over us by voting Libertarian. 5. Libertarian policies benefit everyone, and they get adopted the more voters show support for such things. It seems hard to believe that the Democratic party was officially still against same-sex marriage less than a decade ago. The Libertarian Party has supported equal rights (and removing the government from marriage) since its founding in 1971. Both parties are still waffling on if people who chose to use cannabis for medical or recreational purposes should go to prison. Many states have changed their laws, while federally some lawmakers are looking to add vaping as a crime. The Libertarian party has supported individual liberty (and no victim, no crime) since its founding in 1971. The liberty movement does affect the public view of issues and eventually leads to better policies. If you want to see more Libertarian policies adopted by old party representatives, you show them that by voting Libertarian. 6. You don’t want to have to spend the next four years explaining why the dumpster fire you supported was not as bad as the dumpster fire someone else supported. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still attaching your name to something evil. It sucks. Don’t do it. Vote Libertarian. 7. Because you “Support the Troops”. Democrats and Republicans both like to act like they are moral patriots who value nothing more than the brave men and women who serve their county. Truth is, they are lying. If they really cared about the troops, they would never flippantly start a new war, they wouldn’t refuse to do their job to vote on military action, and they would certainly spend much more time talking about the 22 veterans a day who commit suicide. War is a failure on every level, and we fail our service men and women once they return home. Do you support the troops, really? So does the Libertarian Party. 8. Consistent Principles only exist in the Libertarian Party. We already mentioned the Democrats’ evolution on rights for gay people only when it became politically beneficial to them. Republicans say they support your Second Amendment rights, until Trump says we need to limit that a bit. Both old parties jump around on which personal decisions they will allow and which they will criminalize. In their histories, the ruling parties have changed their principles drastically. The Libertarian Party platform has held consistent values of individual liberty since it was first written in 1971. Do you want to know that the party you support is going to hold to the values you supported them for? Your party is the Libertarian Party. 9. The Libertarian Party supports ending harmful election laws and opening up the ballot for other parties too. Perhaps you feel that another party best represents your views, but they do not have ballot access. Republicans and Democrats write the very laws that keep alternative parties off the ballot or using all of their resources to get on the ballot. Libertarians believe the duopoly has to be defeated if we will ever see real and meaningful changes in this country. A vote for the Libertarian candidate is a vote for allowing more candidates and more parties of future ballots, and an end to the ruling parties ability to force you to choose between two terrible candidates. 10. The Libertarian Party is the most welcoming to immigrants and refugees. If you believe children should never, ever be separated from their parents and held in government custody for crossing a political border, you can be sure that the Libertarian Party agrees with you. Democrats and Republicans will continue to argue over miniscule changes - the Libertarian Party will end this insane and dysfunction humanitarian crisis by legalizing the free movement of peaceful people. 11. Because you do not want to live in a {insert religion here} theocracy. Libertarians believe that everyone should be able to hold faith and religion as important or irrelevant to their life as each chooses and that the government should never propose policies or laws based on the support or opposition of any religion. 12. To get money out of politics. It’s funny how often you hear Democrats talk about getting money out of politics, while they promise to pay for college, healthcare, retirement, childcare, and on and on. That is every bit “money in politics” as corporations and lobbyists writing huge checks. Libertarians want to return the executive branch to the limits our Founders intended — that means removing the authority to make such false promises, either to special interest groups or the general public. 13. You support Free Speech — for everyone. Both old parties will talk about their commitment to the First Amendment, but in practice, both have proven willingness to limit free speech that they do not appreciate or agree with. Libertarians believe that if you don’t support free speech for everyone then you don’t support free speech. 14. Reject Nationalism and Socialism with one vote. There are two broken ideologies threatening liberty in our nation today, and they are coming from both major parties. Reject the inhumanities we know come from these authoritarian philosophies, and support liberty instead. 15. Libertarians do not seek power - they seek a world set free. Republicans and Democrats continue to fight over which one best knows how you should live your life. Libertarians know that they best thing for individual humans is to be free to live their life without the approval of any political party. Can you think of anymore? No matter which one of these reasons rings the truest for you, remember that when you go to vote. Even if you are not voting today, you can still cast a vote for liberty, fiscal responsibility, human rights, and integrity by supporting the party of principle. We are proud and honored to be the voice for freedom in America today. Donate to the Libertarian Party Today! "Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day." MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
0 Comments
Connecticut just became the tenth blue state to pledge to cast its electoral votes for whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationally.
Why? Because according to the measure's proponents, the electoral college -- along with everything else that's more than 10 minutes old -- is backward and stupid. Here's one more step toward making the United States into a giant, undifferentiated blob, as opposed to the collection of distinct societies it was originally intended to be. The Constitution refers to the United States in the plural every time, and the way the Constitution and the Union were originally understood, the "popular vote" was an irrelevancy. During the World Series, for example, we don’t add up the total number of runs scored by each team over the course of the series, and decide who won on that basis. We count up how many games each team won. Thus:Game 1: Red Sox 10, Mets 0 Game 2: Red Sox 15, Mets 1 Game 3: Red Sox 5, Mets 2 Game 4: Red Sox 1, Mets 2 Game 5: Red Sox 0, Mets 1 Game 6: Red Sox 2, Mets 3 Game 7: Red Sox 3, Mets 4 In this imaginary series the Red Sox scored 36 runs while the Mets scored only 13, yet everyone would acknowledge that the Mets won the series. Not a single sports fan would be running around demanding that we count the total number of runs instead, or insisting that the way we determine the World Series winner is sinister. But I think this is the correct analogy with the electoral college. How many games — e.g., how many political societies, albeit weighted to some degree by population — did you win? Also, the electoral college puts an upper bound on how much support you can earn from any one state. Even if your whole campaign is geared toward taxing the rest of the country and handing the money to California, you still can’t get more than 55 electoral votes from that state. So to some extent, the electoral college forces the candidate to run a national race more than would be necessary otherwise. A group called National Popular Vote, which seeks to abolish the electoral college, claims that "presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the issues of concern to voters in states where the statewide outcome is a foregone conclusion." But this problem becomes much worse without the electoral college. If there is no limit to the support I can get from California and New York, then I'll campaign in those states like a madman. At least the electoral college puts something of a brake on this kind of strategy. A brief note about Trump's defeat in the popular vote: had the election been decided on the basis of the popular vote, Trump would have campaigned differently in the first place. Also, more people in, say, California would have bothered to vote for him. So we can’t know that he would have lost the popular vote had those been the rules. What we do know is that every step toward making the U.S. into a giant blob instead of a decentralized collection of societies is a step toward more centralized, bureaucratic management of society, and away from liberty. We're not taught to think this way in school, of course. You know where you do learn this stuff? http://www.LibertyClassroom.com Tom Woods
Thomas Sowell is one of a handful of people whose prose I genuinely envy.
