Category Archives: Political Philosophy

UPDATE II: Libertarian Anarchism’s ‘Justice’ Problem (The Great Clyde Wilson Weighs In)

Crime, Justice, libertarianism, Liberty, Natural Law, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy, The State, The West

“Libertarian Anarchism’s ‘Justice’ Problem” is the current essay, slightly abridged on Praag.org. An excerpt:

To the extent the Constitution comports with the natural law—upholding the sanctity of life, liberty, privacy, property and due process—it is good; to the extent it doesn’t, it is bad. The manner in which the courts have interpreted the U.S. Constitution makes the Articles of Confederation, which were usurped in favor of the Constitution at the Philadelphia convention, a much better founding document than the Constitution.

THE SIN OF ABSTRACTION

Unless remarkably sophisticated and brilliant (as only Hans-Hermann Hoppe indubitably is), the libertarian 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 of us who do the work he won’t or cannot do: address reality as it is. This specimen has little to say about policy and politics for fear of compromising his theoretical virginity.

Suspended as he is in the arid arena of pure thought, the garden-variety libertarian anarchist will settle for nothing other than the anarchist ideal. And since utopia will never be upon us, he opts to live in perpetual sin: the sin of abstraction.

Indeed, arguing from anarchism is problematic. It is difficult to wrestle with reality from this perspective. This is not to say that a government-free universe is undesirable. To the contrary. However, the sensible libertarian is obliged to anchor his reasoning in reality and in “the nit and the grit of the history and culture from which it emerged,” in the words of columnist Jack Kerwick.

This mindset maligned here is not only lazy but—dare I say?—un-Rothbaridan. For economist and political philosopher Murray Rothbard did not sit on the fence reveling in his immaculate libertarian purity; he dove right into “the nit and the grit of the issues.”

And the “nit and grit” for this not-quite anarchist concerns the problems presented by the private production of justice.

COMPETING THEORIES OF JUSTICE

A belief in the immutably just nature of the natural law must elicit questions about the wisdom of the private production of defense, as this could, in turn, give rise to legitimate law-enforcement agencies that uphold laws for communities in which natural justice has been perverted (in favor of Sharia law, for example).

It’s inevitable: In an anarcho-capitalistic universe, fundamentally different and competing views of justice (right and wrong) will arise. And while competing, private protection agencies are both welcome and desirable; an understanding of justice, predicated as it is on the natural law, does not allow for competing views of justice. …

… The complete essay is “Libertarian Anarchism’s ‘Justice’ Problem.” Read the rest on Praag.org.

UPDATE I: The Great Clyde Wilson Weighs In.

Contra a few irate “readers” at WND, distinguished scholar and prolific author Professor Clyde N. Wilson had not the slightest hardship comprehending—even appreciating—the essay. He writes:

“A very fine column on anarchy and justice.”
Clyde N. Wilson.”

Jack Kerwick, Ph.D., provided good cheer with amusing comments about the creature, on WND, who had “graded” the essay (F) by passing it through some Internet auto-program, and who herself professed to read a dozen or so books a month.

Jokes aside, the essay raises theoretical questions that cannot be boiled down to, “Hey, this works here; and that has worked there; and these guys have proposed Y.” These are not questions of pragmatism, but of principle:

Does natural law comport with a vision of society where systems of law antithetical to natural law could arise and co-exist as a matter of principle? That’s the question. It’s a fundamental one.

UPDATE II: The great Clyde Wilson has been most supportive. He further wrote:

“The idiots are loud but soon forgotten. You have tackled something so basic that libertarians are reluctant to face it.
Best wishes, Clyde.”

Although it is a bit of inside baseball, I had imagined this essay was pretty basic. However, if “a,” “natural law” “to” and “the” are a some reader’s idea of five-dollar words; he or she should stay away from the Federalist Papers.

Rand Paul Shoots From The Hip

libertarianism, Political Philosophy, Politics

Rand Paul might be a disappointment to principled libertarians, however, one cannot deny his smarts, quickness, humor and verbal fluidity. On some matters, Rand is even trying to somewhat pacify us libertarians by articulating a kind of gradualism; he seems to be promising to eventually arrive at our positions (no foreign aid, for example), only gradually, first kicking overt haters off US welfare rolls. That sort of thing.

His refusal to apologize and be more obsequious is refreshing.

