Category Archives: The State

‘Bronco Bamma’: A 4×4 Force For The State

Barack Obama, Classical Liberalism, Elections, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy, Politics, Private Property, The State

On voting defensively:

I listened to a young (24), fiercely individualistic, libertarian friend speak about casting his vote for Mitt Romney. My pal may not be finely tuned to every philosophical nuisance, but he lives and breathes individualism. His backbreaking work as a proprietor of a small business means, moreover, that local politics are vital to his bottom-line. My friend explained to me why he would be voting to keep the toxic Dems out of office in our state, and why he supported Romney.

Although wedded to reality, columnist Jack Kerwick is “finely tuned to philosophical nuisance.” As mentioned in “On Living In Sin: The Sin of Abstraction,” Jack and I parted company over his decision to vote Romney. However, I admire Jack for “mixing it up”—for his commitment to arguing the issues and making pragmatic decisions in the rigorous and vigorous Rothbardian tradition.

But then Jack’s a scrappy New Jerseyan.

The entrepreneur (my young friend) and the philosopher (Jack Kerwick) are aligned in this instance.

I will say this unequivocally: “Bronco Bamma” (little girl tires of him and his rival, whose name at least she can pronounce)—Barry Soetoro Frankenstein, spawn of the state—is trash. Mitt Romney, however, is a patrician.

His individual achievements outside politics show that Mr. Romney is nothing like “Bronco Bamma,” who has always been at full throttle for the distributive state.

To Be Or Not To Be In Benghazi: That’s The Question

Democracy, Democrats, Government, libertarianism, Media, Middle East, Military, Neoconservatism, Propaganda, Republicans, Terrorism, The State, War, Welfare

“To Be Or Not To Be In Benghazi; That’s The Question,” and that’s the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

The gist of a cable received by the Office of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on August 16 this year, summarized an emergency meeting convened a day before at the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, Libya.

The post could not be defended in the case of a coordinated attack. Such an attack was in the air, as Benghazi was home to “approximately ten Islamist militias” raring to go. The compound was small and understaffed. It lacked “the manpower, security measures, and weapons capabilities” to repel an all-out assault.

The cable laid out before Mrs. Clinton’s Emergency Action Committee what Fox News’ Catherine Herridge described, on Oct. 31, as “specific warnings” and “detailed intelligence.”

Fox News has been covering the Benghazi story wall-to-wall; the other cable news stations not at all. However, one specific snippet buried in the telegram was too fraught for the folks at Fox to probe.

In “liberated” Libya, the American outpost was also up against limited “host nation support.”

This was a coordinated attack on a despised presence, timed for the 9/11 anniversary. Living under de facto American occupation had enraged the occupied. Anathema to “free” Americans, this generic creature had evinced similar rage when he lived under Genghis Bush, in Iraq.

At first, the eminence grise of American opinion makers—left and right, Republican and Democrat—got behind the central conceit floated by the Obama Administration. The Arab world had once again erupted because of those of us who dared to insult Mohammad, Jihad’s muse. As the other set of despots used to intimate during its tenure in D.C., the perennial Muslim rioter resented the freedoms of our pole dancers, potty-mouthed entertainers, and loud, loutish politicians.

From the stuff that makes us “free,” these proxies for American power always exclude the IRS (Internal Revenue Service), authorized to hound us till end of the world, the alphabet soup of regulation agencies that prosecutes and regiments our best and brightest to the gills, the War on Drugs that assumes dominion over the most precious piece of real estate we own—our bodies—a welfare state that has been likened “not [to] a principality, but [to] a vast empire bigger than the entire budgets of almost every other country in the world,” and a warfare complex that gobbles up so much wealth and so many men, ours and others around the world.

As soon as it was discovered that these things—the accoutrements of a “wonderfully” messy democracy—could not be blamed for the attack on the Benghazi Mission, most media fell silent. …

The complete column is“To Be Or Not To Be In Benghazi; That’s The Question.” Read it on WND now.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION, AND DO BATTLE FOR LIBERTY BY:

• Using the content-sharing icons on Barely a Blog posts.

