Category Archives: Political Philosophy

Don’t Be Conned By Con-servatives & Their ‘Ism’ Talk

Conservatism, Feminism, Free Speech, Gender, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Media, Paleolibertarianism, Political Correctness, Political Philosophy, Sex

No different to liberals, mainstream conservatives are a party of isms, not individualism. Like liberals, conservatives diligently examine controversial speech for signs of the prohibited “isms”: sexism, racism, ageism, etc. Were they devoted to the principles of freedom; conservatives would refuse to even debate the legitimacy of impugning a man’s character, or expunging him from polite company, for the words that roll off his tongue.

Yet any debate these characters conduct on speech is never a principled debate about debate. Self-styled, mainstream conservatives seldom recuse themselves from the act of policing speech. Rather, they join in dignifying the media circle jerk.

James Rosen is best known for having been the victim of the head of Barack Obama’s Justice Department, Attorney General Eric Holder. For doing his job as a reporter, this Fox News Channel reporter was framed by the same department for the crime of conspiracy to leak classified materials.

Now, from being a credible reporter at Fox News, Rosen has gone on to reinvent himself as a sometime commentator.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki and her deputy, Marie Barf, are studiously dumb chicks. Bill O’Relly was quite diplomatic when he said about the first that she was “way out of her depth” and lacked the “the gravitas for that job.”

Rosen could not let that stand. Via Mediate:

On Fox News yesterday, reporter James Rosen defended State Department spokeswomen Jen Psaki and Marie Harf from what he deemed vicious attacks that would never be directed their way if they were men. Harf in particular has gotten lots of conservative ridicule (to put it mildly) over her comments last week that 1) the U.S. can’t just kill its way out of war with ISIS; and 2) factors like job opportunity should be considered when examining the root causes of terrorism.

Rosen said, “It won’t please my social media followers to hear me say it, but I’ve been dismayed by the treatment of Marie and Jen on Twitter and other social media.” And not only are they mocked online, he said, but it’s done “in intimately person [sic] ways that I think bespeak a certain amount of sexism.”

Rosen went on to call Tweedledum and Tweedledumber very accomplished women.

American Thinker is insufficiently scathing about the quality of Tweedledum and Tweedledumber’s accomplishments—the two embody everything that is repugnant about womanhood in America—but it’ll do:

… Marie Harf sounded like a cheesed-off sixteen-year-old the morning after the big party when she dissed O’Reilly for saying, “…that woman [Jen Psaki] looks way out of her depth.”

For teenage girls the clique is of utmost importance. When they go all panties in a wad it’s often for their BFFs. Harf don’t stand on her jays, she stands behind her blud, Psaki. Harf not only lacks gravitas, she appears to lack conscience to grasp the international purpose and life-and-death seriousness of her job, that people live or are murdered on the turn of her flippant, self-referential phraseology. Stop the world! O’Reilly called my BFF “that woman.” It is hideous that she wasted one second in these desperate times ranting about imaginary sexism. Her bosses want Harf to spout domestic sex politics. And after all, that is the only item on her resume.

Harf is indeed hideous to behold.

Jeremy Bentham: Very Bad For Liberty, Indeed

Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Law, libertarianism, Natural Law, Political Philosophy, The State

The following columns make derisive mention of utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham. The columnist (guilty) assumed (guilty again) that her readers, like many good libertarians (namely, natural-rights libertarians), would identify Bentham’s name as a synonym for statism and collectivism, to distinguish from liberty and individualism.

Libertarian legal scholar Randy Barnett, I recall, particularly enjoyed this from “A Romp Down Memory Lane With Justice Roberts” (7/6/2012):

“Why would George Bush care whether a judicial nominee can tell Blackstone from Bentham, when he can’t?”

“More of a Benthamite bureaucrat than a truth seeker” is from “PATRICIDE AND PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT” (September 11, 2002).

Remember Reno!” (9/8/2006) equated Benthamism with legal excesses, whereby the law, “intended as a bulwark against government abuses,” had become “an implement of government, to be utilized by all-knowing rulers for the ‘greater good’—the founders’ Blackstonian view of the law” having “been supplanted by a Benthamism that encourages ambitious prosecutors to discard a defendant’s rights.”

“‘Mad Dog’ Sneddon Vs. Michael Jackson” (7/5/2005) mentions once again the Benthamite notion of “the law as an implement of government, to be utilized by all-knowing rulers for the ‘greater good.’”

The Library of Economics and Liberty expounds a little more about Bentham the utilitarian, whose “publications were few,” and whose foundational belief was “that all social actions should be evaluated by the axiom, ‘It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong.’”

In a word, utilitarianism, and by extension, statism and collectivism.

Counter to Adam Smith’s vision of “natural rights,” Bentham believed that there were no natural rights to be interfered with.

Trained in law, Bentham never practiced, choosing instead to focus on judicial and legal reforms. His reform plans went beyond rewriting legislative acts to include detailed administrative plans to implement his proposals. In his plan for prisons, workhouses, and other institutions, Bentham devised compensation schemes, building designs, worker timetables, and even new accounting systems. A guiding principle of Bentham’s schemes was that incentives should be designed “to make it each man’s interest to observe on every occasion that conduct which it is his duty to observe.” Interestingly, Bentham’s thinking led him to the conclusion, which he shared with Smith, that professors should not be salaried.

In his early years Bentham professed a free-market approach. He argued, for example, that interest rates should be free from government control (see Defence of Usury). By the end of his life he had shifted to a more interventionist stance. He predated Keynes in his advocacy of expansionist monetary policies to achieve full employment and advocated a range of interventions, including the minimum wage and guaranteed employment.

