Category Archives: libertarianism

What’s Fueling The Fever Of Freedom?

Constitution, Democracy, IMMIGRATION, libertarianism, Liberty, Political Philosophy, Private Property, States' Rights

IMMIGRATION IS. When states stand up to the always-oppressive federal government, it’s a good thing. When issues loom large enough to bring about this necessary rift—necessary if freedom is to prevail—they deserve a closer look, if not, I would argue, our unreserved support. If gay marriage, yea or nay, prompted a state to secede; I’d be the first to cheer that state on.

Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has ruled that “state law enforcement officers are allowed to check the immigration status of anyone ‘stopped or arrested.” According to FoxNews, Cuccinelli issued a legal opinion on Friday “extending that authority to Virginia police in response to an inquiry over whether his state could mirror the policies passed into law in Arizona.”

“It is my opinion that Virginia law enforcement officers, including conservation officers may, like Arizona police officers, inquire into the immigration status of persons stopped or arrested,” he wrote.

Bring it on is what Cuccinelli is telling the federal government.

According to Lou Dobbs, interviewed by Megyn Kelly, “11 states are preparing to emulate Arizona. It is not what the Obama administration wanted; but it is exactly what the American people want,” he told the host of America’s News. Kelly says there are at least 18 states poised to follow Arizona on immigration and into a conflagration with the feds.

Now, you could challenge me as follows: “Mercer, you are not a proponent of majoritarianism. You’ve argued vigorously against democracy—even have a book due out that is a manifesto against raw democracy. Why are the people’s wishes okay in this instance?”

Because, as I’ve often said (most recently in this blog post), people have negative, leave-me-alone rights. Preventing a foreign invasion is perfectly within the purview of the “night-watchman state of classical-liberal theory,” in the words of the late philosopher, Robert Nozick.

Having delegated defense and policing to government, a people has a right to live free of the dangers that flow from being trespassed upon.

To the American Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson especially, secession was essential to the American scheme. Jefferson viewed extreme decentralization as the bulwark of the liberty and rights of man. Consequently, the United States was created as a pact between sovereign states with which the ultimate power lay. Sadly, it has progressed from a decentralized republic into a highly consolidated one.

The Constitution assigns the narrow function of naturalization to the feds. That small thing notwithstanding; I find it hard to fathom a founder arguing that the men and militia of a state should sit on their hands because a tier of tyrants (the feds) told them to (while their farms and nature reserves are trashed and their families endangered).

Neither should libertarians sit this thing out.

UPDATED: Do Immigration Laws Violate Libertarian Axiom?

Classical Liberalism, Critique, IMMIGRATION, libertarianism, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy

“Showing complete disregard for the Constitution, the rule of law, the democratic will of the people of Arizona, Clinton appointee Susan Bolton issued an injunction against the major aspects of Arizona’s law in federal district court,” writes the Washington Watcher at VDARE.COM.

Of course, “Arizona is doing the work Washington doesn’t want done.”

The other day, I came across the most flighty, possibly even dissembling, libertarian argument so far against the prevention of trespass, and I’ve responded to many before. Here it goes: Immigration restrictions require the use of aggression against non-aggressors. There can be no debate about that. [really?] Therefore any half-decent libertarian must reject any immigration restrictions. That’s all.

Since when are immigration restrictions predicated on aggression against non-aggressors? Only if you believe telling someone, “No, you can’t go there” is tantamount to violence. Let us not trivialize violence.

“A well-policed barrier,” for example, “on the border is the definitive, non-aggressive method of defense against ailments and afflictions. You don’t attack, arrest or otherwise molest undesirables; you keep them at bay, away.” Could it be that the “Libertarian and leftist protest over any impediment to the free flow of people across borders is predicated not on the negative, leave-me-alone rights of the individual, but on the positive, manufactured right of human kind to venture wherever, whenever”?

(From “The Swine (AKA The State) Are AWOL”)

Any law, or any form of ordered liberty, may require the use of aggression, or, inadvertently, culminate in the use of force against non-aggressors. Shall we forfeit all laws?

The above position is anarcho-libertarian, not classical liberal (which is the label I prefer for myself). Anarcho-libertarians must tell their interlocutors that they reject all centrally enforced law and order. Such disclosure is only fair.