• At the WND and RT Comments Sections, and on Facebook.

• By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” WND’s “Return To Reason” , and RT’s “Paleolibertarian Column.”

UPDATE III: On Living In Sin: The Sin of Abstraction (BHO: An Alien Species Hostile To Life On Earth)

Barack Obama, Constitution, Labor, libertarianism, Liberty, Natural Law, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy, Politics, Ron Paul, The State

Anyone who’s read my columns over the years recognizes that The Articles of Confederation are my kind of founding documents; the US Constitution, not so much. To the extent the Constitution comports with the natural law it is good; to the extent it doesn’t, it is bad, in my book. Simple. That has always been my position.

Personally, I have a healthy contempt for most politicians too, even the libertarian ones—all the more so in view of the kind of empire builders they all ultimately prove to be: They see nothing wrong in using their fame and the public dime to flog their “products” and wares.

Some politicians are less sickening than others, but all fit snugly on The Sick-Making Scale.

And the people—at least those of us who’ve never fed from the “public” trough, unlike every single politician and his aide—are always morally superior to the politicians.

The reason I have a problem arguing from anarchism is because one is unable to logically wrestle with reality from this perspective. This is not to say that I would not prefer a government-free universe than the one we currently inhabit; I would. Again, anyone who’s read my columns over the years recognizes that.

However, the paleolibertarian has to use a philosophical device that helps to anchor his reasoning in reality and in “the nit and the grit of the history and culture from which it emerged.”

Unless remarkably sophisticated and brilliant (as Hans-Hermann Hoppe indubitably is), the 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 who do the work he won’t or cannot do. This specimen has nothing to say about policy and politics for fear of compromising precious libertarian purity.

Suspended as he is in the arid arena of pure thought, this libertarian will settle for nothing other than the immediate and absolute application and acceptance of the non-aggression axiomatic ideal. And since utopia will never be upon us, he opts to live in perpetual sin: THE SIN OF ABSTRACTION.

This mindset is not only lazy but—dare I say?—un-Rothbaridan.

Murray Rothbard did not sit on the fence reveling in his immaculate ideological purity; he dove right into “the nit and the grit of the issues,” and got dirty.

You’re not going to like what I’ve got to say, but Jack Kerwick’s “Romney or Obama: A Choice Between Two Evils?” is arguably written in this vigorous, Rothbardian tradition.

Sadly, it has been quite some time—arguably a century-and-a-half—since America has had anything even remotely approximating a federal government of the scope and size delineated by our Constitution. So, Paul supporters know—or at least should know—that if such a lost governmental structure is ever to be restored, it is not going to happen over the next four to eight years—regardless of whether our President over this time is named Obama, Romney, or Paul.
We must judge matters from where we are at. In other words, ignorance of our reality—ignorance of the immensity of our national government, say, and ignorance of the sheer powerlessness of any one person or even group of persons to scale it back to so much as a shadow of its counterpart from the eighteenth century—is inexcusable. To make a decision regarding something as momentous as the future of our country on the basis of this sort of ignorance—even if it accords with one’s conscience—is to condemn oneself. …

MORE.

While I disagree with Jack’s conclusion in this column; I wholeheartedly agree with and admire his method.

UPDATED I: I don’t vote. And, although eligible, I have chosen not to become a citizen of Police State USA. There you have it. I guess that’s “radical.” Moreover, as Loren E. Lomasky observed, “As electorates increase in size, the probability that one’s vote will swing the election approaches zero” … “[I]n large-number electorates, there is a vanishingly small probability that an individual’s vote (or voice) will swing an election … [F]or citizens of large-scale democracies, voting is inconsequential.” So obviously, I’m not with Jack on the lesser evil thing.

Also, given that Romney will take us to war at the drop of a hat, I do not know that he’ll reduce the size of the state. As I put it the other day, “Make no mistake; should he succeed in vanquishing Obama, come Nov. 6, Romney’s brand of ‘repeal-and-replace statism’—not to mention maniacal militarism and Sinophobia—will be no victory for liberty.”

