Category Archives: Reason

On Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracy, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Old Right, Reason, The State, War

By now, my thinking on conspiracy theories should be known; they are the refuge of the weak-minded. Remember Hannah Arendt’s Banality of Evil? Reality is bad enough; there is no need to look beyond it. That is tantamount to conjecture and fantasy. As I said in the introduction to my book, the state presides over the disintegration of civil society, but it does so reflexively, rather than as a matter of collusion and conspiracy.

The premise for imputing conspiracies to garden variety government evils is this: government generally does what is good for us (NOT), so when it strays, we must look beyond the facts—for something far more sinister, as if government’s natural venality and quest for power were not enough to explain events. For example, why would one need to search for the “real reason” for an unjust, unscrupulous war, unless one believed government would never prosecute an unjust war. History belies that delusion.

Conspiracy is not congruent with a view of government as fundamentally antagonistic to the individual and to civil society, a position I hold. I see most of what the behemoth does nowadays as contrary to the good of the individual, and aimed reflexively at increasing its own power and size. Even if government embarked on a just war, it would find ways to prolong it, since this involves the consolidation of fiefdoms. Soldiers don’t benefit, but their superiors—those “generals” everyone reveres so—do. Our government, given its size, reach, and many usurpations, is a destructive and warring entity. It is natural for such an entity to pursue war for war’s sake. The constituent elements of the behemoth continuously work to increase their spheres of control. This is why we must curtail the state’s powers.

Propensity for conspiracy is yet another facet paleoconservatives and paleolibertarians share with the hard-left. I pointed out in “Deriding Dershowitz,” and elsewhere, that the far-out right has made common cause with the far left on quite a number of fronts. That’s a shame. You’ll find no such incongruities in my thinking. By way of example, my anti-war sentiments have never strayed into these murky precincts—don’t look for any war-for-oil-&-Israel kookiness here.

Updated: Race, Reason, & Unreason

Law, libertarianism, Private Property, Race, Reason, Regulation

Ronald Bailey of Reason Magazine details the reaction of “Conservative” blogger Ann Althouse to a debate about the infringements by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on property rights and freedom of association. The discussion took place at a Liberty Fund colloquium.

Broadly speaking, the topic falls perfectly within the purview of the conference, which aims to “shed light on the role of liberty in human life,” to quote Bailey. Speaking specifically, this conference tackled the role of federalism in freedom. Read Bailey’s most reasonable entry here. And follow the links to Althouse’s response.

(Althouse, incidentally, is competing for the title “Grande Conservative Blogress Diva,” the sort of communal enforcement bloggers engage in, much like mainstream media. They too are always awarding their own for conformity. I digress, but, in any event, that’s the string of honorifics explained.)

I too attended a Liberty Fund colloquium in the UK earlier this year, but none of the participants dissolved into a puddle, a la Althouse, over disagreement. I had a jolly good time with some brilliant (and beautifully spoken) Englishmen and (two) women.

As for tearing up and labeling as racists proponents of states’ rights or advocates of freedom of association, as Althouse apparently did, why, this only indicates Liberty Fund is not selecting its participants very carefully. Althouse reached for the smelling salts instead of arguing her case. How feeble. How Peggy Noonan.

Can there be any doubt that civil rights laws coerce individuals, often against their better judgment, into involuntary associations? Can one deny that under antidiscrimination law employers have lost a great deal of control over their businesses? Is it not the duty of reasonable, freedom-loving people to explore the effects on liberty of such legislation?

As I told the conservative Comanche, Dr. David Yeagley, “race is intricately and ineluctably tied to freedom because we live under a state which circumscribes liberty by enforcing codes of hiring, firing, renting, and money lending, among others. In a truly free society, the kind we once enjoyed, one honors the right of the individual to associate and disassociate, invest and disinvest, speak and misspeak at will. Race has become such an issue because we labor under nominal property ownership, and are subject to what is flippantly called political correctness, but is in fact codified and legalized theft and coercion.”

Althouse accuses libertarians of the sin of abstraction. If anything, Althouse’s formulations rely on the idea that America is merely a proposition, bound to abstract ideals, rather than a community of flesh-and-blood individuals, each with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.