Here are captions of Rand’s interview with Wolf Blitzer, down to the one hysterical headline:

“Rand Paul Sparks Uproar About Abortion.”

“Justice System Not Treating People Equally.”

On Hillary Clinton’s Emails.

“I’m Universally Short-Tempered With All Reporters.”

‘How Economic Inequality Is Essential for Successful Economic Competition by the Less Able’

Capitalism, Economy, Free Markets, Political Economy, Political Philosophy

Republicans, Democrats and conservatives—come to think of it, most people—do not fear flaunting their inveterate ignorance of economics. Thus almost all have railed against economic inequality to boost their empathy credentials and likelihood of being elected or re-elected.

The Capitalist Professor, George Reisman, has the antidote, and has been kind enough to send me a complimentary copy of his essay “Fundamental Insights into the Benevolent Nature of Capitalism.” It is available to the general public for 99¢ as a Kindle Book on Amazon.com.

An excerpt:

How Economic Inequality Is Essential for Successful Economic Competition by the Less Able

By George Reisman, Ph.D.

“As von Mises has … shown, with his development of Ricardo’s law of comparative advantage into the law of association, there is room for all in the competition of capitalism. Even those who are less capable than others in every respect have a place. In fact, in large measure, competition under capitalism, so far from being a matter of conflict among human beings, is a process of organizing that one great system of social cooperation known as the division of labor. It decides at what point in this all-embracing system of social cooperation each individual will make his specific contribution—who, for example, and for how long, will be a captain of industry, and who will be a janitor, and who will fill all the positions in between.

In this competition, each individual, however limited his abilities, is enabled to outcompete all others, however superior to him in their abilities they may be, for his special place. Quite literally, and as an everyday occurrence, those with abilities no greater than required to be a janitor are able to outcompete, hands down, without question, the world’s greatest productive geniuses—for the job of janitor. For example, Bill Gates might be so superior an individual that in addition to being able to revolutionize the software industry, he might be able to clean 5 times as many square feet of office space in the same time as any janitor now living, and do it better. But if Gates can earn $1 million an hour running Microsoft, and janitors can be found willing to work for, say, $10 an hour, their readiness to perform the job at one one-hundred thousandth of the hourly rate Gates would require, so far overcomes their lesser abilities that it is they who are the winners of this competition, without any question. For cleaning the amount of floor space that one of them can clean in an hour costs just $10, if one employs one of them, while having Gates clean that same amount of floor space costs $200,000, since the hour of his labor that would be required to clean 5 times as much floor space costs $1 million. To say the same thing slightly differently, employing 5 of them, who in combination clean as much floor space per hour as Gates, costs only $50, while employing Gates to do the same job costs $1 million.

It should go without saying that the same principle applies to all lesser degrees of productive superiority. Thus, for example, individuals capable of being janitors twice as efficient as the average janitor but also capable of doing work that the average janitor simply cannot do and that pays them more than twice as much per hour as the average janitor earns—these people will be outcompeted by the average janitor for the job of janitor. For it will be less expensive to employ two ordinary janitors than one twice-as-efficient janitor, who must be paid more than the two of them in combination, while their combined performance matches his.

There is an important implication in these examples for the subject of economic inequality. Namely, it is the ability of less capable people to work for wages sufficiently below those of more capable people that enables them to outcompete the more capable people and thereby to secure employment. It follows that all measures, such as minimum wage laws, that seek to force up the wages of less capable people operate to undercut their ability successfully to compete and thus to force them into unemployment, while depriving the rest of society of their services and forcing the movement of more capable workers into jobs that could have been filled by less capable workers.

In addition to the fact that under capitalism, there is room for even minimally capable people to be employed in the economic system, it is also the case that because productive geniuses are free to succeed in revolutionizing products and methods of production, those with minimal abilities are able to enjoy not only food, clothing, and shelter, but even such products as automobiles, television sets, and personal computers, products whose very existence they could probably never have even dreamed of on their own.”

Read the complete essay, “Fundamental Insights into the Benevolent Nature of Capitalism.”

