Category Archives: Natural Law

UPDATE III: On Living In Sin: The Sin of Abstraction (BHO: An Alien Species Hostile To Life On Earth)

Barack Obama, Constitution, Labor, libertarianism, Liberty, Natural Law, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy, Politics, Ron Paul, The State

Anyone who’s read my columns over the years recognizes that The Articles of Confederation are my kind of founding documents; the US Constitution, not so much. To the extent the Constitution comports with the natural law it is good; to the extent it doesn’t, it is bad, in my book. Simple. That has always been my position.

Personally, I have a healthy contempt for most politicians too, even the libertarian ones—all the more so in view of the kind of empire builders they all ultimately prove to be: They see nothing wrong in using their fame and the public dime to flog their “products” and wares.

Some politicians are less sickening than others, but all fit snugly on The Sick-Making Scale.

And the people—at least those of us who’ve never fed from the “public” trough, unlike every single politician and his aide—are always morally superior to the politicians.

The reason I have a problem arguing from anarchism is because one is unable to logically wrestle with reality from this perspective. This is not to say that I would not prefer a government-free universe than the one we currently inhabit; I would. Again, anyone who’s read my columns over the years recognizes that.

However, the paleolibertarian has to use a philosophical device that helps to anchor his reasoning in reality and in “the nit and the grit of the history and culture from which it emerged.”

Unless remarkably sophisticated and brilliant (as Hans-Hermann Hoppe indubitably is), the anarchist invariably falls into sloth. Forever suspended between what is and what ought to be, he settles on a non-committal, idle incoherence, spitting venom like a cobra at those who do the work he won’t or cannot do. This specimen has nothing to say about policy and politics for fear of compromising precious libertarian purity.

Suspended as he is in the arid arena of pure thought, this libertarian will settle for nothing other than the immediate and absolute application and acceptance of the non-aggression axiomatic ideal. And since utopia will never be upon us, he opts to live in perpetual sin: THE SIN OF ABSTRACTION.

This mindset is not only lazy but—dare I say?—un-Rothbaridan.

Murray Rothbard did not sit on the fence reveling in his immaculate ideological purity; he dove right into “the nit and the grit of the issues,” and got dirty.

You’re not going to like what I’ve got to say, but Jack Kerwick’s “Romney or Obama: A Choice Between Two Evils?” is arguably written in this vigorous, Rothbardian tradition.

Sadly, it has been quite some time—arguably a century-and-a-half—since America has had anything even remotely approximating a federal government of the scope and size delineated by our Constitution. So, Paul supporters know—or at least should know—that if such a lost governmental structure is ever to be restored, it is not going to happen over the next four to eight years—regardless of whether our President over this time is named Obama, Romney, or Paul.
We must judge matters from where we are at. In other words, ignorance of our reality—ignorance of the immensity of our national government, say, and ignorance of the sheer powerlessness of any one person or even group of persons to scale it back to so much as a shadow of its counterpart from the eighteenth century—is inexcusable. To make a decision regarding something as momentous as the future of our country on the basis of this sort of ignorance—even if it accords with one’s conscience—is to condemn oneself. …

MORE.

While I disagree with Jack’s conclusion in this column; I wholeheartedly agree with and admire his method.

UPDATED I: I don’t vote. And, although eligible, I have chosen not to become a citizen of Police State USA. There you have it. I guess that’s “radical.” Moreover, as Loren E. Lomasky observed, “As electorates increase in size, the probability that one’s vote will swing the election approaches zero” … “[I]n large-number electorates, there is a vanishingly small probability that an individual’s vote (or voice) will swing an election … [F]or citizens of large-scale democracies, voting is inconsequential.” So obviously, I’m not with Jack on the lesser evil thing.

Also, given that Romney will take us to war at the drop of a hat, I do not know that he’ll reduce the size of the state. As I put it the other day, “Make no mistake; should he succeed in vanquishing Obama, come Nov. 6, Romney’s brand of ‘repeal-and-replace statism’—not to mention maniacal militarism and Sinophobia—will be no victory for liberty.”