Jeremy Bentham was a thoroughbred statist; the quintessential bureaucrat and social engineer, who devised ways to tinker in oder to optimize the individual pawn’s common-good conduct.

Judge Napolitano’s Left-Libertarian Confusion

libertarianism, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy, Race

Recently, on TV, Judge Andrew Napolitano sort of walked back his earlier assertion that in Ferguson we saw “the error and perversion of the grand jury,” and a “toxic mixture of a black underclass and a white power structure and the corrupt advantages people on the make and people on the take can exploit from it.”

Napolitano’s early position:

In Ferguson, the law enforcement case is far more straightforward than the racial complexities. A white cop put 10 bullets into the body of an unarmed black youth with whom he was wrestling for control of his gun … The tragedy is the result of the governmental use of race as a basis for decision-making. When cops are hired because they are white, when police suspect criminal behavior on the part of youth because the youth is black …

His is a hot mess of a column.

Napolitano’s later reversal:

Napolitano drew a stark distinction between the Garner case and that of Michael Brown, in which there was a “struggle for the gun.” Instead, he said, “This is a case of a poor, sorry individual doing nothing more than selling untaxed cigarettes and as a result of government intervention, he’s dead.”

Perhaps Napolitano has taken to reading more coherent libertarians, who can draw distinctions free of crappy postmodern, inorganic theorizing?

In any event, that’s left-libertarianism for you: In-thrall to lefty constructs like “power structure,” “white privilege”—the left-libertarian’s tinny, rigid adherence to bogus theory is often foisted on facts that don’t fit. The result: a mass of contradictions their adulating readers, in the habit of celebrity worship, fail to pick up.

UPDATED: V-Day For Vagina-Centric Libertarians? Not So Fast. (‘Brutality’ Alert)

Feminism, Gender, libertarianism, Liberty, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy, Pseudo-intellectualism

At EPJ, where “V-Day For Vagina-Centric Libertarians? Not So Fast” is now published, Lila Rajiva and myself exchange opinions about whether I was right or wrong to avoid naming the individuals discussed in the column.

Lila Rajiva March 28, 2014 at 12:37 PM

I think we should be truthful. She and Tucker ARE widely published so what’s the point of saying they are non-entities?

They are not. It just makes you sound as over-emotional as they are.

That was one thing with which I disagreed in this otherwise excellent piece.

Dispassion and professional standards entail that when you read someone, you should cite them. Leave “vanishing” people to the state and to propagandists and hypesters.

Reply
ILANA MERCER March 28, 2014 at 2:18 PM

Respectfully, you’re wrong. You are looking at this storm in a C-Cup from the insular world of the libertarian. My piece was written for a wider audience. Good or bad, the bigger picture is that the two alluded to are insignificant, the one more so than the other. The one has the run of a publishing house, and, unethically in my opinion (as it involves a conflict of interest), uses the imprint to publish some of his own books. Yet these books have hardly any buyers (Amazon rank #649,120). My contention that in the bigger picture these people are unknown entities is correct. The female of the duo is certainly a non-entity. Given her aptitude, no matter how well promoted she is, and no matter how much she suctions face to camera, she will never muster an opinion or an analysis that isn’t second-hander material. She’s not working with much. To properly gauge the significance of these two one has to exit the libertarian orbit. Thus, addressing non-entities by name is unnecessary in a piece meant for popular consumption. On this topic, my dear friend and mentor, the influential and talented Walter Block, demeans himself and his stature by constantly addressing nobody bloggers by name, rather than just dealing with their arguments, to the extent these sorts make these.

Reply
Lila Rajiva March 28, 2014 at 2:40 PM

@Hi Ilana,

I agree with you in the wider world. But, in the wider world, since they are unknown, they don’t need to be rebutted at all.

However, in terms of libertarian in-fighting, everyone knows who Tucker is…

Still, it was an excellent piece. I am sick of this waving of the V. I actually thinks it’s some kind of propaganda offensive that began in 2012 with Naomi Wolf’s book.

Get us to talk, one way or other, about genitals all the time. Mainstreams the stuff, like the Lewinsky trial did.

Reply
ILANA MERCER March 28, 2014 at 3:16 PM

I see what you’re saying, Lila. As expected, we both make valid points. “Respec,” as Ali G. would say.

Ms. Rajiva is funny in the comment below. A woman with a sense of humor. Wicked (or “brutal”). Lila has to admit, though, apropos our exchange above, that the “brutal” wordplay (or swordplay) on this and other libertarian sites is an example of “inside baseball.” Everyone on here knows what is being mocked. But few outside our orbit will understand. This goes to my point about not needing to name names when addressing a wider audience.

Lila Rajiva March 28, 2014 at 10:15 AM

I think it’s grossly BRUTALIST and a violation of the civil rights of Tucker, Reisenwitz & the rest
to pit one whole Mercer in full throttle against them.

It’s downright violent and violence will not be tolerated… unless we’re for it.

I call for UN sanctions, economic sanctions (no more blintzers for you, Ms. Mercer), and carpet-bombing…..

Let the humanitarianism begin…..

UPDATE: VIA FACEBOOK:

David Colpo writes:

If the names of writers obscure to the general population aren’t worth publishing, then why bother refuting their equally obscure arguments to that same audience?
59 minutes ago · Like

Ilana Mercer replies:

David Colpo, b/c I care about truth and reality. And as a libertarian I care about Mises. I care about libertarianism. I don’t care for–or about—the people who are trying to make libertarianism appealing to throngs of bimbos by lying about white, old men in order to make them palatable and politically correct. As if, there was anything wrong with Mises the way he was.