Category Archives: libertarianism

Updated: Getting to the Young’uns

Classical Liberalism, Ilana Mercer, IlanaMercer.com, libertarianism

I’m not tooting my own horn, I promise. That would be bad form. What’s satisfying about the following post (other than who it afflicts), however, is that it’s by a young reader on “The Hip Forums” (not yet “done with school”), whose interest in libertarianism was stirred by my writing. About one thing he is unfortunately mistaken: my general knowledge is not very good:

“Ilana Mercer is the best damn essayist I have encountered, right up there with Justin Raimondo (another libertarian), although she arguably surpasses him. Her analytical rigor and verbal fluency astound me (it’s not uncommon for me to have to check the dictionary one or two times when reading her essays), and she is just so reasonable and yet iconoclastic. She also has an amazing store of general knowledge.

I cannot say I am a libertarian, because only recently have I started reading her essays, but I plan on learning more about the ideology once I am done with school and have more free time.”

Update: I am posting here a comment and my reply. The comment was originally appended to the wrong post:

Ilana,

While you may reject my recommendations for documentary movies i.e. “must-see” titles, I most certainly respect your global political acumen. [I don’t recall rejecting anything…]

Could you please describe the genesis of the “classical” part of your liberal persona, so that I might offer some sage advice to my daughters, who apparently adore you?

A list of essential readings would be appreciated, as they are both in university, and still impressionable.

Autographed photos might suffice, for now….

Mercer Reply:

Your dear daughters are clearly gems who have an instinct for the philosophy of freedom, upon which this great country was founded, and which it has since abandoned. Rejoice that they have come to this philosophy while in the academy; it usually inculcates in the young everything but Jeffersonian ideas.

If by quizzing me you imply that they may need to be steered away from the American ideas of individualism and self-government —then it is you who may need their counsel more than they yours.

I wish I had time to correspond at length, but I don’t. (Please tell your girls how buoyed I am that there are youngsters in the left-liberal academy who think independently as they do. I’d love them to partake on my blog. I extend an invitation.)

My columns/essays almost always include references. It’s about taking the time to work through the columns and extract the references. I have links on my Links Page to great classical liberal sites. My website is easy to navigate. Begin with Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, Henry Hazlitt, Murray Rothbard, Frederic Bastiat, F. A. Hayek, and the great heroes of the Old Right, such as Felix Morley, Frank Chodorov, Garet Garrett, and John T. Flynn.

Thank you for telling me about your lovely girls.

—ILANA

By Michael on 04.07.07 3:58 pm

Updated: Getting to the Young'uns

Classical Liberalism, Ilana Mercer, IlanaMercer.com, libertarianism

I’m not tooting my own horn, I promise. That would be bad form. What’s satisfying about the following post (other than who it afflicts), however, is that it’s by a young reader on “The Hip Forums” (not yet “done with school”), whose interest in libertarianism was stirred by my writing. About one thing he is unfortunately mistaken: my general knowledge is not very good:

“Ilana Mercer is the best damn essayist I have encountered, right up there with Justin Raimondo (another libertarian), although she arguably surpasses him. Her analytical rigor and verbal fluency astound me (it’s not uncommon for me to have to check the dictionary one or two times when reading her essays), and she is just so reasonable and yet iconoclastic. She also has an amazing store of general knowledge.

I cannot say I am a libertarian, because only recently have I started reading her essays, but I plan on learning more about the ideology once I am done with school and have more free time.”

Update: I am posting here a comment and my reply. The comment was originally appended to the wrong post:

Ilana,

While you may reject my recommendations for documentary movies i.e. “must-see” titles, I most certainly respect your global political acumen. [I don’t recall rejecting anything…]

Could you please describe the genesis of the “classical” part of your liberal persona, so that I might offer some sage advice to my daughters, who apparently adore you?

A list of essential readings would be appreciated, as they are both in university, and still impressionable.

Autographed photos might suffice, for now….

Mercer Reply:

Your dear daughters are clearly gems who have an instinct for the philosophy of freedom, upon which this great country was founded, and which it has since abandoned. Rejoice that they have come to this philosophy while in the academy; it usually inculcates in the young everything but Jeffersonian ideas.

If by quizzing me you imply that they may need to be steered away from the American ideas of individualism and self-government —then it is you who may need their counsel more than they yours.

I wish I had time to correspond at length, but I don’t. (Please tell your girls how buoyed I am that there are youngsters in the left-liberal academy who think independently as they do. I’d love them to partake on my blog. I extend an invitation.)

My columns/essays almost always include references. It’s about taking the time to work through the columns and extract the references. I have links on my Links Page to great classical liberal sites. My website is easy to navigate. Begin with Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, Henry Hazlitt, Murray Rothbard, Frederic Bastiat, F. A. Hayek, and the great heroes of the Old Right, such as Felix Morley, Frank Chodorov, Garet Garrett, and John T. Flynn.

Thank you for telling me about your lovely girls.

—ILANA

By Michael on 04.07.07 3:58 pm

Updated: Race, Reason, & Unreason

Law, libertarianism, Private Property, Race, Reason, Regulation

Ronald Bailey of Reason Magazine details the reaction of “Conservative” blogger Ann Althouse to a debate about the infringements by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on property rights and freedom of association. The discussion took place at a Liberty Fund colloquium.

Broadly speaking, the topic falls perfectly within the purview of the conference, which aims to “shed light on the role of liberty in human life,” to quote Bailey. Speaking specifically, this conference tackled the role of federalism in freedom. Read Bailey’s most reasonable entry here. And follow the links to Althouse’s response.