He's also brilliant, of course. Milton Friedman, whom I disagree with on some things, was known for being an effective debater, but I think Sowell has even him beat: anti-capitalist platitudes don't stand a chance against the Sowell meat grinder. And now, just today -- at age 87! -- Sowell has released a brand new book: Discrimination and Disparities. I haven't read it yet, but I will. From what I've seen of it, the new book reminds me of Sowell's criminally neglected work Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?, which I've been recommending for as long as I can remember (my Amazon review from 2001 is still up). One by one, the standard platitudes about discrimination and poverty fall before Sowell's relentless statistical assault. Discrimination causes poverty? How about the Chinese minority in Southeast Asia? Discrimination against the Chinese minority is actually written into the Malaysian constitution. And yet the Chinese minority still dominate the economy. Likewise, Japanese-Americans were discriminated against so badly that 120,000 of them were forcibly relocated during World War II. Yet by 1959 they had equaled whites in income, and by 1969 were earning one-third more. Politics is the only way for a minority group to advance? To the contrary: the general pattern in the United States has been for a group to become wealthy first and only then to enter politics (if at all). The Irish, on the other hand, who placed such emphasis on political action, lagged behind other ethnic groups. The book is filled with information like this. Page by relentless page, Sowell relentlessly undermines the idea that outcome differences must be of sinister origin. If Polish-Americans are 25 years older, on average, than Puerto Ricans, is that not going to be reflected in greater work experience, higher net worth, etc.? Yet nobody even bothers to consider age differences. If half of Mexican-American women are married by age 18, but only 10 percent of Japanese-American women are, won't their life trajectories be radically different -- even if they were identical in all other traits? By the end of Sowell's book, any reasonable person has to understand how cartoonish and silly it is to expect identical outcomes from different groups across a wide range of human experiences. Of course, today the very existence of an intergroup disparity is made the subject of hysterical denunciations by campus demonstrators who aren't exactly known for appreciating subtlety. All the more reason to cheer the truly great Thomas Sowell, and the unexpected gift of his new book. -Tom Woods Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot Second federal judge blocks move to end DACA; Judicial Activism against an Unconstitutional Law2/14/2018 Only in America could the mainstream media call those who want strengthened borders "Racists" and "Xenophobes" while those who are here illegally are referred to as "Dreamers". If you aren't real sure why the courts keep blocking the Trump Administration's attempts to shut down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, let me catch you up. The entire DACA debate in a nutshell - It's not that the courts believe the Trump Administration can'tend the program. The courts believe the administration does have this right, this ability. The courts just want to make sure there's a good reason behind it. As if, the executive branch has to all-of-a-sudden provide justification in form of a White Paper, hand-deliver this to the judicial branch and wait around for permission to be given. Just as the Framer's intended. No, this is not one of those 'checks and balances' we learned about in 5th grade Civics class. "Defendants indisputably can end the DACA program," Garaufis wrote, referring to the Trump administration. "The question before the court is thus not whether defendants could end the DACA program, but whether they offered legally adequate reasons for doing so. Based on its review of the record before it, the court concludes that defendants have not done so." The judge goes on to cite a "recurring, redundant drumbeat of anti-Latino commentary". To be fair, Trump definitely capitalized on the drug problem, the gang problem and national headlines of illegals killing Americans (after being deported many times). This is politics. This is a candidate firing up a base. Now, if you read a lot of CNN, you might think that "We're getting a lot of drug dealers and gang members from Mexico; They're not sending us their best and brightest" is anti-Latino. It's not. "Today's ruling shows that courts across the country agree that Trump's termination of DACA was not just immoral, but unlawful as well," said Karen Tumlin of the National Immigration Law Center. So the Justice System is also the Morality Police, now? Oh yeah, Federalist Papers Essay #82 regarding the authority of the judicial systems. I'll have to refresh myself up on the morality section. When you have judges who legislate morality from the bench, your judicial system is screwed. They are supposed to be partial only to the Constitution. The Justice Department said it maintains that the administration acted "within its lawful authority" in deciding to end DACA and will "vigorously defend this position." Just to recap, the government has very few purposes in our life. It's purpose is to defend Life, Liberty, and Property. If the President decides that droves of foreign nationals, who don't share our western ideals of liberty and freedom, are a threat to "Life, Liberty, and Property", then it's incumbent upon his oath of office to make that decision. This week the Supreme Court is set to meet behind closed doors to discuss whether to take up the Trump administration's appeal of the related case. Spoiler Alert: They Won't. The Supreme Court is very selective on which cases it takes. And when it does take a case of national importance, you will be sure that the legal argument examined will be some tiny nuance within the case, not the hallmark of the case itself. With obstructionist judges who act upon partisan lines, the future is bleak for the Trump Administration. If you feel very passionate about DACA, let's rally support and create the law, legally.
Unpopular Opinion: I hate people who have the 'poor' mindset.
I not only oppose government welfare, I oppose private welfare. You'd be better off burning your money than giving it to a person who lacks the drive to provide themselves opportunities. At least burning it would provide you some heat. For the last 9 years, I've been living with poor people. Why? I rent out the spare room in my home, because I'm extroverted and like having some extra spending cash. Every single one of them has been lazy and stupid. I recall one had tickets to Lollapalooza. She paid $50 each for them. They were selling for $300 each on StubHub. Her boss wouldn't give her the day off. What'd she do? Well, not the smart thing, which is go to work and sell the tickets. Nope, she calls in sick! Yeah, I'm sure that won't be remembered come raise or layoff time. Another had to borrow money from me every year for his girlfriend's birthday. Same girlfriend. Three years in a row. Sure, he always paid it back promptly, but seriously.... It happens on the same day every year! My current tenant is two months behind on rent. I offered to knock off $150 if he raked the leaves and cleaned the gutters (a $60 value). Guess what hasn't happened a month later? Guess who won't be making any more generous offers of work in lieu of rent? (Seriously, if you're looking to hire anyone in the Lake Worth area, check with me first to make sure you don't hire the guy.) He's a tow truck driver, who gets paid on commission (using his bosses equipment). He was complaining about not getting paid to be on call. I suggested he should go to his boss and ask how he could be of greater use to his boss. Explain to his boss he wants to make more money, but he understands he needs to provide value to his boss, so he is respectfully asking his boss for help in becoming a more useful employee. He looked at me like I had grown two heads. Then he went into a screed about how it isn't fair he doesn't get paid by the hour (even though his boss only gets paid a flat rate per tow). No matter how much you help these people, they will always be poor. They squander every opportunity you give them, ignore any advice you give them, and only ever think of their own short term pleasure. We should do away with all forms of charity, with the possible exception of work internships. Work opportunities will separate the wheat from the chafe. Let the rest die face down in the gutter. At least then we'd get soap and glue when we rendered down their bodies. (There's a touch of sarcasm in this paragraph... you know, for effect) Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go stand on my porch and yell at children to get off my lawn. "Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day." Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
What is the purpose of Government?
Imagine a time before kings, presidents, or prime ministers, before the formation of society and civilization. This is what philosophers call a "state of nature". In this thought experiment, people lived freely, without rules or formal laws. But what exactly does this state look like? For 17th century philosopher Thomas Hobbes the state of nature is a war of all against all. Mankind’s basic nature is fear, insecurity, death, and turmoil. And from this constant terror, People decided to surrender some basic rights to a sovereign entity, or what he called The Leviathan. If one was, say, fed up with the theft of his potions, the state could pass laws to protect his goods or help him receive some sort of reparation. This protection is important for a number of reasons, but the most significant is that laws, and their enforcement, keep constant anxiety at bay. For 18th century Swiss-born french philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the state of nature is rather different than that conceived by Hobbes. Rousseau sees natural man as independent, solitary, and peaceful. Rousseau thought people were much better off without government. With the creation of agriculture, private property, and the division of labor, however, came inequalities. Unequal access to resources created tension, enmity, and envy. People started to become aware of their limited material situation and lack of upward mobility. They became aware of their 'unfreedom'. This led Rousseau to claim that “Man is born free and is everywhere in chains.” While both philosophers describe the state of nature as a sort of beastly existence absent any morality, they disagree on some fundamentals. Rousseau sees the Hobbesian model as leading to despotism, in which people have no choice but to turn to a third party to secure basic needs. Consequently, they do not freely choose their leaders. Rousseau argues that rather than choosing leaders out of fear, people choose to give up some power and rights, at least so that citizens can be equal. Rousseau dictated that decisions ought to be made for the sake of everyone, instead of a few. This would require that people follow a rule of law that they would follow on their own anyway. For Rousseau, people are better without government because society means unfreedom and oppression. Whether out of fear or for the sake of equality, the consent to be ruled is called the social contract. So listeners I ask, “Who has it right?” Do people need to be kept in line or should they remain free to do as they wish? Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
MLK Jr. Would Not Accuse Trump's "shi*thole" Comment as Racist, but "Racial Ignorance" (DMR)1/13/2018
I know that I'm going to start a firestorm with this post, but I think that this is a conversation worth having. It seems that not a day passes that headlines don't carry news of accusations of racism. To be sure, racism certainly is alive and well; I do not want to give the impression that I'm downplaying that reality. It is alive, and it cuts more than one way.
