Category Archives: Political Philosophy

A July 4th Toast To TJ & The Declaration

America, Founding Fathers, History, Political Philosophy

THOMAS JEFFERSON. “The Declaration of Independence—whose proclamation, on July 4, 1776, we celebrate—has been mocked out of meaning. To be fair to the liberal Establishment, ordinary Americans are not entirely blameless. For most, Independence Day means firecrackers and cookouts. The Declaration doesn’t feature. In fact, contemporary Americans are less likely to read it now that it is easily available on the Internet, than when it relied on horseback riders for its distribution.

Back in 1776, gallopers carried the Declaration through the country. Printer John Dunlap had worked ‘through the night’ to set the full text on ‘a handsome folio sheet,’ recounts historian David Hackett Fischer in Liberty And Freedom. And President (of the Continental Congress) John Hancock urged that the “people be universally informed.”

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, called it ‘an expression of the American Mind.’ An examination of Jefferson’s constitutional thought makes plain that he would no longer consider the mind of a Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, or the collective mentality of the liberal establishment, ‘American’ in any meaningful way. For the Jeffersonian mind was that of an avowed Whig—an American Whig whose roots were in the English Whig political philosophy of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. …

… Jefferson’s muse for the ‘American Mind’ is even older.

The Whig tradition is undeniably Anglo-Saxon. Our founding fathers’ political philosophy originated with their Saxon forefathers, and the ancient rights guaranteed by the Saxon constitution. With the Declaration, Jefferson told Henry Lee in 1825, he was also protesting England’s violation of her own ancient tradition of natural rights. As Jefferson saw it, the Colonies were upholding a tradition the Crown had abrogated. …

Naturally, Jefferson never entertained the folly that he was of immigrant stock. He considered the English settlers of America courageous conquerors, much like his Saxon forebears, to whom he compared them. To Jefferson, early Americans were the contemporary carriers of the Anglo-Saxon project.”

The original Independence-Day column in its entirety is “A July 4th Toast To Thomas Jefferson And The Anglo-Saxon Tradition.”

UPDATE II: Libertarianism Lite Likely Won’t Cut It

Constitution, IMMIGRATION, Individual Rights, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Liberty, Political Philosophy, Pop-Culture, Ron Paul, Sex, Terrorism, The Zeitgeist

Some libertarians dream that the establishment-endorsed libertarianism-lite, currently being touted on Fox News- and Business as the only legitimate strand of libertarianism, will catch-on in this America. Dream on.

Liberty loving adults in the US tend not to identify with fast-talking youths, wearing trendy eye-wear, who insist that the cultural foot-and-mouth that is “Glee” and Gaga is the very essence of American freedoms and liberties. (Anyone who has ever read this space knows that I don’t have any objection to risque expression; only to artistically worthless cultural products.)

Granted, life-style libertarians come in all shapes and sizes; they are often older, but are always juvenile. In the country’s founding documents, they divine all kinds of exhortations to let it all hang out. Much as the Left does.

If I’ve learned anything about what remains of Middle America, it is that ordinary, gun-toting, homeschooling, bible-thumping Americans are unmoved by people who draw their paycheques from foundations, think tanks, and academia, and wax orgiastic about MTV and Dennis Rodman. Although it might appear sophisticated, this stuff is reductive and shallow—a kind of post-graduate cleverness that lacks any philosophical depth.

Life, liberty, property: that’s what negative liberty is all about. The rest is either fluff or ancillary.

True, libertinism can be freeing in many ways, but forgotten by left-libertarians (I prefer libertarians lite; it’s more accurate) is this: libertinism is subsumed within a larger, more-inclusive category of liberty.

Besides, joining the Idiocracy is never liberating. Things that addle the brain permanently are, ultimately, not liberating.

(And what’s up with Nick Gillespie’s less than harsh words about the War on Terror? On Fox News’ Stossel, Gillespie seemed to second the general impetus of the War on Terror. He also went soft on the TSA, protesting only that a well-intentioned effort (TSA) had gone terribly wrong. Wrong! The War on Terror is an unconstitutional crock that guarantees the growth of the state. The TSA is engaged in legalized crime and needs to be dismantled, its goons jailed for each assault perpetrated.)

