Category Archives: Natural Law

Update VI: Beware Of ‘Absolut’ Libertarian Lunacy (& In Praise Of One Lunatic)

Classical Liberalism, Ethics, IMMIGRATION, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Natural Law, Ron Paul

Update III: The excerpt is from my new column, now on “Taki’s Magazine. I’m not even going to post the title the editor gave it. The attendant disclaimer reads: “This outrageous title is the product of the festering imagination of the editor, not the author.”
Update IV (June Eighth): Mr. Reavis did NOT approve of the poor column’s latest title, as you can see from the estimable Judge’s comment hereunder. Writers are pretty powerless in this respect.
Update V (June 9): The column’s title has, thankfully, been changed.

“About certain moral (and legal) matters, patriotic, freedom-loving Americans agree instinctively. For example:

When brave, border patrolmen Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean shot an illegal alien drug dealer in the derriere, they were defending their state, country and countrymen.

For hastening the descent into hell of two career criminals, who had broken into the country before breaking and entering at the home adjacent to his, Joe Horn—another fine Texan—is the best of neighbors.

Another acid test is the case of Frank Ricci, a firefighter from New Haven, Connecticut. Ricci was denied a promotion because he bested all the blacks in the department on a test 77 other candidates took. City officials didn’t like the results, so they voided the test, and put the promotion on hold until a less sensitive test could be developed—one that better screened-out proficiency and ability.

The individual with a healthy moral compass will agree that Ricci was wronged. What is licit or illicit in the natural law is inescapably obvious in the other vignettes as well.

But not to libertarian deviationists (by which I mean deviants, as opposed to dissenters).” …

The complete column, previously “Beware Of ‘Absolut’ Libertarian Lunacy,” is now on Taki’s, differently titled by the editor.

Which is where you can find it every week. Miss the weekly column on WND? Catch it on Taki’s Magazine, every Saturday.

Update (June 6):In Praise Of One Lunatic. The “KNAPPSTER,” Tom Knapp, and I have had a fractious exchange in the Comments Section. I’ve posted two of Tom’s comments, starting with a highly unpleasant post, aimed at my person. Not unpredictably, Tom was most injured by my correct claim that his newsletter, which I dubbed a libertarian organ, and which I read regularly for its news items (not its commentary), has not featured my column in years.

Somewhat disingenuously, Tom disagreed, posting a list of my blog posts and columns on his site, claiming they were featured recently in the newsletter he mails out to thousands of libertarians.

(This was followed by an ugly personal note, calling me a liar, but I will not be dragged down by purveyors of smut.)

Now, I know and remember everything I’ve ever written. Check the dates on these posts; they are all old, exactly as I asserted. I repeat: These are all older column and blog posts.

The most recent entry is from 2006 (three from 2007, although “Tasers R Us” has vanished from the list; “Don’t Tase Me Big Bro,” which I would have thought Tom would love, never made it onto the list, as far as I can tell).

Here are the dates of each individual post on the Rational Review’s newsletter: 11.16.05, 06.22.06, 09/11/06, 06.11.07, 11.16.05, 11.27.06, 12.04.06, 08.24.06, 11.20.06, 06.28.06, 06.28.06, 03.28.06, 03.15.06, 09.04.06, 12.23.05, 03.22.06, 10.19.06, 08.07.06, 01.31.06, 05.23.06, 10.28.05, 09.27.06, 03.06.06, 02.08.06, 01.17.07, 07.02.07, 09.06.06, 01.20.06, 04.25.06, 12.11.06, 12.20.06.

It’s a shame, because I’ve said things in the cause of freedom—my cause and Tom’s cause—few libertarians have dared to (and better).

Just two Examples:

1) My hardcore propertarian defense of Michael Vick (other libertarian dog lovers offered a watered-down, states’-rights defense. Sean Hannity could not find a defense such as mine, which is how I made it onto his radio show on that rare occasion).

2) “They’re Coming For Your Kids”

Now, in his defense (I try and be immutably fair; although Tom is fighting dirty these days), the KNAPPSTER I once knew is quite a rare creature among libertarian cults. He has always appreciated contrarians and the vitality they bring to the movement. Rare. Like mainstreamers, libertarians spend a lot of time huddling in their purist corners, enforcing party lines, following a Cult Leader, and peering at the contrarian from behind heavily fortified ideological parapets.

Again: The KNAPPSTER I knew was not like this. Yes, he got heated about his perspective, but he never barred mine.

On the other hand, libertarian women folk can be real Stalinists in their approach to someone like myself. Last I was kicked off a distribution list it was by one such Siren of intolerance.

I am hopeful that some positive has come from this over-heated exchange, and that Tom, who doesn’t appreciate being perceived by readers (on this humble forum) as less than open-minded, will feature my column on his informative newsletter. He has not done so for a few years, as you can see from the dates the columns and post carry.