That said, I think that the frequency of knee-jerk, reactionary accusations of racism against people for equivocal remarks causes society to be far too sensitive and even unable to recognize true racism when it manifests. (In other words, if everything is racist, then nothing is racist.) It diminishes attempts to address indisputable and/or egregious displays of racism, thus undermining the very goal it means to achieve. Yes, I have in mind Donald Trump's calling Haiti and African nations "sh*tholes." To be sure, I am NOT excusing that remark. Should he have said it? Absolutely not. Was it Presidential? No. Was it a racist remark though? I'm not so sure--certainly not sure enough that I think it should dominate headlines as such. Trump is a tactless man with a small vocabulary, and the preponderance of the evidence indicates that he communicates this way on a broad range of topics, including on many that are not even tangentially related to race. Furthermore, he did not proactively bring up Haiti or African nations, and he probably wasn't talking only about them (Central America also apparently was an intended target). His remarks were in response to their being mentioned both in the immigration bill and orally in the meeting.
Additionally, Trump's remarks were not directed at individual people, nor were they directed at specific demographics. They were quite clearly directed at countries--at geographic political entities. As far as I can tell, this is how Trump conveys that he believes that these are countries with significant problems.
In order for that to be a racist idea, it would need to be discriminatory and wrong. It isn't though. There is a reason that Americans aren't beating down the doors of Africa in an attempt to move there. It is invariably true that Haiti and a large number of African nations have problems that would lead many good, accepting, open-minded people to think--perhaps in different words--what Trump said. Race and tribal warfare. Religious violence. Rape as a weapon. Infanticide. Economic and kinetic warfare against populations by their own governments. Apartheid (until appallingly recently). Extremely high unemployment rates. The use of women and children as instruments of terrorism. Abject poverty. AIDS. Do these describe all of Africa? No. Do they apply to all African countries? No. One or a combination of them do, however, apply to a too-large number of African countries--disproportionately so. There is much to love about Africa. The picture there is far from universally negative, but it remains true that problems like these are relatively more prevalent there. This is not to say that there is anything lesser or inadequate about Africans themselves. There isn't. They are victims of extremely poor governance and of circumstances that frequently are beyond their control. They need our help. Alleged Trump racism isn't what's causing these problems though. Extractive, kleptocratic leadership in many African countries is the primary cause of these problems. (For example, can one really look at the Congo and at its horrendous leadership and objectively believe that only racism could possibly cause someone to develop a negative opinion of it?)Additionally, Trump's remarks were not directed at individual people, nor were they directed at specific demographics. They were quite clearly directed at countries--at geographic political entities. As far as I can tell, this is how Trump conveys that he believes that these are countries with significant problems. Trump should not have said what he did for many reasons, including the reality that it will probably harm our relations with some African countries. The remark was cold and unwarranted. Was it racist though? I don't think that we can say for sure that it was. I agree with Martin Luther King, Jr: Trump's remark probably wasn't a sign of racism. Rather, it was probably just a sign of "racial ignorance." Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
We are a monthly book club for anyone who wants to learn more about Libertarianism. We will discuss each book's chapter/section in separate posts, so everyone will be able to read along at their own pace. We typically also focus on books which are available for free so that everyone can participate.
Join the Private Facebook Group and follow us on Twitter as we seek to learn more about Libertarianism. Liberalism is Mises's classic statement in defense of a free society, one of the last statements of the old liberal school and a text from which we can continue to learn. It has been the conscience of a global movement for liberty for 80 years. This new edition, a gorgeous hardback from the Mises Institute, features a new foreword by Tom Woods. It can also be downloaded here. Ch1, pgs. 18 -26 From Tom Wood's Forward: “The liberal sets a very high threshold for the initiation of violence. Beyond the minimal taxation necessary to maintain legal and defense services—and some liberals shrink even from this— he denies to the state the power to initiate violence and seeks only peaceful remedies to perceived social ills. He opposes violence for the sake of redistributing wealth, of enriching influential pressure groups, or trying to improve man’s moral condition. Civilized people, says the liberal, interact with each other not according to the law of the jungle, but by means of reason and discussion.” Intro. Mises: “If it is maintained that the consequence of a liberal policy is or must be to favor the special interests of certain strata of society, this is still a question that allows of discussion. It is one of the tasks of the present work to show that such a reproach is in no way justified . . . In the customary rhetoric of the demagogues these facts are represented quite differently. To listen to them, one would think that all progress in the techniques of production redounds to the exclusive benefit of a favored few, while the masses sink ever more deeply into misery. However, it requires only a moment’s reflection to realize that the fruits of all technological and industrial innovations make for an improvement in the satisfaction of the wants of the great masses.” While Mises endeavors to explain liberalism rationally, he says that you can't explain anti-liberalism that way because they are not rational. He calls it Fourierism - a kind of neurosis that is basically envy. Ch 1 The section on property reminded me a lot of what Rothbard wrote in New Liberty. Not surprising since I am sure Rothbard cited Mises a lot. On Freedom: “Muddleheaded babblers may therefore argue interminably over whether all men are destined for freedom and are as yet ready for it. They may go on contending that there are races and peoples for whom Nature has prescribed a life of servitude and that the master races have the duty of keeping the rest of mankind in bondage. The liberal will not oppose their arguments in any way because his reasoning in favor of freedom for all, without distinction, is of an entirely different kind. We liberals do not assert that God or Nature meant all men to be free, because we are not instructed in the designs of God and of Nature, and we avoid, on principle, drawing God and Nature into a dispute over mundane questions. What we maintain is only that a system based on freedom for all workers warrants the greatest productivity of human labor and is therefore in the interest of all the inhabitants of the earth.” The section on Peace reminded me of . . . I really liked section 2, talking about how by nature individuals will seek out beneficial relationships through mutual exchange. It's not that we believe that business is benevolent, but that like Adam Smith had said: it is not from their own generosity that the butcher and baker offer their service but of their own livelihood. Former President Obama has repeatedly tried to infer cryptography is a threat to the /people/ if government doesn't have a skeleton key to everyone's digital house and digital papers by saying "Everyone is walking around with a swiss bank account in their pocket." The first time I heard him say it out loud some years ago now, I thought to myself "that sounds expletive ideal!" . The answer to the underlying and ongoing incessant plea by government to give them permission to do what they are already doing without permission, spying on the /people/, is of the form PRIVACY SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Given that the governments have proven themselves without honor and have violated any trust or hope thereof to defend from plunder in the act of plundering themselves, privacy going forward will be kept by intellectual strength. This is not a request, this is an action a person takes, or doesn't take: responsibility for their own digital information security. If you didn't read the chapter you probably won't get how that all relates together in terms of the shenanigans they've been up to since his observations were originally written. Trusting the other end to hold all the keys and the data has proven unwise, hasn't it? Ch 1, pgs. 27-41 I have some qualms about how Mises frames the discussion on equality. He finds fault with nineteenth century liberals (here I think we can substitute Thomas Jefferson though Mises noticeably does not call him out by name) because they argued for the equality of all men on the basis of natural rights theory. Mises argues that is preposterous because all you have to do is look at people to see they are not equal. But when Jefferson said all men are created equal he certainly did not mean that all men are identical. Since he rejects equality as a reason for giving equal treatment under the law, he therefore resorts to making utilitarian arguments. He basically says that elites best not deprive the poor and working class of equal treatment because they are outnumbered and will meet resistance - usually bloody. However, you will recall that in New Liberty, Rothbard will argue that it is a mistake to make utilitarian arguments and that we must always argue from first principles. In section five Mises argues that the luxuries of today inevitably become the necessities of tomorrow. I am glad to know that in the future we will all fly first class, have yachts, chauffeur driven limousines, and luxury boxes at the ballpark. Section Six: “In requiring of the individual that he should take society into consideration in all his actions, that he should forgo an action that, while advantageous to him, would be detrimental to social life, society does not demand that he sacrifice himself to the interests of others. For the sacrifice that it imposes is only a provisional one: the renunciation of an immediate and relatively minor advantage in “exchange for a much greater ultimate benefit. The continued existence of society as the association of persons working in cooperation and sharing a common way of life is in the interest of every individual.” In Section Seven, everyone should see the problem with this: “There is, to be sure, a sect that believes that one could quite safely dispense with every form of compulsion and base society entirely on the voluntary observance of the moral code. The anarchists consider state, law, and government as superfluous institutions in a social order that would really serve the good of all, and not just the special interests of a privileged few. Only because the present social order is based on private ownership of the means of production is it necessary to resort to compulsion and coercion in its defense. If private property were abolished, then everyone, without exception, would spontaneously observe the rules demanded by social cooperation.” Mises here to me seems to be arguing that anarchism is incompatible with private property. Of course, most of us now understand this to be incorrect and the present-day Mises Institute could be called the Anarcho-Capitalist Institute. Mises writes: “Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism.” He may be right about that, which is why Rothbard used the term libertarianism to describe anarcho-capitalism and deliberately distinguished it from liberalism which he viewed as a sort of proto-libertarianism. Mises goes on this same line to a sickening degree in Section Eight. When reading this I thought of this meme, but in place of "proud conservative" I guess you could photoshop Mises' face.