This from “TRADE GOODS, NOT PLACES” applies:

“Matters would be simple if all libertarians agreed that a constitutional government has an obligation to repel foreign invaders. They don’t, not if they are anarchists. Both open-border and closed-border libertarian anarcho-capitalists posit that an ideal society is one where there is no entity—government—to monopolize defense and justice functions. In a society based on anarcho-capitalism, where every bit of property is privately owned, the reasoning goes, private property owners cannot object if X invites Y onto his property, so long as he keeps him there, or so long as Y obtains permission to venture onto other spaces. Despite their shared anarchism, limited-immigration anarcho-libertarians and free-immigration anarcho-libertarians arrive respectively at different conclusions when they make the transition from utopia to real life.

The latter believe the state must refrain from interfering with the free movement of people despite the danger they may pose to nationals. The former arrive at the exact opposite conclusion: So long as the modern American Welfare State stands, and so long as it owns large swaths of property, it’s permissible to expect the state to carry out its traditional defensive functions. This includes repelling incomers who may endanger the lives and livelihoods of locals.

The open-border libertarian will claim that his is the less porous position. He will accuse the limited-immigration libertarian of being guilty, on the one hand, of wanting the state to take action to counter immigration, but, on the other hand, because of his anarchism, being at pains to find a basis for the interventions he favors. Not being an anarchist, and hence not having to justify the limited use by government of force against invaders, I hope I have escaped these contradictions.”

[SNIP]

A society cannot be reduced to the skeletal essence of the libertarian non-aggression axiom. I am confident Edmund Burke, of whose Vindication of Natural Society Murray Rothbard thoroughly approved (O’Keeffe 2010: 3), would agree.

UPDATE (July 30): To the comment below: Isn’t an argument about the preservation of civilization nativist? Isn’t the preservation of civilization the prerogative only of non-Occidentals, who are forever threatened by Westerners?

Libertarian (Trade) Deficits

Business, Debt, Economy, Free Markets, libertarianism

The following is from my new, WND.Com column, “Libertarian (Trade) Deficits”:

“… I am confident the legendary Lou Dobbs understands that voluntary exchanges are by definition advantageous to their participants. Costco, my hair stylist, and the GTI dealer—all have products or skills I want. Within this voluntary, mutually beneficial relationship, I give up an item I value less, for something I value more: a fee for the desired product or service. My trading partners, whose valuations are in complementary opposition to mine, reciprocate in kind. Silhouetted by the force of the state, this synchronized, magic market starts to splutter, and people suffer. That’s a no-brainer.

However, when it comes to the glories of an aggregate, negative balance of trade, allow me to respond to the typical libertarian post-graduate cleverness, as evinced by Dr. Boudreaux. In one respect libertarians are right: there is nothing wrong with my running a trade deficit with Costco, my hair stylist, or my GTI dealer, as I do—just so long as I pay for my purchases. The data demonstrate that Americans, in general, don’t.

All in all, by Vox Day’s account, ‘U.S. households, corporations and various levels of government’ owe fifty three trillion dollars! The consumption being lauded by libertarians is debt-driven consumption. In this context, a trade deficit is significant, inasmuch as it reflects not an increase in wealth but an increase in indebtedness.

To dismiss the gap between U.S. exports and U.S. imports as an insignificant economic indicator—now that’s silly. ” …

The complete column is “Libertarian (Trade) Deficits”

Read my libertarian manifesto, Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society.

The Second Edition features bonus material and reviews. Get your copy (or copies) now!

UPDATED: Great Depression 2.0: An Interview With Vox Day (PART II)

Debt, Economy, Federal Reserve Bank, Inflation, libertarianism, Political Economy

The “infamous Internet Superintelligence,” Vox Day, author of “The Return Of The Great Depression,” needs no introduction. My WND colleague and fellow libertarian dishes it out on the impending depression, D.C. dummies (down to their position under The Bell Curve), the U.S.’ Marx-compliant financial system, and a dark future. As always, Vox makes this glum stuff fun.

The first part of my interview, “Great Depression 2.0: An Interview With Vox Day,” is available now on WND.Com. The interview continues. The sequel will be posted on Barely a Blog on Friday evening.

Be sure not to miss your double dose of Day.

UPDATED (July 2): AS PROMISED, YOUR DOUBLE DOSE OF DAY. You’ve read the first part of my Vox Day interview on WND. Now to the sequel, exclusive to Barely A Blog:

• Ilana: To mention the Fed today as anything but a hedge against inflation is to qualify as “Worst Person in the World.” Early Americans were not nearly as baffled about what the Fed did. Comment with reference to the on-and-off attempts to eradicate this Federal Frankenstein. What good would an audit of the money mafia do?
Vox: Keith Olbermann should have stuck to sports. He has no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to economics. The Fed isn’t a hedge against inflation, it is the primary engine of inflation just as its three predecessors were. A genuine audit of the Fed will immediately end its political viability and probably its existence, which is why the Fed is fighting so desperately against the Ron Paul bill. But the end result is inevitable. The Fed can’t hide behind fictional statistics forever, as with the Soviet Union, people eventually begin to notice that they are not, in fact, wealthy and well fed.