(Althouse, incidentally, is competing for the title “Grande Conservative Blogress Diva,” the sort of communal enforcement bloggers engage in, much like mainstream media. They too are always awarding their own for conformity. I digress, but, in any event, that’s the string of honorifics explained.)

I too attended a Liberty Fund colloquium in the UK earlier this year, but none of the participants dissolved into a puddle, a la Althouse, over disagreement. I had a jolly good time with some brilliant (and beautifully spoken) Englishmen and (two) women.

As for tearing up and labeling as racists proponents of states’ rights or advocates of freedom of association, as Althouse apparently did, why, this only indicates Liberty Fund is not selecting its participants very carefully. Althouse reached for the smelling salts instead of arguing her case. How feeble. How Peggy Noonan.

Can there be any doubt that civil rights laws coerce individuals, often against their better judgment, into involuntary associations? Can one deny that under antidiscrimination law employers have lost a great deal of control over their businesses? Is it not the duty of reasonable, freedom-loving people to explore the effects on liberty of such legislation?

As I told the conservative Comanche, Dr. David Yeagley, “race is intricately and ineluctably tied to freedom because we live under a state which circumscribes liberty by enforcing codes of hiring, firing, renting, and money lending, among others. In a truly free society, the kind we once enjoyed, one honors the right of the individual to associate and disassociate, invest and disinvest, speak and misspeak at will. Race has become such an issue because we labor under nominal property ownership, and are subject to what is flippantly called political correctness, but is in fact codified and legalized theft and coercion.”

Althouse accuses libertarians of the sin of abstraction. If anything, Althouse’s formulations rely on the idea that America is merely a proposition, bound to abstract ideals, rather than a community of flesh-and-blood individuals, each with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.

Update: James Wilson (scroll down to the comments) contends that Althouse’s apoplexy over the exercise of individual liberty is a hangover from “the influence of the Christian Right on conservatism, [whereby] government’s role is to stamp out evil, pure and simple. And since racism is evil, the federal government must do something about it, just like it must fight drugs, pornography, obesity, etc.”
I’m not convinced. I would say (as I did in this January 29, 2003 column) that, neoconservatives, being “‘illiterate leftists posturing as conservatives’ have, largely, helped make Martin Luther King Jr. more important, historically, than the Founding Fathers. They’ve also helped conflate the messages of the two solitudes, even though the Founders’ liberty” is unrelated to the egalitarianism promoted by the commie King.

Updated: Race, Reason, & Unreason

Law, libertarianism, Private Property, Race, Reason, Regulation

Ronald Bailey of Reason Magazine details the reaction of “Conservative” blogger Ann Althouse to a debate about the infringements by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on property rights and freedom of association. The discussion took place at a Liberty Fund colloquium.

Broadly speaking, the topic falls perfectly within the purview of the conference, which aims to “shed light on the role of liberty in human life,” to quote Bailey. Speaking specifically, this conference tackled the role of federalism in freedom. Read Bailey’s most reasonable entry here. And follow the links to Althouse’s response.

(Althouse, incidentally, is competing for the title “Grande Conservative Blogress Diva,” the sort of communal enforcement bloggers engage in, much like mainstream media. They too are always awarding their own for conformity. I digress, but, in any event, that’s the string of honorifics explained.)

I too attended a Liberty Fund colloquium in the UK earlier this year, but none of the participants dissolved into a puddle, a la Althouse, over disagreement. I had a jolly good time with some brilliant (and beautifully spoken) Englishmen and (two) women.

As for tearing up and labeling as racists proponents of states’ rights or advocates of freedom of association, as Althouse apparently did, why, this only indicates Liberty Fund is not selecting its participants very carefully. Althouse reached for the smelling salts instead of arguing her case. How feeble. How Peggy Noonan.

Can there be any doubt that civil rights laws coerce individuals, often against their better judgment, into involuntary associations? Can one deny that under antidiscrimination law employers have lost a great deal of control over their businesses? Is it not the duty of reasonable, freedom-loving people to explore the effects on liberty of such legislation?

As I told the conservative Comanche, Dr. David Yeagley, “race is intricately and ineluctably tied to freedom because we live under a state which circumscribes liberty by enforcing codes of hiring, firing, renting, and money lending, among others. In a truly free society, the kind we once enjoyed, one honors the right of the individual to associate and disassociate, invest and disinvest, speak and misspeak at will. Race has become such an issue because we labor under nominal property ownership, and are subject to what is flippantly called political correctness, but is in fact codified and legalized theft and coercion.”

Althouse accuses libertarians of the sin of abstraction. If anything, Althouse’s formulations rely on the idea that America is merely a proposition, bound to abstract ideals, rather than a community of flesh-and-blood individuals, each with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.

Update: James Wilson (scroll down to the comments) contends that Althouse’s apoplexy over the exercise of individual liberty is a hangover from “the influence of the Christian Right on conservatism, [whereby] government’s role is to stamp out evil, pure and simple. And since racism is evil, the federal government must do something about it, just like it must fight drugs, pornography, obesity, etc.”
I’m not convinced. I would say (as I did in this January 29, 2003 column) that, neoconservatives, being “‘illiterate leftists posturing as conservatives’ have, largely, helped make Martin Luther King Jr. more important, historically, than the Founding Fathers. They’ve also helped conflate the messages of the two solitudes, even though the Founders’ liberty” is unrelated to the egalitarianism promoted by the commie King.