FREE BITCOIN! When you buy $100 Bitcoin through this link, you'll earn $10 of FREE Bitcoin! (IMMEDIATE 10% ROI!)
Ch 1, pgs. 42-59
Mises confuses me again in Section Nine: “The champions of democracy in the eighteenth century argued that only monarchs and their ministers are morally depraved, injudicious, and evil. The people, however, are altogether good, pure, and noble, and have, besides, the intellectual gifts needed in order always to know and to do what is right. This is, of course, all nonsense, no less so than the flattery of the courtiers who ascribed all good and noble qualities to their princes.” That I agree with completely. However, he closes that same section: “Only a group that can count on the consent of the governed can establish a lasting regime." So he begins by criticizing democracy and closes by praising it. In between he seems to be making another utilitarian argument in favor of democracy. Section 10 I like. Basically he argues that fascism at the time of his writing was popular because it was a response to the evils of Bolshevism. “Many people approve of the methods of Fascism, even though its economic program is altogether antiliberal and its policy completely interventionist, because it is far from practicing the senseless and unrestrained destructionism that has stamped the Communists as the arch-enemies of civilization” He was very prescient here: “But when the fresh impression of the crimes of the Bolsheviks has paled, the socialist program will once again exercise its power of attraction on the masses.” Section 11: Found this depressing considering it was written several decades ago: “Other countries do not go so far, but nearly everywhere some restrictions are imposed on the sale of opium, cocaine, and similar narcotics." Mises argues that once you concede government the power to prohibit certain substances you have lost the argument that they should not be able to prohibit certain reading material. Section 12: He makes another utilitarian argument. The state should be tolerant of religious beliefs, not because every individual has freedom of conscience, but says Mises, because intolerance will lead to social unrest by persecuted religious. We of course today would prefer no state around to be tolerant or intolerant of anything. Section 13 Mises wrongly suggests that suppression of conduct detrimental to the social order requires a state. As we saw from Rothbard though that is not the case at all. Ch 2, pgs. 60-84 In The Organization of the Economy, Mises points out the difference between redistributing capital among the working class and the communal ownership of property, but of course rejects both. In "The Impracticality of Socialism" he says that while the common criticism that “most men will not exhibit the same zeal in the performance of the duties and tasks assigned to them that they bring to their daily work in a social order based on private property" is correct, it does not get at the heart of the matter: “What renders socialism impracticable is precisely the fact that calculation of this kind is impossible in a socialist society.” In Sections 2 and 3 Mises says that since the world is not a paradise, people like to direct their unhappiness at the institution of private property and that governments by their very nature always attack private property. Below is a perfect example of that from a recent interview with New York City Mayor DeBlasio. Mises says that while many people today understand that private property can not be dispensed with completely, they think government intervention is necessary to even the playing field. He explains though how every single government intervention in the voluntary exchange of goods and services can only make the market less efficient i.e. Back to Hazlitt's consequences seen and unseen. "Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day."
Ch 2, pgs. 85-94
In section seven Mises argues that we have nothing to fear from natural monopolies. Reminded me of this Tom Woods episode I would summarize section six as that capitalism is not perfect, just better than any other economic system conceivable. Reminded me of this:
Ch 3, pgs. 105-117
Section 3.1 is brief, but I think complex. Mises argued that for classical liberals, there is no divide between domestic and foreign policy: The same principles that apply to one apply to the other. And I would summarize that principle as non-interventionism: no intervention by government in the domestic economy and no intervention by government in the affairs of foreign governments - i.e. Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none. So far, so good, but Mises goes on to extol the virtues of cosmopolitanism vis-a-vis nationalism. Also fine. But he then argued a that national unity is itself a product of liberalism. THAT seems to conflict a bit with the point he just made, and quite a bit with the book we read by Tom DiLorenzo where he made the case that DISUNITY within a nation is a force for good when it comes to libertarianism and advocated secession and nullification as tools to advance liberty. Ch 3, pgs. 118-141 Section 3.4 Mises argues that ethic conflicts within heterogeneous nations can only be avoided when said nation completely adopts a liberal program. As per Rothbard though: Ch. 4, pgs. 155-169 We often hear complaints that libertarianism does not advance due to some failure or another in tactics or strategy on the part of libertarians. In Section 4.1 Mises dismisses that concern saying that liars and tricksters need tactics and strategy but that if people can't see the truth for themselves there is no hope for them. Mises goes even further: “Most people do not have even the intellectual endowments required to think through the—after all very complicated—problems of social cooperation, and they certainly do not have the will power necessary to make those provisional sacrifices that all social action demands.” Well that is certainly downer, leaving all political activity completely useless. (He makes that explicit in the next section). I am left wondering what is the point of his even writing and publishing books if he believes that? Ch. 4, pgs. 170-187 Section 4.3 "There are, therefore, only two parties: the party in power and the one that wants to be in power . . . As their demands are, in principle, limitless, it is impossible for any one of these parties ever to achieve all the ends it envisages . . . Every party seeks, nevertheless, to attain to such influence as will permit it to satisfy its desires as far as possible, while also taking care always to be able to justify to its electors why all their wishes could not be fulfilled." Certainly seems apropos today regarding the GOP's failure to repeal ACA, defund Planned Parenthood etc. Section 4.4. "Society cannot, in the long run, exist if it is divided into sharply defined groups, each intent on wresting special privileges for its own members” To me that is almost like saying "Society can not in the long run exist. Period." Mises I think unwittingly makes the case for radical individualism. Or It's saying politics will cause society to cease, if we keep it up. Section 4.5 he returns to the idea that liberals must fight force with ideas not counter-force. Section 4.6. He returns to the idea that critics of liberalism will claim that liberalism is the special interest of capitalists, but that that is false because capitalism ultimately benefits not just one class of people, but everyone. In a liberal system property rights belong to all, not just to capitalists. Ch 5 In Chapter Five, Mises argues that the enemies of capitalism have lost the debate that alternatives to capitalism can lead to greater material wealth, so they have moved the goalpost and now claim that material wealth is a societal ill. Mises replies though that a return to primitive asceticism would result in the deaths of billions of people. "Liberalism is no world view because it does not try to explain the cosmos and because it says nothing and does not seek to say anything about the meaning and purpose of human existence . . . It seeks to give men only one thing, the peaceful, undisturbed development of material well-being for all." Summary As I mentioned a few times in earlier chapters, my beef with Mises is that he is a minarchist. That is a step backward after having read Rothbard. Rothbard and Hoppe take the foundation established by Mises to its next logical progression. I know it is not really possible, but it would be great if we could read books in historical order of their logical progression toward anarchy-capitalism. If you want to read the precursors of Mises, the first appendix of this book is a good place to start. Join the Private Facebook Group and follow us on Twitter as we seek to learn more about Libertarianism. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
LIBERTARIAN BOOK CLUB: Organized Crime - The Unvarnished Truth About Government by Thomas DiLorenzo10/13/2017 We are a monthly book club for anyone who wants to learn more about Libertarianism. We will discuss each book's chapter/section in separate posts, so everyone will be able to read along at their own pace. We typically also focus on books which are available for free so that everyone can participate. Join the Private Facebook Group and follow us on Twitter as we seek to learn more about Libertarianism. Other books we've reviewed can be found here.
