Category Archives: Classical Liberalism

Columnist Jack Kerwick Parses Paleolibertarianism

Classical Liberalism, Ilana Mercer, Paleoconservatism, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy

Who is paleolibertarian? Yours truly argues political philosopher Jack Kerwick, in his New American column, “Ilana Mercer and the Paleolibertarian Ideal” :

“It is [first] the conviction … that a world in which men and women are free to order their lives in accordance with their own moral purposes, not those of the governments under which they live, is an ethical ideal worth aspiring toward.”

But that’s not all:

In addition, a paleolibertarian is someone who rejects “the contemporary Western temptation to indulge in abstractions,” and labors tirelessly “to remind us of something that this generation of liberty’s defenders are all too ready to forget: Liberty is as dependent upon historical and cultural contingencies as is any other artifact. And it is just as fragile.”

“The pursuit of the … paleolibertarian ideal,” concludes Kerwick, is the pursuit of “an ideal of liberty brought down from the clouds to the nit and the grit of the history and culture from which it emerged.”

The complete column, “Ilana Mercer and the Paleolibertarian Ideal,” is at The New American.

Jack also blogs at Belief.Net.

Talking South Africa With Metalhead, Jay Taylor

Capitalism, Classical Liberalism, Economy, Ilana Mercer, South-Africa

As we head into possible hyperinflation, the demand for gold and platinum remains consistent. Yet production is down in South Africa, one of the world’s biggest producers. Ever wonder why?

I guess you haven’t. Jay Taylor does daily, on Voice America Business’ “Turning Hard Times Into Good Times.

I will be talking to Mr. Taylor, who broadcasts and invests in the tradition of Austrian economics, on Tuesday, August 28, at 12:30 Pacific Time.

A Republican Dick Called Carlson

Classical Liberalism, Elections, Founding Fathers, Individual Rights, Journalism, libertarianism, Liberty, Race, Republicans, Ron Paul

Journalism being what it is these days, this StarTribune report, and most other “reports,” failed to mention the “Where” in their lead story: Over which Senate seat are Kurt Bills (approved by Ron Paul) and Dick Carlson (endorsed, possibly, by the reality TV community) bickering.

(Perhaps we were expected to infer the information a journalistic lead should impart from the name of the newspaper doing the reporting: The Minneapolis StarTribune.)

In any event, Ron Paul stands for sound money, limited government (with respect to welfare and warfare alike), individual liberties and property rights. Unable to deal a blow to the constitutional principles of the American Founding Fathers, a dick called David Carlson—a Republican whose rival Ron Paul has endorsed—is choosing to fight filthily. The political battle is over the U.S. Senate seat of the senior United States Senator from Minnesota, Amy Klobuchar.

WATCH:

I’m David Carlson, and I approve this message because you have the right to know.

The transcript that follows is courtesy of Daily Kos, which, predictably, doesn’t care much about a country buckling under debt, regulation and central planning, just so long as its countrymen are coerced into sharing a single worldview.

Kurt Bills is a disciple of Ron Paul, and now he wants to be our U.S. Senator. What would America have looked like if we had President Paul and Senator Bills? Well, ‘states’ rights first’ means no Civil War to free the slaves. It means women and minorities aren’t voting. We don’t have integration and open schools. Kurt Bills own school could be all male and white. Ron Paul even stated, “Saving the Jews was absolutely none of our business” and that Adolf Hitler was initially a positive force for Germany! In Ron Paul’s and Kurt Bills’ America, black veterans who are unwanted in a restaurant can be told to leave. Ron Paul even said Martin Luther King Jr. seduced underage girls and boys and was a gay pedophile. Kurt Bills, a devoted supporter of Ron Paul, has already had our senate race called the most mismatched in America.
Minnesota, let’s make the battle for our senate seat a serious race and not put up another unelectable, radical candidate. Say no to Ron Paul and Kurt Bills.

From the Star Tribune:

[Carlson’s ad] will not have a wide viewing. Carlson said he spent a few thousand dollars to run it in the western and southwestern suburbs. But it could make a mark on Bills, who has struggled in his quest to unseat Klobuchar.

Carlson is “a 30-year-old former Marine Corps Sergeant,” which gives you an idea of the kind of constitutionally ignorant foot-soldiers for the state the military so often produces.

UPDATE IV: “Jesus, No Radical”? (Jesus’ Jewishness)

Ancient History, Christianity, Classical Liberalism, Hebrew Testament, Islam, Judaism & Jews, Justice

“Jesus was no political radical or rebel. He was God” is how the ever-provocative Jack Kerwick introduces his latest Belief.Net blog to Facebook Friends.

Maestro, pray tell, why are the two categories of the title—“G-d” vs. “political radical”—mutually exclusive?

One might have theological reasons for designating “G-d” and “political radical” as mutually exclusive, but reason is reason. It has to work a priori, surely?

Jews (at least those who think) think of Jesus as a preacher in the great tradition of the classical Hebrew prophets, whose genius, courage and yes, radicalism is hard to match—they were forever telling the stiff-necked people where to get off in no uncertain terms.

UPDATE I: “Yiddishkeit.” In reply to the thread on Facebook: Jesus was indeed a Jew (or a Hebrew), with everything that being a Hebrew would imply. A lot of people describe Jewish traits negatively. But you can be sure that Jesus was not without a dose of “Yiddishkeit,” as my blond, blue-eyed, Jewish mother would call it.

UPDATE II: Meathead: One should never place Russell Kirk in the company in which you placed him. For one, Kirk was against the wars Buckley embraced as a matter of principle. As I read Kirk, he was a classical liberal of enormous talent.

UPDATE III (June 14): The “because” is unfairly placed in yours sentence below, Jack Kerwick.

As for Ilana’s contention that Jesus was a “radical” because, like the prophets of old, He told “the stiff necked people where to get off in no uncertain terms,” how does that make Jesus, or anyone, a radical?

Here is what I wrote in the post above:

In punctuation, the sentence indicates that the last clause is but an example of the “genius, courage and yes, radicalism” of the prophets, and hardly exhaustive.

In meaning, how does the last clause, which you rightly seem to disparage as inexhaustible, qualify the words “genius, courage and yes, radicalism”?

It doesn’t. Yours is a somewhat unfair read of the sentence.

As for conflating, as you do Jack, the views of Jews on Christ with those of Muslims: That, in my view, is a grave error.