I am with Jack, however, in that he is in there “mixing it up,” arguing the issues (rather than adopt the attitude described here).

In fact, some left-libertarians argue for Obama. At least they are not intellectually lazy and are arguing the issues, which is what Rothbard did. That’s my point.

UPDATE II: THOSE who refuse to “mix it up”; to get down and dirty and debate the issues, will also typically be unprepared to admit to nuance in the personalities involved. What do I mean? Recognizing that Romney may be wrong on almost all issues of policy should not prevent one from acknowledging that he’s a lovely man. As a person, he has way more merit than Obama.

Ann Romney, herself a delightful lady, is a lucky woman. Romney is a great provider, fabulously devoted to family and church, consistently generous and charitable to all those around him, and brilliant in all endeavors, academic and other. Unlike those of Obama, Romney’s university transcripts will stand scrutiny.

As I see him, Barack Obama belongs to an alien species hostile to life on earth.

UPDATE III: Mining Men are some of the most heroic workers, tied in the literary mind to great works such as Richard Llewellyn’s 1939 classic “How Green Was My Valley” (your children should have read it). It depicts the reality of mining men in an achingly beautiful way. The book haunted me for years after I had read it, as a kid. “Margaret’s Museum” achieves a good deal on celluloid.

So you read about these miners whom BHO, that alien who is hostile to life on earth, thwarts. And you wonder: Could Romney perhaps save their proud livelihood? The key being that you wonder … you wrestle with the issues.

UPDATE III (1/1/021): Abortion And A Woman’s Title In Her Body

Abortion, Conservatism, Ethics, Feminism, Individual Rights, libertarianism, Liberty, Natural Law, Private Property

Leave a reply

It is clearly untrue to say that a paleolibertarian is one who always opposes a woman’s absolute dominion over her body, as a poster on Wendy McElroy’s Facebook Wall has implied.

Abortion is one hill I do not care to die on; I’ve committed enough professional Seppuku over the years. However, I have repeatedly stated that, for a classical liberal (at least), “it’s [highly] problematic to say that by virtue of her fertility, a woman loses a title in her body.”

To repeat, for me, abortion is not the hill to die on. It seems prudent not to come out on this issue. Division of labor and all that stuff; I’ll leave it to Wendy McElroy, who, I am sure, agrees that “libertarians can agree that no state funding, local or federal, should be allocated to such a procedure.”

Otherwise, here is Wendy’s brilliant articulation of self-ownership. Watch Wendy on Stossel’s, 7:28 minutes in:

Wendy McElroy: As far as I’m concerned, this is my skin. Everything beneath this skin belongs to me, or I don’t own anything. I am a self-owner-

John Stossel: Even if there is a living being inside you?

Wendy McElroy: If there is a living being inside me, I’m glad you used the word “being” and not “individual with rights,” if there is a living being inside me, it exists on my breath, it exists by my, the blood pumping through my veins, by the food I eat. It is within my skin, and if you say to me that there, that I do not have jurisdiction over my body, that, in fact, society or someone else has jurisdiction, the, the word that describes someone else owning my body is slavery.*

UPDATE I: Glad people have remained civil on Facebook, so far. That’s the way. Always. However much one disdains the procedure, you can’t get away from the fact of self-ownership. You have no right to take custody of another person’s body. They either own themselves or don’t.

You can’t “own” your body in conjunction with other busybodies.

UPDATE II (July 21):

From the hopeless Facebook thread:

Your tortured analogy, MW, does not hold or even come close. Any reasoning about this fraught topic must proceed, at the very least, from a correct analogy. This is why this debate cannot proceed from logic. People lose their logic (or perhaps they never had the ability to reason to begin with) when it comes to abortion. Enough, now folks. The most honest position the anti-a-woman’s-right-in-her-body proponents can advance is this: a woman, by virtue of her biology, does not have total title in her body. As a propertarian, I find this position untenable, but agree that individuals who hold it will try to finesse it. So this is the final word. “Respek,” as Ali Gi would say.