Organized Crime: The Unvarnished Truth About Government by Thomas DiLorenzo
Located here for free. Politics and thieves, coercion and regulation, fascism and the Fed, centralization and liberty, workers and unions, trade and freedom, free-market achievements and government disasters in American history — this book covers it all! Section 1: Coercion and Regulation I thought his synopsis and examples from Forty Centuries of Wage and Price Control: How NOT to Fight Inflation was solid. I’ll be adding it to my reading list. Unfortunately, no AudioBook version! The “DiLorenzo’s Laws of Government” are pretty solid. I’ll need to expound on them later in a longer article and have them somewhere where I can share them easier when I’m arguing with people who want bigger government. They resounded with me as I think they will with others. • DiLorenzo’s First Law of Government- In government, failure is success. Welfare Bureaucracy, Government Schools, NASA tragedies and the Federal Reserve, etc. • DiLorenzo’s Second Law of Government- Politicians will rarely, if ever, assume responsibility for any of the problems that they cause with bad policies. • DiLorenzo’s Third Law of Government- With few exceptions, politicians are habitual liars. • DiLorenzo’s Fourth Law of Government- Politicians will only take the advice of their legions of academic advisers if the advice promises to increase the state’s power, wealth, and influence even if the politicians know that the advice is bad for the rest of society. I also agreed that the price control section was timely after the debate we just endured following Hurricane Irma. I've written EXTENSIVELY about it here on my Steemit blog. How is it that The Continental Congress wisely adopted an anti-price control resolution on June 4, 1778 but it's still up for debate the negative effects? That Resolution read: “Whereas it hath been found by experience that limitations upon the prices of commodities are not only ineffectual for the purpose proposed, but likewise productive of very evil consequences—resolved, that it be recommended to the several states to repeal or suspend all laws limiting, regulating or restraining the price of any Article.” If they knew price controls always failed 240 years ago, why is it even a question today? I blame education, or lack thereof. Chapter 3 Who Will Regulate the Regulators The logic on ‘providing more power to the Fed in order to prevent another Great Recession” was spot on: “One of the biggest governmental lies is that financial markets are unregulated and in dire need of more central planning by government. Laissez-faire is said to have caused the “Great Recession.” Fed bureaucrats have lobbied for some kind of Super Regulatory Authority to supposedly remedy this problem. Th is is all a lie because according to one of the Fed’s own publications (“The Federal Reserve System: Purposes and Functions”), the Fed already has “supervisory and regulatory authority” over the following partial list of activities: bank holding companies, state-chartered banks, foreign branches of member banks, edge and agreement corporations, U.S. state-licensed bank branches, agencies and representative offices of foreign banks, nonbanking activities of foreign banks, national banks, savings banks, nonbank subsidiaries of bank holding companies, thrift holding companies, financial reporting procedures of banks, accounting policies of banks, business “continuity” in case of economic emergencies, consumer protection laws, securities dealings of banks, information technology used by banks, foreign investment by banks, foreign lending by banks, branch banking, bank mergers and acquisitions, who may own a bank, capital “adequacy standards,” extensions of credit for the purchase of securities, equal opportunity lending, mortgage disclosure information, reserve requirements, electronic funds transfers, interbank liabilities, Community Reinvestment Act sub-prime lending “demands,” all international banking operations, consumer leasing, privacy of consumer financial information, payments on demand deposits, “fair credit” reporting, transactions between member banks and their affiliates, truth in lending, and truth in savings.” I had never heard of the non-profit libertarian think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute nor its annual product Ten Thousand Commandments: An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State. It outlines the annual effect of regulations on business in the United States. Just checking out the fact sheet was valuable. As someone who thinks government spending and the national debt are keystone issues of our time, I also want to check out Underground Government: The Off-Budget Public Sector, his book written with James Bennett in 1983. Maybe we can get that book into the hopper for the Book Club! Chapter 5: Our Totalitarian Regulatory Bureaucracy “In chapter 5 of F.A. Hayek’s 1944 classic, Th e Road to Serfdom, the Nobel laureate warned that the state need not directly control all or even most of the means of production to exert totalitarian control over the economic life of a nation. He cited the example of Germany where, as of 1928, “the central and local authorities directly control 53 percent” of the German economy. In addition to this, wrote Hayek, private industry in Germany was so heavily regulated that the state indirectly controlled “almost the whole economic life of the nation.” It was through such totalitarian controls that Germany traveled down “the road to serfdom.” As Hayek further stated, “there is, then scarcely an individual end which is not dependent for its achievement on the action of the state, and the ‘social scale of values’ which guides the state’s action must embrace practically all individual ends.” In other words, government regulation was so pervasive that the pursuit of profit, driven by consumer preferences, was mostly replaced by the whims of regulatory bureaucrats.” Well Said: “First, construct a totally unrealistic theory of “perfect” competition that assumes away all real-world competition with assumptions of perfect information, homogenous products and prices, free or costless entry and exit from industry, and “many” firms. Second, compare real-world markets to this utopian Nirvana state and condemn the markets as “imperfect” or “failed. The third characteristic of market failure theories is to recommend intervention by presumably perfect government that is assumed to suffer from no failures and which will correct the failures of the market.” When I read that, it reminded me of this. Section 2 I read DiLorenzo's Real Lincoln which I highly recommend. I like how in chapter nine he describes Rod Blogajevich as an amateur crook compared to Honest Abe. It is not just a matter of businesses contributing to campaigns to get political favors but politicians using threat of regulations to extort contributions. Chapter 11 Good point on the housing bubble: “So when the Fed’s expansionary monetary policy caused the real estate bubble, the extraordinary increases in property values were accompanied by equally extraordinary property tax increases. (After the bubble had burst, local governments were eager to raise property tax rates so as not to lose property tax revenue." Chapter 12 “A principle of public choice economics is that politicians will always do all they can to disguise subsidies to less-than-meritorious groups, such as millionaire corporate farmers. If they can subsidize them through protectionism, or price supports, this is much preferred than simply writing the millionaire businessman a check.” Chapter 13 He discusses Hamilton and I recommend the Tom Woods vs Michael Malice debate (in which I side with Tom. Chapter 15 He expands a bit on the idea he expressed earlier of why exactly mainstream media is so pro-government. Section 3 I agree with DiLorenzo that secession, nullification, decentralization and localism is more effective at achieving liberty than nationalism or universalism, but it is important to understand, “Of course “states” don’t have rights; only individuals do." Since he understands that I think it is confusing that he keeps using the phrase. I definitely agree with him that repeal of the seventeenth amendment would greatly improve our situation. But that that seems highly unlikely to ever happen. Chapter 17 The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. I read this short book a few years ago and highly recommend it. Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virgina Resolutions and their Legacy
Chapter 21
“The Lacrosse, Wisconsin Democrat newspaper advocate assassination when it editorialized in November of 1864 that “If Abraham Lincoln should be reelected for another term of four years of such wretched administration, we hope that a bold hand will be found to plunge the dagger into the tyrant’s heart for the public welfare.” (Does that violate the NAP?) Chapter 22 DiLorenzo basically says that Abraham Lincoln and Adolph Hitler were brothers from another mother. Chapter 23 He points out that governments are by far the worst killers in history and that in that regard Abraham Lincoln was worse than Pol Pot. Chapter 25 DiLorenzo eviscerates Paul Krugman, which is always fun. “Krugman is right about democracy in a sense: Democracy is essentially one big organized act of bullying whereby a larger group bullies a smaller group in order to plunder it with taxes. The “Civil War” proved that whenever a smaller group has finally had enough, and attempts to leave the game, the larger group will resort to anything—even the mass murder of hundreds of thousands and the bombing and burning of entire cities—to get its way.”