As I noted, when defending Ron Paul, in 2008, from attacks by the same libertarians,

Beltway libertarians … are moved in mysterious ways by gaping borders, gay marriage, multiculturalism, cloning, and all else “cool and cosmopolitan.”
Judging by Reason’s “35 Heroes of Freedom,” “cool and cosmopolitan” encompasses William Burroughs, a drug addled, Beat-Generation wife killer, whose “work is mostly gibberish and his literary influence baleful.”
Madonna Reason has exalted for, as they put it, leading “MTV’s glorious parade of freaks, gender-benders, and weirdos who helped broaden the palette of acceptable cultural identities and destroy whatever vestiges of repressive mainstream sensibilities still remained.” That sounds like the unscrambled, strange dialect spoken by a professor of Women’s and Gender Studies.

[Or is it “Womin’s Studies”?]

Naturally, I’m down with any lifestyle the individual chooses, just so long as he or she doesn’t visit violence on others (as the TSA does). But to conflate low-culture and manifest ignorance with American liberties is asinine. (And very much the essence of life-style libertarianism.) As the libertarian law goes, all human beings have the freedom to act-out in anyway they like, so long as they abide by the non-aggression axiom.

Personally, I favor discretion. For if “civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy,” in Ayn Rand’s magnificent words, then sexual—or any other—exhibitionism is anathema.

UPDATE I (June 29): Tom DiLorenzo has blogged the this post at LewRockwell.com:

“Fast-Talking Youths Wearing Trendy Eye-Wear . . .
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo on June 29, 2011 02:42 PM

.. and “waxing orgiastic about MTV and Dennis Rodman” on the FOX networks. That’s how Ilana Mercer describes the Kochtopusian “libertarian lite” crowd of Beltway “libertarians.” They’re the same crowd that orchestrated a vicious smear campaign against Ron Paul, as Ilana discusses.
Ilana’s just-released book, Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa, is a must-read. Among the “blurb”writers who praise the book on the first few pages are yours truly, Tom Woods, Thomas Szasz, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

UPDATE II (June 30): ANARCHISM. In reality, working as we are with so few options, there is not much that separates the classical liberal (your host, Mises, etc.) and the anarchist (Rothbard, LRC). The wise, freedom-loving thinker knows this, and works to optimize collaboration. However, as someone who was once an anrachist, and had reconsidered, after careful thought, turning to liberalism in the classical (and American) tradition, my thoughts on anarchism may be of interest.

Here they are in “AGAINST ANARCHISM.”

“Do Immigration Laws Violate Libertarian Axiom” is another relevant read. Ditto my immigration archive, the articles in which advance (unanswered) arguments as to why humanity does not have the right to venture wherever, whenever.

UPDATE IV: Not Cueing The Mariachi Band For Perry (Female Self-Ownership)

Abortion, Conservatism, Crime, Elections, Individual Rights, Political Philosophy, Politics, Private Property, Republicans, States' Rights, Welfare

I “Cued The Mariachi Band” when Rick Perry, the (dashing) governor of Texas, defied Mexico City, The Hague, and their enablers in Washington, and ended José Medellin’s miserable life. Bush, on the other hand, was willing to wrestle a crocodile for Medellin, the man who raped Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Peña in every which way possible and then proceeded to strangle, slash, and stomp the young Texan girls to death.

And it is a happy occasion when any American politician whoops it up for the Tenth Amendment, and speaks about property rights, as Gov. Perry did at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, La. Have you noticed that almost none does? It’s usually, “The right of Boeing to open a business,” rather than the title an owner has in his property, as an extension of the individual’s self-ownership (and they always preclude a woman’s right of self ownership, for some reason). (“The right of ownership is an extension of the right to life. In order to survive, man must— and it is in his nature to — transform the resources around him by mixing his labor with them and making them his own. Man’s labor and property are extensions of himself.”

Fair enough: Seventy percent of all jobs created in the US last year were in Texas. Alas, the governor’s record is at best spotty. And at a time when no one but a minority cares to sweat the “social issues,” these, unfortunately, formed a good part of his address in New Orleans.

