Category Archives: Law

NEW COLUMN: Wage Walls, Not Wars

Abortion, Addiction, Ilana Mercer, IMMIGRATION, Law, libertarianism, Paleoconservatism, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy, The West, War, War on Drugs

NEW COLUMN IS “Wage Walls, Not Wars.” This “Big League Politics” Interview about paleolibertarianism is now on WND and the Unz Review.

Excerpt:

BIG LEAGUE POLITICS: Being a preeminent paleolibertarian thinker today, how would you define paleolibertarianism and how does it differ from standard paleoconservatism?

ILANA MERCER: First, let’s define libertarianism. libertarianism is concerned with the ethics of the use of force. Nothing more. This, and this alone, is the ambit of libertarian law.

All libertarians must respect the non-aggression axiom. It means that libertarians don’t initiate aggression against non-aggressors, not even if it’s “for their own good,” as neoconservatives like to cast America’s recreational wars of choice. If someone claims to be a libertarian and also supports the proxy bombing of Yemen, or supported the war in Iraq; he is not a libertarian, plain and simple.

As to paleolibertarianism, in particular, and this is my take, so some will disagree. It’s how I’ve applied certain principles week-in, week-out, for almost two decades. In my definition, a paleolibertarian grasps that ordered liberty has a civilizational dimension, stripped of which the just-mentioned libertarian non-aggression principle, by which all decent people should live, will crumble. It won’t endure.

Ironically, paleoconservatives have no issue grasping the cultural and civilizational dimensions of ordered liberty—namely that the libertarian non-aggression principle is peculiar to the West and won’t survive once western civilization is no more. Which is why, for paleoconservatives, immigration restrictionism is a no-brainer.

By the way, the statement is not meant to be culturally chauvinistic. There are indigenous tribal people (say, in Brazil) who’re peaceful and pastoral. I mourn their culture’s near-extinction, as well. Where such extinction has been brought about by the West’s chauvinism—it must be condemned.

In any event, paleoconservatives would typically grasp that libertarian principles would not endure in certain cultures. Libertarians, on the other hand, have had a hard time linking civilizational issues with the libertarian axiom of non-aggression. What do I mean? Libertarians will chant, “Free markets, free minds, the free movement of people.” Let’s have ‘em all.

They don’t always explain how these principles are to endure once Western societies are overrun by individuals from cultures which don’t uphold these principles. (From the fact that our own societies are turning out liberty hating individuals—it doesn’t follow we should import more.)

On the other hand, paleoconservatives are far less focused on the state as an evil actor and often appear more concerned with culture wars: gay marriage, cannabis, pornography, abortion. The paleolibertarian rejects any attempts by the state to legislate around the issues of:

Abortion: Completely defund it is our position.

Gay marriage: Solemnize your marriage in private churches, please.

Drugs: Legalize them and stop the hemispheric Drug War.

Wage walls, not wars.

As a creedal paleolibertarian, I see the road to freedom, primarily, in beating back The State, so that individuals can regain freedom of association, dominion over property, the absolute right of self-defense; the right to hire, fire, and, generally, associate at will.

Foreign policy—specifically, no meddling in the affairs of other countries!—is the be all and end all of both paleoconservatism and paleolibertarianism. Don’t let any of the radio or TV personalities fool you. If he or she liked, justified or rationalized Bush’s Middle-Eastern wars or Trump’s dabbling in Niger—he or she is no paleolibertarian. (Tucker Carlson is a fabulous paleoconservative.)

Both variants are for small government and big society. Again, more so than the paleoconservative, the paleolibertarian is radical in his anti-state position, sometimes even advocating a stateless society.

BIG LEAGUE POLITICS: In what ways does your political thought differ from CATO institute libertarianism? …

… READ THE REST. NEW COLUMN IS “Wage Walls, Not Wars.” The interview is now on WND and the Unz Review. It was conducted by correspondent Seth Segal for Big League Politics. A version was published on Nov. 23, 2018.

NEW COLUMN: Liberals Want America To Go Borderless

Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Law, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim

NEW COLUMN is “Liberals Want America To Go Borderless.” It’s currently on Townhall.com, WND.Com and the Unz Review.

An excerpt:

That’s the law. Nothing can be done about it.

And that’s the liberal reaction to any rational action to stop the stampede of uneducated, unruly, fractious, antagonistic masses toward and over the U.S. southern border. Liberals call law-enforcement unlawful. Or, they shoehorn the act of holding the line into the unlawful category.

Prevent uninvited masses from entering the country: Unlawful.

Tear gas marauding migrants for stoning Border Patrol personnel: Illegal, immoral, possibly even criminal.

Illegal. Unconstitutional. Immoral. Un-American. These are some of the refrains deployed by wily pitchmen, Democrats and some Republicans, to stigmatize and end any action to stop, disincentivize and summarily deport caravans of grifters, bound for the U.S. in their thousands.

Our avatars of morality and legality seldom cite legal chapter-and-verse in support of their case for an immigration free-for-all.

To go by the law, as professed by the liberal cognoscenti, claims-makers must be allowed to make their claims.