FREE BITCOIN! When you buy $100 Bitcoin through this link, you'll earn $10 of FREE Bitcoin! (IMMEDIATE 10% ROI!)
Chapter 26 and 27 In these chapters he does still more debunking of the Lincoln mythology. I did notice though that he doesn't claim that the War of Northern Aggression was an unmitigated evil - just mostly evil with terrible consequences, but he does acknowledge that the abolition of slavery was the one positive outcome of the war. He also discusses how American government is both fascist and socialist. Chapter 30 – 33 These chapters are all about the evils of central banking. I agree completely and have nothing to add except that coincidentally yesterday, before reading chapter 30, I used a very similar article by DiLorenzo to counter a commenter on this post who was saying that all economists think the Fed is great and that basically Ron is a crank. That post and Brion's book should be of interest to anyone who liked that chapter. Ch 32 reminded me of this meme.
Chapter 34
This chapter debunks the notion that the Federal Reserve is in any way libertarian just because Alan Greenspan was head of it once. Chapter 35 Debunks the myth that the Fed is in any way independent - Fed chairmen basically do the bidding of the president in order to maintain their jobs. President wants loose policy? President gets loose policy, and vice versa. I liked his discussion on the damage done by typical college economics textbooks, particularly Paul Samuelson's, which is most popular. Chapter 36 Explains how government caused the sub-prime mortgage meltdown. This is useful because people often try to blame DE-regulation when nothing could be further from the truth. As an aside, I found The Big Short an entertaining movie on the subject if you have not seen it, but it largely leaves unmentioned government as a cause and this chapter definitely fills in the blanks. Section 5 Chapter 47 Macroeconomists Discover Economics and Debunk the New Deal (Again) is probably the most intriguing to me. Seven decades of economists who have sold us the line that the New Deal and large-scale government spending is what got us out of the Great Depression. It took several decades but macroeconomic model builders, who consider themselves to be the elite of the economics profession, have finally discovered freshman-level principles of economics and have used that discovery to finally debunk FDR’s New Deal. (Beginning in the 1930s Austrian School economists like Henry Hazlitt recognized the truth about the New Deal: It made the Great Depression deeper and longer lasting.) The only wise thing to have done was to have allowed the liquidation of hundreds of overcapitalized businesses to occur, cut taxes and spending, and deregulate. Instead, the Fed increased the money supply by 100 percent in a failed attempt to create another bubble while the president and Congress implemented an explosion of government interventionism. That was the first time in American history that a depression was responded to with government interventionism rather than governmental retrenchment, and the result was a seventeen-year long Great Depression, the worst in history. The essay is solid and I'll need to look into Murray Rothbard's America's Great Depression to learn more. That mainstream macroeconomists and their modeling have come around against governmental interventionism during a depression is great. Now, if the citizenry can learn that before the next bubble pops. I foresee politicians and special interests will use the next crisis as an opportunity to line their pockets. CHAPTER 48 Will Socialism Make You Happier? The Trojan Horse of “Happiness Research”I hadn't heard of this statist argument before but basically "...statists around the world are changing their tune and saying that prosperity doesn’t really matter after all; what matters is how happy we are. And, they say, that is what government can be really, really good at—making us happy. Consequently, they argue, there should be no more limits on governmental powers, for limiting governmental powers will limit our very happiness." In the year this book was published, Bhutan was the 'Happiest' according to the UN-sponsored "World Happiness Report". Yes, Bhutan. This hellhole, ahem, I mean paradise: As an intelligence officer which has experience in this part of the world... No. This year's winner is Norway, which is much more beautiful and bearable.Source:WORLD HAPPINESS REPORT 2017 It's also a lot more socialist, which to be fair, is the point. It's edited by leftist academic Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University, what else would you expect? As F.A. Hayek commented in The Road to Serfdom, the end of socialism was always egalitarianism; only the means changed over time, beginning with government ownership of the means of production and transforming to income redistribution through a welfare state and a “progressive” income tax. These happiness researchers never make any mention at all of the well documented pathologies created by welfare statism, such as the destruction of the work ethic, family breakup, the growth of dysfunctionality caused by a welfare state that removes people from the working population, etc. Thus, “happiness research” is part of a crusade to persuade the public that poverty and servitude to the state are superior to prosperity and freedom. It is a new version of what twentieth-century communists referred to as “socialism with a smiling face” during the last, dying days of totalitarian communism. Chapter 49 The Canard of “Asymmetric Information” as a Source of Market FailureGood information on the Nirvana Theory of Markets. I tried to look more into it, but it is unique to only this writing. Nirvana Fallacy— comparing real-world markets to an unattainable utopian ideal (perfect competition), and then denouncing markets because they fall short of utopia or Nirvana. Having “proven” that markets “fail,” the analyst then proposes government intervention under the assumption that no such failures will infect government. Markets may not be perfect, but government is assumed to be. Overall, I liked Section 5 the best. The ease at which he demystifies economic myths is extremely understandable. I just wish it was taken onboard by many voters who refuse to heed the empirical evidence against government intervention. Asymmetric information problem really applies to government not the free market: “In this case we are dealing with the well-established fact that, in their capacity as voters, people tend to be “rationally ignorant” of almost all of what government does. In fact, government is so pervasive that no human mind could possibly comprehend the tiniest fraction of one percent of what government in a country the size of the U.S. does. Consequently, special-interest groups dominate all democratic governments;” A related problem I think is that "public servants" are allowed to keep secrets from their supposed masters. Chapter 51 “Politicians perpetuate the myth of government job creation because the government jobs that are created are seen by the average voter, whereas the private-sector jobs that are destroyed (or never created) are not.” I.e. Hazlitt's seen and unseen as described in Economics in One Lesson Chapter 52 DiLorenzo shoots down the gender wage gap myth. Tom Woods has done a couple of shows on this subject as well, as I recall. Summary DiLorenzo lays out a decent criticism of how Government, corrupted by size and motive, has engaged in forceful and deceitful acts against the populace. To be honest, I really dislike collections of articles such as this and found in other "books". If an author is still alive, such collections are always better to be formed in to a true book that is able to cleanly explain a subject from start to finish. While DiLorenzo's articles are well written (and are quite often sourced with citations! Such a rarity among articles), the execution of the message would have been much better had he taken the time to write these out in to full chapters of their own. The topics covered in the book were good ones to discuss (though I think that the mentions of the Civil war would be better served in a separate book), but I do wish that the author had expanded more on the topics of taxation, subsidies, and the enforcement of victimless crimes. Overall a good read, and some articles were absolutely fantastic. If only the author could have written this out as an actual book and added another hundred pages or so, this could have been something especially fantastic. edit: I've decided to give the book 5 stars, from the original 4. I find that I often go back to the book to re-read certain articles when I come across various topics of discussion. I still wish that the author had written a proper book instead of just compiling a collection of his articles, though. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
We are a monthly book club for anyone who wants to learn more about Libertarianism. We will discuss each book's chapter/section in separate posts, so everyone will be able to read along at their own pace. We typically also focus on books which are available for free so that everyone can participate.