• Ilana: My second favorite line in your book: “… the only sense in which mainstream economic theory is worthy of serious study is the sense that a flight recorder demands intense examination after an airplane crash.” (One quibble with this analogy would be that the flight recorder contains retrievable immutable truths.) What hope is there for an awakening if “mainstream economic theory” is precisely what is being seriously studied and heeded by those among us who are not reading Dick Morris?
Vox: The only hope is for economic sensibility to be restored post-crash. There are some positive signs, such as the widespread mocking of Paul Krugman’s belated warning of a “third depression” after the failure of the second stimulus. Krugman said a $600 billion stimulus package was needed, Obama got a $787 billion package through the Congress, and it failed anyhow. But the fact that these Neo-Keynesian clowns are still taken seriously and their models dominate the political discourse is an indication that a serious theoretical retooling will not happen until after the Great Depression 2.0 is well underway.

• Ilana: At first the pols conceded that what they had given us was a jobless recovery, which is a lot like a housewarming for the homeless. They’ve quit that Big Lie and are now touting all the jobs BHO has created. What’s going on? Tell us why official indices such as unemployment and GDP are not to be trusted.
Vox: Unemployment is dependent upon reducing the size of the labor force. So, if you’re out of work and aren’t jumping through the BLS hoops, you don’t count as unemployed. It’s a joke. GDP counts spending but doesn’t subtract debt, so it’s like saying that you’re rich because you maxed out your platinum Mastercard. Until the debt is paid back, you can’t properly count it as economic growth. And almost all of the GDP growth over the last 20 years has been nothing but debt growth. And now that the debt is shrinking as people and governments default, GDP will begin to contract oo.

• Ilana: I know who the “Zulus” are; I’m from that part of the world. You lost me with “Whisky Zulu.” Explain.
Vox: It’s just my personal reference to Weimar and Zimbabwe, two famous cases of hyperinflation. The Whisky Zulu scenario I consider is the hyperinflationary one that many inflationists favor. It’s a credible scenario anticipated by many very smart people, but I believe events are demonstrating that the debt-deflation scenario is the one that is playing out instead.

• Ilana: I agree with you that “the Great Depression 2.0 will be worse than its predecessor.” Debt. Consumption. Credit. Have at it (p. 211).
Vox: It’s pretty simple. I give 10 reasons in the book, but two should suffice for here. First, the amount of outstanding US debt to GDP is proportionately greater. It hit a peak of 287% in 1933, and 375% in 2009. Second, stimulus plans that extended and exacerbated the Great Depression were limited to the USA. This time around, Europe, Japan, and China have been actively engaged in their own stimulus packages as well, so the economic blowback is going to be much larger on a global level than it was in the Thirties. Except for Germany, which had its own particular issues related to losing WWI and the strictures imposed by the Treaty of Versailles, the problems faced by Europe did not rise to the level of a “Great Depression” because Europe’s leaders didn’t make it worse by listening to the Keynesians as Hoover and Roosevelt did.

• Ilana: It’s befitting that we end with perhaps the most important right in a free society. My favorite line in your book: “… one should always be deeply skeptical of any economic theory which … serves as a justification to allow one man to dispose of the property of another.” Private property has become a dirty word in an increasingly collectivist America. Not even Rand Paul, in his valiant defense of “private businesses” vis-à-vis the Civil Rights Act, could bring himself to speak to the sanctity of private property. People are comfortable alluding to “freedom of association” but not to what a man owns. Your thoughts with a view to what lies ahead.
Vox: Government can’t fix what government has broken. All of the desperate attempts to “fix” the global economy according to Neo-Keynesian and Monetarist principles are going to fail, state, local, and even national governments are going to default on their debts, and it’s going to be a very difficult road ahead for the next two decades. There will probably be a major war or two as well, as usually happens in times of large-scale economic contraction. But it is a second Great Depression, it’s not the Ragnarok. This isn’t a Democratic problem or a Republican problem and although the politicians will do their best to take partisan advantage of the situation, it is a structural crisis that cannot end until the structure collapses and is replaced with a more economically realistic one. Needless to say ownership—self-ownership, property ownership—will not fare well.