In that spirit, I’d also like to credit the KNAPSTER I knew (I do hope his women folk, and here I include women with the YY chromosomal makeup, have not gotten to him on this front) with being unique among (lower case L) libertarian anarchists in advancing one of the most cogent defenses of Israel. (I hope he will send me a link to that splendid tract.)

Peace (and give us a smile, KNAPPSTER).

Update II: Here is “Context is everything: American libertarians and Israel, part 1,” forwarded by Tom.

The KNAPPSTER, I believe, is cracking a grin. We’re good again.

Update VI (May 26): Postscript. I’ve been collegial and fair to a fault in my dealings with one Thomas L. Knapp, who has not carried any of my columns in his “newsletter” since this exchange—despite saying he would. My integrity tends to bring out the best in otherwise innately nasty pieces of work. In the case of this individual, my ability to elevate worked fleetingly—only while he was exposed to it during the exchange on this blog.

Update II: The Genius Of Ancient Hebrew Law

Anti-Semitism, Ethics, Hebrew Testament, Ilana Mercer, Judaism & Jews, Justice, Law, Natural Law, Reason

I’m not a religious Jew; I’m a Hebrew—of the civilization that invented equality under the law; a principle that is dictated in Deuteronomy and Exodus centuries before classical Greek philosophy. I believe the passion for justice is in my genes, as transmitted to me by a father—a rabbi—who’d repeat the phrase most repeated in the Hebrew Bible: “Justice, and justice alone, you shall pursue.” (Deuteronomy 16: 18-20)

While the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, “the first written code of laws in human history,” put in place different laws for the aristocrat, the slave, and the commoner; my tribe, commensurate with the ethical monotheism it was instructed to practice, was being hammered about applying the same laws to the king (Samuel advised the people against having one), the commoner, the alien, the orphan, the widow, the slave, the rich and the poor.

One of my favorite injunctions comes from Exodus 23: 2-3. I know you’ll share in my admiration for its unadulterated exhortation of individualism and justice:

“You shall not be led into wrongdoing by the majority, nor when you give evidence in a lawsuit, shall you side with the majority to prevent justice, nor shall you favor the poor man in his suit.”

How wonderful; how brilliant! And how modern-day religious sects—the churches and the Jews—flout the law of immutable justice by demonizing, for example, those who possess the ability to accrue wealth while deifying those who don’t.

Update (May 24): One of the ignoramuses who frequent the site accuses me of “Jewish supremacy.” That, after I wrote a post explicitly extolling the “teachings” of the Torah as a pioneering text—not the Jewish people.

As I commented hereunder to a reader; then, as now, the stiff-necked people did not often heed the classical prophets.

Against Posting Policy, I’ve posted “Dan’s” missive even though he did not provide a valid email address, so you’ve not been spared his post. But let us provide the evidence of my “Jewish supremacy” for the research-averse Dan, in the form of my writings on matters Jewish:

Your Godless Government At Work (The teachings are praised, not the people.)

Jews Against Judaism

Chronicle of Jewish Community Omits Capitalism

Soul and Moral Tradition (Here I am quite scathing about the contribution of Jews to the popularization of psychology.)

More here.

Clever Anti-Semitic writers often point out that Jewish thinkers are chronically critical. I fall into that category, in as much as I find it impossible to refrain from pointing out contradictions and corruptions wherever I see them, irrespective of tribal affiliation.

Dan’s logic works in the Age of the Idiot, where making clear distinctions is obsolete.

Update II (May 25): This is getting a little personal for my taste, however, to reply to my friend, The Judge: I’m not sure I love my own, as you put it. In fact, I very much doubt that. I am not part of a Jewish community, don’t have Jewish friends, and am married to a WASP. What I am positive about— crystal clear, in fact—is that I love, and know a bit about, the Hebrew Bible (is it 39 books?). I can read it in the original prose (Hebrew). And as a writer, I have to agree with historian Paul Johnson’s assessment that very many of the biblical writers were geniuses, with a unique, pioneering creativity.

As for the principles of justice that are found in the early books we’ve been discussing and are developed by the classical prophets: this is the stuff upon which our concepts of justice rest. What else?

I’m not a person of faith, but for those who are: who other than the ancient Hebrews brought into being the “concept of a single non-corporeal God and its ethical and moral commandments”?

When Jews went into the diaspora and became a sickly, disembodied, landless people, the rabbis took over, implementing a faith dominated by particularist, legalistic, ritualistic elements.

Update VI: The Swine (AKA The State) Are AWOL

Canada, Europe, Healthcare, Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Liberty, Natural Law, Objectivism, The State

The excerpt is from my new, WND column, “The Swine (AKA The State) Are AWOL.” If you miss the column on WND.com, you can catch it weekly on Taki’s Magazine, the following day. It’s now up. (May 2)

“Whether they are armed with bombs or bacteria, stopping weaponized individuals from harming others—intentionally or unintentionally—falls perfectly within the purview of the ‘night-watchman state of classical-liberal theory,’ in the words of the philosopher Robert Nozick. …

“A well-policed barrier is the definitive, non-aggressive method of defense against these ailments and afflictions. You don’t attack, arrest, or otherwise molest undesirables; you keep them at bay, away.”