Join the Private Facebook Group and follow us on Twitter as we seek to learn more about Libertarianism.
FREE BITCOIN! When you buy $100 Bitcoin through this link, you'll earn $10 of FREE Bitcoin! (IMMEDIATE 10% ROI!)
Clarence Seward Darrow (1857 – 1938) was an American lawyer and leading member of the American Civil Liberties Union. He wrote books on crime and punishment, as well as on the morality and origins of the system which are classics of the libertarian movement, and a cry for attention about all that is wrong in the legal system. Resist no Evil can be FOUND HERE and HERE.
Foreword by Douglas French I love the fact that Douglas French starts with a truth I've recognized for a long time. I think it foreshadows how the book won't necessarily conform to common allowable opinion. We’re drawn to books that reinforce what we already believe. It makes us feel smarter that an author shares our opinion and provides words we can use to make our case on the off chance that’s required. Specifically he discusses the party politics that are prevalent in the world today. At the time I remember being on the fence, with a slight lean toward supporting capital punishment. The deterrence arguments resonated with me. ... In the end, to not support capital punishment put a person with the bleeding heart liberals, company I didn’t want to be in. But this is the way with so many issues. Instead of analyzing the problem for ourselves, we let the group we identify with make the decision for us as to what we believe. A lazy way to live, requiring no thought, no study, no consideration, no introspection. Clarence Darrow does not allow for that. He does not allow you to sit in the jury box of public opinion and let the other jurors make up your mind. Although written in 1902, Darrow anticipates the prison nation that America is today. The state is set up not to administer justice, but to punish. No victims are compensated, but the state gets its pound of flesh. This reminded me of a Jason Stapleton Program show I was listening to recently. It discussed a Virginia man who was convicted of multiple counts of Grand Larceny (Theft greater than $200). The guy was stealing wheels off of cars and got sentenced to 132 years in prison. Jason Stapleton discussed why our system is apt to just throw people into prison and not have them work to repay the victims. Instead the victims got their tires stolen and THEN had to get taxed to support the criminal in prison for the rest of his life! Why not make the guy work with proceeds in reparations to the victims? Darrow's Introduction sums up well what we all know if wrong with our criminal justice system. CHAPTER I: THE NATURE OF THE STATE "The doctrine of non-resistance" that Darrow refers is generally defined as "the practice or principle of not resisting authority, even when it is unjustly exercised". So if it's the law, you follow it, regardless of morality. Looking historically, Slavery in the 1800s and locking Japanese Americans up during WWII come to mind. Looking at the present times, the examples of throwing people in jail for collecting rain water comes to mind. These Facebook stories usually have an abundance of "Well, don't break the law and you won't go to jail" comments. To wit: Darrow suggests that, philosophically, it is man's highest ideal to live a fulfilled life in peace, not coerced by government force. Endless volumes have been written, and countless lives been sacrificed in an effort to prove that one form of government is better than another; but few seem seriously to have considered the proposition that all government rests on violence and force, is sustained by soldiers, policemen and courts, and is contrary to the ideal peace and order which make for the happiness and progress of the human race. Great analogy comparing the rulers of ancient times- Basically the biggest man got a large club and enforced his rule as chieftain through force over his tribe. He used his power primarily to maintain power not for the betterment of those he ruled over. As one man cannot maintain power for long, he cronied his buddies as lieutenants to maintain power "and they were given a goodly portion of the fruits of power for the loyalty and help they lent their chief." The parallels to today are evident. From the early kings who, with blood-red hands, forbade their subjects to kill their fellow men, to the modern legislator, who, with the bribe money in his pocket, still makes bribery a crime, these rulers have ever made laws not to govern themselves but to enforce obedience on their serfs. CHAPTER 2: ARMIES AND NAVIES How is the authority of the state maintained? Darrow believes it to be maintained by force or the general threat of force. More generally, the power of armed men with all the 'modern implements of death". Specifically, 1) military personnel and 2) courts of justice, police and jails. I don't believe Darrow is being realistic (in his time, or ours) that all countries should not have a standing armies. Sure, idealistically, if there were no wars, these men and women could lead more productive lives and build skills and participate in tradecraft, but ever since Napoleonic times, we are required to have a standing army as long as our neighbor does. I don't see the world's militaries self-disintegrating any time soon. I also found his 'endless wars' rhetoric to be quite interesting considering he wrote it Pre World War I, World War II, Korean War, Sino-Russo War, Vietnam War, Lebanon, Granada, Tanker War, Persian Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, War on Terrorism, etc. The world hadn't seen nothin' yet! The nation that would today disarm its soldiers and turn its people to the paths of peace would accomplish more to its building up than by all the war taxes wrung from its hostile and unwilling serfs. Overall, I agree with the travesties of war, but don't agree with it's pragmatic to think everyone will demilitarize. CHAPTER 3: THE PURPOSE OF ARMIES But in reality the prime reason for all the armies of the world is that soldiers and militia may turn their guns upon their unfortunate countrymen when the owners of the earth shall speak the word. That this is the real purpose of standing armies and warlike equipment is plain to all who have eyes to see. We can see how military equipment has been appropriated to our police forces (Thanks War on Drugs!) but I think the premise Darrow is extolling is something different. But thinking one caused the other is a fallacy of 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc'. Because the rooster crows as dawn, and then the sun rises at dawn, does not mean the rooster causes the sun to rise. That the military is to be called on to directly suppress the free people isn't something that we've seen consistently. I mean, the National Guard is called sometimes for riot control, but Darrow's fears haven't been consistently witnessed throughout the passing of time. CHAPTER 4: CIVIL GOVERNMENT As society reaches the industrial stage, it is easier and costs less waste of energy for the ruling class to maintain its supremacy through the intricate forms and mazes of civil government, than through the direct means of soldiers and guns. Civil governments, like military governments, are instituted and controlled by the ruling class. Their purpose is to keep the earth and its resources in the hands of those who directly and indirectly have taken it for themselves. Darrow begins to build the case of morality here. Just because the courts are decreeing something, it must be obeyed at the threat of impounding property, kidnapping and imprisonment of men or, in some cases, killing the offender. ... the will of the sovereign is law, and the law is made for the benefit of the ruler, not the ruled. Darrow says that even a newly established government receives the historical laws and decrees 'based upon the old notions of properties and rights that were made to serve the rulers' previous. But I find that lazy (mostly because I'm a pro-property rights). Sometimes those are inherited because they are superior based on merit. I love his description of Lobbyists. The man who possesses one sort of power, as, for instance, political privilege, is very friendly to the class who possess another sort, as, for instance, wealth, and this community of interest naturally and invariably arrays all the privileged classes against the weak. I wish that Darrow, instead of just criticizing the natural tendency for some men to desire to rule over others, he could provide some solutions other than 'We should just all live without government and its evils!'