UPDATED: CPUKE 2015 (Ann Coulter Joins Libertarians, Gets Off Warpath)

Conservatism, Constitution, Foreign Policy, libertarianism, Military, Neoconservatism, Political Philosophy, Regulation, Republicans

Well, well, like the 2014 Conservative Political Action Conference, CPUKE 2015 is lighter on the bimbo factor of yesteryear—CPUKE usually showcases retards like S. E. Cupp and assorted twits—but heavier with the weight of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rand Paul (R-KY) are as close as it gets to constitutional conservatism. When quizzed by Fox News’ Sean Hannity about their positions on The Issues, both left drugs and marriage to the states. It would appear that the two are the only candidates standing for the Republican Party who reject centralized federal control over drugs and marriage. Libertarians want the state, local and national, out of marriage and drug use—the last must be legalized. So while the Cruz/Paul position is a compromise, it’s better than the rest. Cruz is far more intelligent and personable than Paul, so observing his intellectual virtuosity is more enjoyable.

Building up the largest military in the world, ours, it the focus of the megalomaniacal Donald Trump, who needs to go away for once and for all. “The business mogul is motivated by the sense that the nimbus of great power that surrounds the US is dissipating. It hasn’t occurred to him to search closer to home for the causes of America’s economic anemia—at Fanny, Freddie, and the Fed, for a start. Since Trump has no idea what’s potting, and is not eager to look in his own plate — he blames OPEC, China and Mexico for the burdens of doing business in the US.” More from “Sinophobia Trumps Common Sense”:

The Trump plan to reclaim global greatness and glory includes a strategy America has yet to try: the use of force, of course. Strutting around on the world stage, showing those Russians, Saudis, Chinese amd Mexicans who is boss: this may serve as a perfect panacea for the deficiencies in Trump’s persona, but is hardly a solution to US woes, at home or abroad.

Sadly, most other Republicans will echo these themes and the mob will cheer them. The WSJ summed up the overall lukewarm reaction to a libertarian foreign policy:

Many among [Paul followers] seemed receptive to his more restrained view of the use of military might, but the audience throughout the conference has responded enthusiastically to hawkish messages from the podium. Some of the best-received applause lines throughout the conference have been bellicose language and criticism of Mr. Obama’s foreign policy.

Mr. Paul linked his call for foreign policy limits to the kind of anti-government rhetoric that is popular with conservatives.

“We should not succumb to the notion that a government inept at home will somehow become successful abroad, that a government that is unable to deliver the mail will somehow be able to build nations’ abroad,” he said.

Later.

UPDATE I (2/28): It doesn’t take much to obliterate the lessons of history and political philosophy. CPUKE followers are on the warpath. From the Facebook thread:

Craig Smith: Many things to comment on here, and variously agree/disagree with. That event could have been much better orchestrated. But your comments which belittle the clamor for a militarily-revitalized are puzzling, especially against the backdrop of both an ever-increasingly dangerous world and Obama’s gutting, emasculating, and purging of the American military. I know that you are aware of all of this as well as anyone. I don’t have exactly the same opinion of all the parties that you criticize here. But I am wondering if you blurred the distinction of criticizing these individuals as individuals with the policy or policies they advocate.
13 hrs · Like

Ilana Mercer: Come again, Craig Smith!!!! I was under the impression you were aware that this was a libertarian Timeline of a libertarian writer. You appear to have strong, simmering neoconservative leanings. Time to start reading the good stuff again, Craig Smith…See More
Articles: Advanced search page
13 hrs · Like · 4 · Remove Preview

Craig Smith: I never forget that you are a strict libertarian. I like the novelty, but not all strict libertarianism seems viable to me. Nor, in the context even of all your works, does all of it always seem internally consistent. In any case, I urge an inventory-taking on what I brought up above.

Ilana Mercer: Craig Smith, you urge that I change on the basis of nothing but your drinking of the CPUKE Kool-Aid. I urge that you do the reading over the next few days of stuff that is as predictive as it was when first written. Why must I change when all I have predicted has panned out? All my predictions and analyses since 2002 have stood the test of time, so why must I change my philosophy? Here’s a better idea: do the reading. In “PUNDITS, HEAL THYSELVES!” (2004) I give some analogies to the advice of the pundits you urge me to follow. Some good lines.

UPDATE II: Ann Coulter Joins Libertarians, Gets Off Warpath. Doff of the hat to Kerry Crowel for the alert. He writes:

Have you read Ann Coulter’s latest column? … I think she’s been reading from the Mercer backlog. Especially the bit about “politicians obsessed with cleaning up the rest of the world.”