Could the cuddly treatment mandated be predicated on the Christine Blasey Ford standard? Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser claimed she had A Story to tell. So, the country had to hear her tell it. A compelling standard.

That’s what happens when feelings and fancy replace reason and facts.

No wonder the noise-makers are drowning-out the authentic claims-makers in society. Against the sainted noise-makers on the border all laws appear to be null and void or tantamount to torture

The Left is creating reality on the ground, all right. But the prime real estate liberals hope to colonize is in every American’s head.

Ruffians are breaching the U.S. border near Tijuana, demanding access to the American Welfare State. That’s the reality! Helped by the American left’s monopoly over the intellectual means of production—the average American is being encouraged to look at this aberrant apparition and “think”:

“Awesome. This is who we are. American laws are amazing for inviting this.”

Illegal, immoral, un-America: These are all pejoratives reserved not for the grifters making claims against Americans; but for the Americans resisting their claims.

To listen to the liberal propagandist class is to come away believing that breaking into America is legal so long as you call yourself a refugee or an asylee and are “seeking a better life.” Moreover, provided an asylee, refugee or saint in disguise appears at a port of entry (San Ysidro, in our case), then he must be admitted into America.

So, is The Law an ass or are those lying about the law the real asses?

A bit of both. …

… READ THE REST. NEW COLUMN is “Liberals Want America To Go Borderless.” It’s currently on Townhall.com, WND.Com and the Unz Review.

Posse Comitatus? You’re Being Told That America Doesn’t Have Borders, So No Law Can Defend Her

Federalism, Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Law, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Military, Neoconservatism, Secession, States' Rights

The 1878 Posse Comitatus Act: It’s the excuse parroted by almost everybody, Republicans included, for lack of vigorous military action against invaders on the border.

It took Ann Coulter to point out the obvious: “You can’t shoot … AMERICANS. You can shoot invaders.”

What on earth is The US Army for?

In effect, what you’re being told is, there is no law that’ll defend American borders.’

Or, America doesn’t have borders. Therefore, there is no law that can defend a de facto and de jure borderless country. And certainly some laws even prohibit a defense of America’s borders.

In truth, and according to the Congressional Research Service, as relayed by the Military Times, the Act means that “the U.S. military is not used to control or defeat American citizens on U.S. soil.”

The hordes amassed on the border with Mexico, rushing the port of entry in San Ysidro, Calif., are not Americans. They are not even very nice.

Posse Comitatus sets “limitation against active-duty U.S. forces conducting law enforcement on U.S. soil,” but watch how quickly military force will be used “to suppress insurrection or to enforce federal authority.”

Feeling free?

NEW COLUMN: The New Norm: Crime, But NOT Punishment

America, Crime, Criminal Injustice, Democrats, Intelligence, Law, Pop-Culture, Private Property

NEW COLUMN IS “The New Norm: Crime, But Not Punishment.”

It’s now on Townhall.com, slightly abridged, and unabridged on WND.COM and The Unz Review.

An excerpt:

In the title of his magisterial book, Fyodor Dostoevsky paired “Crime and Punishment,” not crime and pardons, or crime and “Civics lessons,” amnesty and asylum.

Punishment must closely follow a crime in order to be both effective as a deterrent, as well as to serve as a public declaration of values and norms.

In explaining Texas justice and its attendant values, stand-up satirist Ron White performed the public service no politician is prepared to perform. “In Texas, we have the death penalty and we use it. If you come to Texas and kill somebody, we will kill you back.”

So, where’s such clarity when you need it?

Something has gotten into the country’s lymphatic system. The infection is becoming more apparent by the day, not least in the way matters of life-and-death are debated (or not).

Again-and-again one hears boilerplate statements that fail to properly fix on the defining issues of our time, much less fix them.

Consider the flippancy over threats against persons and property, from within the country and from without it.

The home of Fox News personality Tucker Carlson is surrounded by a small, if menacing, mob, and his family threatened. Before dinging the man’s front door, the assailants chant out their criminal intentions:

“Tucker Carlson, we will fight. We know where you sleep at night. We know where you sleep.”

To which other talkers, even the wonderful Tucker, respond by vaporizing about rights to speech and protest vs. some or other watered-down peace and security to which private property owners are entitled.

Nobody alludes to the rights of private property or to the fulcrum that is law-and-order.

No demands for arrests are issued or voiced, publicly. No expectation for retribution is set-up. Follow-up is nonexistent in media. Police do not publicize any arrests. If they make them, none are reported by media.

No teachable moments occur.

Remember words like, “Police are requesting the public’s assistance in finding those responsible”? Or, “No arrests have been made, as yet”? Such civilizing utterances have vanished from the nomenclature of media and law enforcement, when discussing acts of trespass, vandalism, and public disorderliness.

Be they within the U.S. or from without it, acts that violate one person’s property rights or the property rights of many—as the Central American caravanners expect to do—these acts don’t conjure the requisite tough talk or actions. …

… READ THE REST. It’s now on Townhall.com, WND.COM and The Unz Review.

https://tinyurl.com/ybwcrevs