. Order is more important than liberty, and at all costs order must be enforced upon the many. Chapter 5 "All punishment and violence is largely mixed with the feeling of revenge, - from the brutal father who strikes his helpless child, to the hangman who obeys the orders of the judge; with every man who lays violent unkind hands upon his fellow the prime feeling is that of hatred and revenge" ^^ and this is what I have against retributive justice. "In some inconceivable manner it is believed that when this punishment follows, justice has been done. But by no method of reasoning can it be shown that the injustice of killing one man is retrieved by the execution of another, or that the forcible taking of property is made right by confining some human being in a pen" "To punish a human being simply because he has committed a wrongful act, without any thought of good to follow, is vengeance pure and simple, and more detestable and harmful than any casual isolated crime". “Such acts as these would almost never be repeated. Genuine repentance follows most really vicious acts, but repentance, however genuine, gives no waiver of punishment.” Do you all feel that it is entirely the act of imprisonment itself and nothing in any violent criminal, whether by nature or nurture, that leads to recidivism? I don't know how it was in 1903, but I recently watched a few minutes of OJ Simpson's bail hearing. His repentance definitely did not waive his sentence, but i think it had a lot to do with his early release. “The safety aimed at through punishment is not meant the safety for the individual, but it is contended that the fact that one person is punished for an act deters others from the commission of similar unlawful acts; it is obvious that there is a large class who are not deterred by these examples, for the inmates of prisons never grow less . . . " I am not for locking in people in cages (nor for the death penalty) but I never thought of imprisonment as a deterrent. If there were any point to it at all, I think it would be to prevent that particular individual from being able to violate others' rights (except perhaps other inmates). If so, then imprisonment is not motivated solely by cruelty and hate as Darrow claims. I did not realize his claim that public executions actually caused people to commit copycat crimes. I believe it but I wish he had actually documented this claim instead of just positing it. Chapter 6 "The last refuge of the apologist is that punishment is inflicted to prevent crime" "The theory that punishment is a preventive to unlawful acts does not seriously mean that it is administered to prevent the individual from committing a second or a third unlawful act." He goes one to talk about how if the punishment is to be a deterrent, then we should logically use only the cruelest methods of punishment, but we don't, so therefore how can we claim that the punishment is a deterrent? His point at the end of chapter VI that the state is constantly trying to "improve" prisons brings to my mind the prohibition in the Bill of Rights against cruel and unusual punishment. I find that a pretty problematic phrase, for who is to say that imprisonment itself is not cruel? I guess the fact that it is so common makes it not unusual. Chapter 7 Darrow discusses, as the chapter title states, the cause of crime, and says that we should ponder on that. I have long felt that this is an important thing to consider, and this is why I am so interested in restorative justice. I feel that we should seek out WHY this crime happened and work to fix that through psychological means if possible. I think he is making the case for nurture as the cause of criminal behavior rather than nature. As such he points to the fact that inmates tend to be poorer than non-inmates. However he throws "mentally deficient" in there as well which is more nature than nurture. He seems to be making a class warfare argument, but I think he overlooks the possibility that more poor convicts than wealthy convicts does not necessarily mean there are more poor criminals that wealthy. That could be a result of disparities in the criminal justice system itself that allow more wealthy people to get away with the crimes they commit. What do you think of his closing in that chapter? To wit: "The jail and the penitentiary are not the first institutions planted by colonists in a new country, or by pioneers in a new state. These pioneers go to work to till the soil, to cut down the forests, to dig the ore; it is only when the owning class has been established and the exploiting class grows up, that the jail and the penitentiary become fixed institutions, to be used for holding people in their place.” **Another class warfare argument**. But you could just as easily flip that. Perhaps it is not until the owning class is sufficiently established in a new settlement that there is enough stuff making it worth the while of the working class to try and steal, thus motivating the owning class to get around to building jails. Chapter 8 "Reason and Judgement as well as an almost endless array of facts have proven that crime is not without its cause. In showing its cause, its cure has been made plain. If the minds and energies of men were directed toward curing crime instead of brutally assaulting the victims of society, some progress might be made" "Nearly every crime would be wiped away in one generation by giving the criminal a chance. The life of a burglar, of a thief, of a prostitute, is not a bed of roses. Men and women are only driven to these lives after other means have failed."
Chapters 9-12
For a trial lawyer, Darrow sure has plenty of criticism for trial by jury. I am looking forward to the part where we get to his alternative. "He cannot understand how a so-called thief should have forcibly taken a paltry sum. He cannot conceive that he, himself, could under any circumstances have done the like.” Not sure if that is universally true. Don't judges frequently consider mitigating circumstances in sentencing? In the film "Inherit The Wind" the jury found Cates guilty, but the judge fined him only one hundred dollars causing Brady to drop dead. Chapter 13-15 I think in the Afterword Riggenbach gives Darrow entirely too much credit when he writes: “This illustrates the extent to which the Clarence Darrow of 1902 was on pretty much the same wavelength as the Murray Rothbard of 80 years later.” On the contrary, I submit that Darrow was the anti-Rothbard and that Riggenbach credits Darrow for things Rothbard wrote but that Darrow did not. Here he comes blatant what was hinted at in the previous chapters- “Most of the laws governing the taking and obtaining of property, which constitute the great burden of our penal code, are arbitrary acts, whose sole purpose is to keep the great mass of property in the hands of the rulers and exploiters and to send to jail those who help themselves and who have no other means within their power." What he is advocating here is closer to anarcho-communism than anarcho-capitalism and would prevent me from ever recommending this book, despite some of the good points he makes about the state and criminal justice earlier. “These crimes are burglary, larceny, obtaining property by false pretenses, extortion, and the like. The jails and penitentiaries of every nation in the world are filled to overflowing with men and women who have been charged with committing crimes against property.” I don't know about 1903, but I would have no complaint if that were actually true today. But actually they are filled with victims of the drug war and people who have committed only various "crimes" against the state. The way he concludes chapter 13 and chapters 14 and 15 are completely at odds with Rothbard's analysis of property rights in *New Liberty*. Chapter 16 was a big letdown Here Darrow claims to offer his alternative to what he spent the last dozen chapters insisting does not work. His alternative amounts to ending punishment and adopting kindness instead. But he offers no concrete examples of how that operate in practice. Say you are a parent and someone pre meditatively rapes and murders your children. What would Darrow say should be done with the offender. Certainly not put them on trial because no one is qualified to sit in judgement nor understand the perpetrator's woes. Apparently the victims' parents are just supposed to show the perpetrator love and kindness. Riggenbach: “I won’t leave you with the impression that Clarence Darrow was an early, unsung Rothbardian, because he wasn’t.” **Talk about an understatement!** Summary There are some quotes in the book I like, especially in the first four chapters when he is trashing the state. But I have previously outlined my criticisms: 1. It is more a polemic than expository. He posits a lot of things without making an argument for them, citing examples to prove his case etc. 2. He spends chapters critiquing the criminal justice system, generating anticipation for his alternative, yet when he gets to that point, there really is not much substance at all. He COULD have advocated restorative justice, sure, but he really did not. 3. In the final two chapters he advocates class warfare - the forced redistribution of the property of the wealthy. Initially I had hoped that this might at least be a book I could recommend to the left to help shake their confidence in the state, but ultimately it is not a book I would comfortable recommending to anyone. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
|
Search the
libertyLOL Archives: Archives
December 2020
Search and Shop on Amazon.com!
Tom Wood's Liberty Classroom"Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day...."
At Liberty Classroom, you can learn real U.S. history, Western civilization, and free-market economics from professors you can trust. Short on time? No problem. You can learn in your car. Find out more! |