“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.”

Read “The Swine Are Loose,” (Taki title) to learn what “the quintessential ‘Renaissance woman,’ the late, dazzling, Madeleine Pelner Cosman, Ph.D., Esq.—expert aviator, health-care policy analyst, marksman, and musician—had to say about “the effects on the health system of the bleeding Southwestern border.”

Update I (May 1): I don’t think I’ve made any dogmatic statements about Objectivist thinking per se. What I will say is this: From all warring Objectivist sources, I’ve read oodles about waging war on the world, but very little that is coherent about stopping the Third World from invading the US.

As I wrote in 2004, “Inviting an invasion by foreigners and instigating one against them are two sides of the same neoconservative coin.” I have seen no evidence that “real” Randians have departed from this neoconservative perversion.

Yes, some Objectivists say borders ought to be protected against dem terrorists, but has any dared to venture that defending the country’s borders may have more than just a security dimension?
By all means, enlighten me (with citations/links, please).

The title of my near-complete book manuscript, Into the Cannibal’s Pot, is meant as a metaphor, and is inspired by Ayn Rand’s wise counsel against prostrating civilization to savagery. I have no doubt she’d have been appalled by the free-for-all on the border with Mexico — and not just because of the possibility of infiltration by a couple of malevolent Muslims.

By all means, provide links to a coherent, Rand-stamped, non-neoconservative view of immigration that does not focus exclusively on security to the detriment of cultural components, which are as essential to the survival of American liberty.

Update II: I don’t buy the allegation that views on immigration among Objectivists are shaped by the validity/legality of Ayn Rand’s visa. Rand was not swayed by positive law. Likewise, Objectivists would—or should—argue from the natural law.

Update IV (May 2): The Hispanic influx into the US is unprecedented. Writes my WND colleague, Vox Day:

“To describe the discourse concerning the mass inflow of foreigners that has taken place over the last 29 years [as] ‘the immigration debate’ is to use a misnomer. What has taken place since the 1980 U.S. census is nothing less than a mass migration of the sort that irretrievably transformed historical civilizations everywhere from Hellenic Greece to Moorish Spain. In 1980, the number of Hispanics living in the United States was 14.6 million. In 2008, it was 45.5 million. Hispanics now account for 15 percent of the total population, and because they are the fastest-growing population segment, the census bureau expects their numbers to increase by a further 67 million by 2050.”

Update V (May 3): Sigh. “The Swine Are AWOL (Or Loose)” was not complicated, at least not to the sensible, straight-thinking.

* The dread diseases delineated in the column happen to hail not from the first world, but from Latin America, with which we have an open border.
* The state has a minimal duty. It is not to “control disease” or test every human being crossing the border, but to enforce a border.
* Currently about a million, poor, deprived, and often depraved, ill people cross over each and every year into the US. By enforcing the border, so that far fewer get through, the number of locals killed or sickened by criminals or carriers will be reduced. Not eliminated; reduced. Is that simple logic unclear? I don’t think so.
* This policy should not be egalitarian, naturally. Canada and Europe are first-world destinations. The diseases making a come-back in the US do not come from North America or the Continent. We have a contiguous border with the first-world Canada, and the third, or second-world Mexico. We do not share a border with Europe, naturally.

Update VII (May 4): Jack writes:

Seems that the comments are closed for this item, so will send just one of the citations/links you asked for.

Within the narrow confines of the original article, I thought it was in writing but the only reference I could find was Yaron Brook stating that people carrying infectious diseases is one of the groups that would be excluded from coming into the country. (Bottom of the page, last video, within the first minute.)

Cheers
Jack

Torture Tempest: Turley Vs. Patrick The Great

Constitution, Just War, Natural Law, Terrorism, The State, War

On dunking Abu Zubaydah, the views of that great patriot, Pat Buchanan, jibe with mine, as expressed in “To Bug Or Not To Bug Abu Zubaydah’s Cage (That’s Not The Question).”

Arguing from the natural law, as is my wont and preference, and pitting it against the positive law, Jonathan Turley’s purview, an impassioned Buchanan put the torture tempest in perspective:

Dunking Abu Zubaydah “is a violation of positive law, it is not a moral evil. Do you mean that waterboarding [this fella] is worse than dropping two atomic bombs on innocent people and burning 120,000 of them to death, sentencing 40,000 more to death by radiation—all to convince the Japanese cabinet to change its mind? What was worse?”

Turley, ventured Pat, is right about the letter of the law, but not necessarily about the higher moral law.

Watch:

Ultimately, the faff over “torture” allows members of the Evil and Stupid parties to get away with murder, both having acquiesced in launching an unjust war against innocent Iraqis. This is the real war crime.