Category Archives: Classical Liberalism

UPDATE II (12/2): A Country Is More Than An Economy

Classical Liberalism, Economy, Free Markets, IMMIGRATION, libertarianism

A country is more than an economy. America has an economy. Americans no longer have a country. I’ve been mocked for close on two decades by libertarians for holding this opinion. No worries; I won. I was right about immigration and La Raza libertarians.

I believe this is what Steve Bannon was trying to tell the libertarian-minded at the “Values Voters Summit In Washington D.C.:

Bannon specifically called out policy centers such as the Heritage Foundation, CATO Institute, and American Enterprise Institute for their constant support of free trade. He also critiqued for the Austrian school of economics for stressing that ‘everything is about the economy.’ He hopes to eventually bring these folks on board with his program of economic nationalism.

“We’re a civic society and a culture that has a capitalist, free market system as our economy,” Bannon said. “But we’re not an economy, and you’re not just units of production. You’re free men and women in a civic society underpinned by a capitalist system, but where other people in the world don’t practice capitalism, we have to be savvier than that. …”

UPDATE (10/23):

Nationhood? US immigration population hits record 60 million, 1-of-5 in nation:

Importing Islamabad:

 

UPDATE (12/2):

UPDATED (10/12): Everyone Has Property Rights, Whether They Know it or Not

America, Classical Liberalism, Critique, History, Individual Rights, libertarianism, Natural Law, Objectivism, Private Property

A NEW ESSAY, “Everyone Has Property Rights, Whether They Know it or Not,” is on Mises Wire.

The Indian tribesman’s claim to his ancient stomping grounds can’t be reduced to a title search at the deeds office. That’s the stuff of the positive law. And this was the point I took away from a conversation, circa 2000, with Mr. Property Rights himself, Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Dr. Hoppe argued unassailably—does he argue any other way?—that if Amerindians had repeatedly traversed, for their livelihood, the same hunting, fishing and foraging grounds, they would have, in effect, homesteaded these, making them their own. Another apodictic profundity deduced from that conversation: The strict Lockean stipulation, whereby to make property one’s own, one must transform it to Western standards, is not convincing.

In an article marking Columbus Day—the day Conservatism Inc. beats up on what remains of America’s First People—Ryan McMaken debunked Ayn Rand’s specious claim that aboriginal Americans “did not have the concept of property or property rights.” This was Rand’s ruse for justifying Europeans’ disregard for the homesteading rights of the First Nations. “[T]he Indian tribes had no right to the land they lived on because” they were primitive and nomadic.

Hoppean Homesteading

Cultural supremacy is no argument for the dispossession of a Lesser Other. To libertarians, Lockean—or, rather Hoppean—homesteading is sacrosanct. He who believes he has a right to another man’s property ought to produce proof that he is its rightful owner. “As the old legal adage goes, ‘Possession is nine-tenths of the law,’ as it is the best evidence of legitimate title. The burden of proof rests squarely with the person attempting to relieve another of present property titles.” (Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa, p. 276.)

However, even if we allow that “the tribes and individual Indians had no concept of property,” which McMaken nicely refutes—it doesn’t follow that dispossessing them of their land would have been justified. From the fact that a man or a community of men lacks the intellectual wherewithal or cultural and philosophical framework to conceive of these rights—it doesn’t follow that he has no such rights, or that he has forfeited them. Not if one adheres to the ancient doctrine of natural rights. If American Indians had no attachment to the land, they would not have died defending their territories.

Neither does the fact the First Nations formed communal living arrangements invalidate land ownership claims, as McMaken elucidates. Think of the Kibbutz. Kibbutzim in Israel instantiate the principles of voluntary socialism. As such, they are perfectly fine living arrangements, where leadership is empowered as custodian of the resource and from which members can freely secede. You can’t rob the commune of its assets just because members elect to live communally. …

… READ THE REST. Everyone Has Property Rights, Whether They Know it or Not” is on Mises Wire.

UPDATE (10/12)Facebook Thread.

Those who are unfamiliar with the methods of praxeology and deductive reasoning will twist into pretzels to find fault with this essay. Maybe read the ancients (not the neocons) on natural rights.critiquing neocons on natural rights is a straw man.

UPDATED (9/6/017): Mad Max Gets Totaled By Tucker

Classical Liberalism, Constitution, Government, History, Morality, Neoconservatism

For his foreign policy prescriptions, neoconservative Max Boot got totaled by Tucker Carlson of Fox News. Boot-type neoconservatives center their foreign policy around their ideas of what is moral and what is immoral.

A libertarian or classical conservative ought to base foreign policy on the ROLE OF GOVERNMENT. The Constitution doesn’t give government the right to force ideas on its own citizens, much less on the citizens of the world. Let the peoples of the world fight their own battles of ideas. Morality in foreign policy is a prescription for ever accrediting empire.

Constitutionalism in foreign policy is what Americans ought to seek, not morality.

Boot may sound like Tocqueville with a stretch, but given a chance to enact his policies he’d act like Robespierre. This neoconservative’s attachment is to a Jacobin heritage – expressed in a powerful, centralized, universalist state that aggrandizes abstractions and subordinates communities to a national general will.

UPDATED (9/6/017): Mad Max wants to go home.

NEW COLUMN: ‘It’s Murder-By-Muslim Immigrant, Stupid’

Classical Liberalism, Conservatism, Constitution, IMMIGRATION, Islam

“It’s Murder-By-Muslim Immigrant, Stupid” is the current column, now on Constitution.com. An excerpt:

Can we cut the cr-p, kids? Forgive my language, but, as Ecclesiastes teaches, there’s a time for everything. The time to cuss is now.

“Radical Islamic terrorism”: He has to be able to say it! This, preach conservative talking heads, is the acid test for electing the next American president.

Is this convoluted concept one you can even remember?

“Radical Islamic terrorism” is like the LGBTQ acronym, it’s a mouthful. It’s unmemorable, unintuitive and does not accurately describe the vile men and women who menace us in our American, English and European homelands.

“Radical Islamic terrorist” is, very plainly, wrong.

Language mediates behavior. In order to properly respond to these vipers among us who elect to kill us despite our kindness toward them, stateside, we do indeed need to properly describe them.

To be vested in linguistic accuracy is to be vested in the truth. The closer language cleaves to reality, the greater the likelihood that correct, and corrective, action will follow.

Certainly the term of choice must reflect reality, not ideology, Right or Left. Why so? If we don’t describe exactly who these killers are, we’ll be unable to eject them from our midst.

“ISIS” is not attacking us; certain Muslim immigrants are. The Islamic State simply inspires them the way progressive rock guitarist Yngwie Malmsteen might move me.

The more abstract the expert Idiocracy gets in defining our problems, the more removed will be their solutions—removed from solutions that are the legitimate purview of limited government. You and I will be forced to pay for their elaborate schemes.

So don’t be fooled.

ISIS and an abstract ideology called “radical Islamic terrorism”—a redundancy, if ever there was one, since Islam is radical—are not attacking us. Men and women upon whom we’ve conferred the right to live among us are.

These are individuals who are part of us, not part of ISIS. ISIS is happy they kill us. It’s pleased to continue providing inspiration, even training. But the ephemeral ISIS did not send them to kill us. We invited them here in the idiotic believe that they were like us.

These Muslim killers are Americans, Europeans and Englishmen. We’ve made them so. …

… Read the rest. “It’s Murder-By-Muslim Immigrant, Stupid” is now on Constitution.com.

“It’s Murder-By-Muslim Immigrant, Stupid” is on YouTube. Subscribe. This shy and retiring writer promises to get better at it..