Update: James Wilson (scroll down to the comments) contends that Althouse’s apoplexy over the exercise of individual liberty is a hangover from “the influence of the Christian Right on conservatism, [whereby] government’s role is to stamp out evil, pure and simple. And since racism is evil, the federal government must do something about it, just like it must fight drugs, pornography, obesity, etc.”
I’m not convinced. I would say (as I did in this January 29, 2003 column) that, neoconservatives, being “‘illiterate leftists posturing as conservatives’ have, largely, helped make Martin Luther King Jr. more important, historically, than the Founding Fathers. They’ve also helped conflate the messages of the two solitudes, even though the Founders’ liberty” is unrelated to the egalitarianism promoted by the commie King.

Updated: Race, Reason, & Unreason

Law, libertarianism, Private Property, Race, Reason, Regulation

Ronald Bailey of Reason Magazine details the reaction of “Conservative” blogger Ann Althouse to a debate about the infringements by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on property rights and freedom of association. The discussion took place at a Liberty Fund colloquium.

Broadly speaking, the topic falls perfectly within the purview of the conference, which aims to “shed light on the role of liberty in human life,” to quote Bailey. Speaking specifically, this conference tackled the role of federalism in freedom. Read Bailey’s most reasonable entry here. And follow the links to Althouse’s response.

(Althouse, incidentally, is competing for the title “Grande Conservative Blogress Diva,” the sort of communal enforcement bloggers engage in, much like mainstream media. They too are always awarding their own for conformity. I digress, but, in any event, that’s the string of honorifics explained.)

I too attended a Liberty Fund colloquium in the UK earlier this year, but none of the participants dissolved into a puddle, a la Althouse, over disagreement. I had a jolly good time with some brilliant (and beautifully spoken) Englishmen and (two) women.

As for tearing up and labeling as racists proponents of states’ rights or advocates of freedom of association, as Althouse apparently did, why, this only indicates Liberty Fund is not selecting its participants very carefully. Althouse reached for the smelling salts instead of arguing her case. How feeble. How Peggy Noonan.

Can there be any doubt that civil rights laws coerce individuals, often against their better judgment, into involuntary associations? Can one deny that under antidiscrimination law employers have lost a great deal of control over their businesses? Is it not the duty of reasonable, freedom-loving people to explore the effects on liberty of such legislation?

As I told the conservative Comanche, Dr. David Yeagley, “race is intricately and ineluctably tied to freedom because we live under a state which circumscribes liberty by enforcing codes of hiring, firing, renting, and money lending, among others. In a truly free society, the kind we once enjoyed, one honors the right of the individual to associate and disassociate, invest and disinvest, speak and misspeak at will. Race has become such an issue because we labor under nominal property ownership, and are subject to what is flippantly called political correctness, but is in fact codified and legalized theft and coercion.”

Althouse accuses libertarians of the sin of abstraction. If anything, Althouse’s formulations rely on the idea that America is merely a proposition, bound to abstract ideals, rather than a community of flesh-and-blood individuals, each with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.

Update: James Wilson (scroll down to the comments) contends that Althouse’s apoplexy over the exercise of individual liberty is a hangover from “the influence of the Christian Right on conservatism, [whereby] government’s role is to stamp out evil, pure and simple. And since racism is evil, the federal government must do something about it, just like it must fight drugs, pornography, obesity, etc.”
I’m not convinced. I would say (as I did in this January 29, 2003 column) that, neoconservatives, being “‘illiterate leftists posturing as conservatives’ have, largely, helped make Martin Luther King Jr. more important, historically, than the Founding Fathers. They’ve also helped conflate the messages of the two solitudes, even though the Founders’ liberty” is unrelated to the egalitarianism promoted by the commie King.

Darwinism Vs. Intelligent Design

Christianity, Pseudoscience, Reason, Religion, Science

C-Span broadcast a book forum at the Cato Institute, featuring the author Michael Shermer, Director of the Skeptics Society, with comments by Jonathan Wells, Senior Fellow at the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute. Wells is also the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. That tells you all you need to know about his position.

It’s probably safe to say that I come down on Shermer’s side. I’ve always admired his work. However, evolution is one topic I’m agnostic about. Joy! I love a good intellectual debate (although this one was a tad short)—all the more so when I have no dog in the fight.

Both men are extremely bright and cordial. I question Wells’ inability to come up with a theory that’ll fill the lacunae he finds in Darwinism. He claims he is not obliged to fill in the gaps. My knowledge of the theory of science is limited, so I can’t tell you whether the onus is on him to furnish a competing, overarching explanation.