JV: This is what I mean by a lack of reasoning faculties on the topic, and plain dissembling. What irks here is not only that I said, “enough,” and this is my Wall. But that you, JV, frame your “distinguishing” argument” as exhaustive. The initiation of force is most certainly not the only distinguishing feature between the mother and the fetus. (Unrelated: there is a prerequisite for Facebook Friendship.)

UPDATE III (1/1/021):

Libertarians view women as having dominion over their bodies! My comment, then, is on the cultural specter of females freed from men, morality and tradition: how quickly they turn into diabolical libertines. Most women need traditional strictures to balance exhibitionism and promiscuity.

The Republic of Rub-a-Dub-Dub Genitalia

Government, Homeland Security, Individual Rights, Law, Natural Law, Regulation, Terrorism, The State, The West

“The Republic of Rub-a-Dub-Dub Genitalia” is the current column, now on RT. Here is an excerpt:

I imagine readers would prefer that I discuss the TSA’s breach of Jonah Falcon’s “formidable” breeches. But there are better ways to keep the terrorists of the TSA in the news, than to spotlight a well-endowed individual who, to go by his boasting, suffers from “small man syndrome.”

… For a while, the natives were restless over being handled like meat at a packing plant. Travelers, however, have begun to relax, and have eased into the role of stunned cattle.

A jury of ‘submissives’ has even gone so far as to enjoin any resistance to TSA tyranny.

You know the drill. During a routine TSA screening, Carol Jean Price, aged 59, had her buttocks, breasts and genitals touched by an agent. Except that Price didn’t think the prodding should be routine. She became upset, as victims of sexual assault often do.

“When TSA supervisor Kristin Arnberg approached the outraged Price after the initial screening,” Price had the temerity to demonstrate the anatomy of “gate-rape” on The Super.

A jury not of her peers convicted the victim (Price) of battery.

In a constitutional republic, The Law should apply to civilian and civil servant alike, with no exceptions. If a country’s legal code outlaws sexual assault—then the act of fondling an innocent and unwilling stranger, without probable cause, between her thighs and around her breasts, must be proscribed to all people, in all places.

Correspondingly, Ms. Price was correct to instinctively infer that if certain forms of touching are legal in her “great” country, governed as it allegedly is by laws and not men—then everyone should be able to practice the treatment these laws prescribe on everyone else. …”

READ the complete column. “The Republic of Rub-a-Dub-Dub Genitalia” is now on RT.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive libertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION, AND DO BATTLE FOR LIBERTY:

• At the WND and RT Comments Sections.

• By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” “Return To Reason” on WND, and the “Paleolibertarian Column” on RT.

Mitt Must Answer For … Working Overtime

Barack Obama, Business, Democrats, Elections, Ethics, Natural Law, Republicans

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is a rogue agency. It is in the business of turning productive people by legislative fiat into common criminals. The SEC hunts for corporate prey using ill-defined, unconstitutional laws. It operates with the understanding that competition in capital markets must proceed from a level playing field. All investors are entitled to the same information advantage irrespective of effort and abilities. In a word, information socialism.

Mitt Romney, says the ponce of a president who has never done an honest-day’s work in his life, has done something to annoy the terrorists at the SEC. He “must answer questions about his ties to Bain Capital.”

On Thursday, Stephanie Cutter, the ponce’s handler, accused Mitt Romney of “misrepresenting his position at Bain to the SEC, which is a felony,” or “misrepresenting his position at Bain to the American people to avoid responsibility for some of the consequences of his investment.”

Boiled down, the charge against Romney is: working overtime.

I kid you not, it is just that: In addition to working “’12 hours a day, six days a week’ on the Olympics from 1999 to 2002,” Mitt might have been putting in a few extra hours at Bain.

OMG!

When will Romeny stop turning the other cheek?