I am with Jack, however, in that he is in there “mixing it up,” arguing the issues (rather than adopt the attitude described here).

In fact, some left-libertarians argue for Obama. At least they are not intellectually lazy and are arguing the issues, which is what Rothbard did. That’s my point.

UPDATE II: THOSE who refuse to “mix it up”; to get down and dirty and debate the issues, will also typically be unprepared to admit to nuance in the personalities involved. What do I mean? Recognizing that Romney may be wrong on almost all issues of policy should not prevent one from acknowledging that he’s a lovely man. As a person, he has way more merit than Obama.

Ann Romney, herself a delightful lady, is a lucky woman. Romney is a great provider, fabulously devoted to family and church, consistently generous and charitable to all those around him, and brilliant in all endeavors, academic and other. Unlike those of Obama, Romney’s university transcripts will stand scrutiny.

As I see him, Barack Obama belongs to an alien species hostile to life on earth.

UPDATE III: Mining Men are some of the most heroic workers, tied in the literary mind to great works such as Richard Llewellyn’s 1939 classic “How Green Was My Valley” (your children should have read it). It depicts the reality of mining men in an achingly beautiful way. The book haunted me for years after I had read it, as a kid. “Margaret’s Museum” achieves a good deal on celluloid.

So you read about these miners whom BHO, that alien who is hostile to life on earth, thwarts. And you wonder: Could Romney perhaps save their proud livelihood? The key being that you wonder … you wrestle with the issues.

Man-Of-The People Myth

Democrats, Elections, Government, The State

In what deluded universe can it be said that Vice President Joe Biden is a champion of the working class? Notwithstanding Biden’s alleged humble origins, the man has been a pampered member of the “oink sector” (government) since 1972.

To be fair, it’s not Biden who insists his roots are in the working class; it’s his acolytes across the media. Not much has changed since 2008, when Steve Chapman debunked the man-of-the people myth:

…the legend of Joe Biden, born in a welding shop, dies hard with political reporters, who find it easier to romanticize a gritty, hardscrabble childhood than a conventionally comfortable one.
The facts are there for anyone who wants to look at them. When Joe Biden Sr. died in 2002, his obituary in the News-Journal of Wilmington reported that when he married in 1941, “he was working as a sales representative for Amoco Oil Co. in Harrisburg.”
It went on, “Biden also was an executive in a Boston-based company that supplied waterproof sealant for U.S. merchant marine ships built during World War II. After the war, he co-owned an airport and crop-dusting service on Long Island.” Upon moving his family to Delaware, the News-Journal said, Biden “worked in the state first as a sales manager for auto dealerships and later in real-estate condominium sales.”
Executive, co-owner and manager? Those titles identify the jobholder as solidly middle class, if not better.
They fall in the category of white-collar occupations, not blue-collar.
And Biden Sr. clearly knew the difference. In his book, “Promises to Keep,” Biden writes that his father was “the most elegantly dressed, perfectly manicured, perfectly tailored car sales manager Wilmington, Del., had ever seen.”
Biden notes that he himself could have gone to the best public high school in Delaware. Instead, he enrolled at Archmere Academy, a Catholic prep school that made him think he had “died and gone to Yale.” He took a summer job to help pay the steep tuition, which today amounts to $18,450 a year.
…So where did he get his working-class reputation? Partly it comes from Biden’s streetwise demeanor and his preoccupation with the fact that his family wasn’t as well-off as some of the people he knew — which seems to have given him a permanent chip on his shoulder. Partly it comes from his frequent tributes to blue-collar folks, such as the firefighters who took him to the hospital when he suffered an aneurysm.
But mostly it reflects journalists’ weakness for simple, vivid narratives. It’s easy to write about a statesman who worked his way up from a log cabin. It’s easy to write about a leader who came from great wealth. But someone growing up the son of a sales manager is a bit lacking in color and drama.