UPDATE I: I’d like to clarify (but not discuss abortion, because the abortion issue is one hill upon which I refuse to die): When, last night, I praised Gov. Perry for “whooping it up for property rights,” I added in parenthesis that “this precludes a woman’s self-ownership.” What I meant is this: I always wonder why it is that, when speaking of the right of ownership (property), which is an extension of each individual’s dominion over his body and the things he homesteads—conservatives sidetrack the problem of a woman’s dominion over her body. I don’t wish to discuss abortion. However, conservatives never flesh out this inconsistency. Perhaps they believe human beings, women in particular, don’t have a property right in their own bodies. How does ownership arise, in the conservative mind? Does property not include one’s own body?

UPDATE II (June 20): Cross-posted @ facebook: Kevin (Williamson), I have worked out a formulation about abortion that appeases (as opposed to pleases) me as a paleolibertarian and an absolute propertarian. But is it safe to share it? I worry, because I die on enough hills. It seems prudent not to come out on this issue. Libertarians can agree that no state funding, local or federal, should be allocated to such a procedure. Liberals should be exposed, but never are (certainly not by conservatives), for conflating this position (no public funding) with a denial of what they term “abortion rights.” However, it’s highly problematic to say that by virtue of her fertility, a woman loses a property title in her body. She doesn’t.

UPDATE III (June 20): Kevin, Myron, Don, Joseph, Guy, etc: The tone on this Facebook thread/Wall is pleasingly rational and civil. It’s not surprising among these respondents/writers/thinkers, here. I wonder how many friends I’d lose if I shared my solution, which is still unsatisfactory. Look, abortion is a horrid procedure; especially now that what was promoted as a “blob,” can be viewed by available technology. At 6 weeks in utero, my daughter’s heartbeat was loud—it melted me. Walter Block, a dear friend, has developed “the evictionism theory of abortion.” I don’t subscribe to it, needless to say. But any traditionalist/libertarian solution to the abortion vexation has to be rational, and consider a person’s dominion over his body.

UPDATE IV: From the Facebook thread/Wall: It’s, however, incontrovertible to say that “late-term” termination is a euphemism for cold-blooded murder. Not to evoke the Argument from Nazi-ism (one of the laziest and lowest forms of argument); but it’s the stuff of Josef Mengele, or his female counterpart (his right-hand “service provider,” the proverbial Brunhilda).

The French Vs. The American Revolution

Ann Coulter, Conservatism, Democracy, Europe, History, Political Philosophy, Republicans

Ann Coulter’s point (in her book Demonic, apparently), as to the difference between the blood-drenched, illiberal, irreligious French Revolution and the American Revolution is important, although neither new nor original. The “Revolution in France” is how the great Edmund Burke referred to the French Revolution. Burke believed that replacing monarchy with (a murderous) morobcracy was fundamentally, well, unFrench.

I have not seen Ms. Coulter’s citations. I don’t read her books (other than Treason, a book that did more than follow the tired theme, “liberals bad; conservatives good). Still, it would be interesting to see who Ms. Coulter cited in support of her recycled thesis.

Some of the sources I cite, in addition to Burke, are in “Thomas Paine: 18th Century Che Guevara” (October, 2010):

“… one rarely hears Burke mentioned in American public discourse, yet my countrymen know and love Thomas Paine, who sympathized with the Jacobins and spat venom at Burke for his devastating critique of the blood-drenched, illiberal, irreligious ‘Revolution in France’ …
‘Even Thomas Jefferson seems not to have grasped at first how different the French and American Revolutions were. The confusion continues today. Paine belongs to the Che Guevara ascendancy, which admires nothing unless a good dose of murder is present. There are American scholars, however, like Peter Stanlis, and Francis Canavan, who appreciate the utter consistency of Burke’s outlook with the main tendencies of American civilization. Burke said the French Revolution was murderous and would have terrible consequences. He was borne out, not only by the bloody course of the Revolution itself, but by the Communist and Nazi menaces, which drew their inspiration from and surpassed in their wickedness, the pathology of Revolutionary France. The USA played a huge part in defeating these modern despotisms, and modern France very little.”