MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Liberty at the Point of a Sword

Posted by M. C. on November 30, 2023

Lessons from Napoleon and Hitler

by William J. Astore

Endless war is, as often as not, the final nail in an empire’s coffin.

https://original.antiwar.com/William_Astore/2023/11/27/liberty-at-the-point-of-a-sword/

Reprinted from Bracing Views with the author’s permission.

There’s a man who famously crowned himself emperor rather than submit to the otherworldly power of a pope. A new movie will soon be out on his “glories.” Napoleon Bonaparte, a military genius, embraced war and drove for total victory until his empire collapsed on him and the French people. Napoleon’s Waterloo came in 1815, a decade after perhaps his greatest victory at Austerlitz in 1805. Empires—they often seem to decline slowly before collapsing all at once, though the Napoleonic version flared so brightly that it burned out quickly.

I once studied the military glories of Napoleon, enthusiastically playing war-games like Waterloo and Empire in Arms, where this time maybe I could win a great victory for the emperor. More than a few books on my shelves cover the campaigns of Napoleon. But as my dad quipped to me, Napoleon wanted to give people liberty, equality, and fraternity at the point of his sword.  And that, my dad would say, is an intolerable price to pay for one’s freedom.

Win one for the Emperor

Endless war is, as often as not, the final nail in an empire’s coffin. Early in 1943, after defeat at Stalingrad, which came as a profound shock to a German public sold on the idea it possessed the finest fighting force in history (such rhetoric should sound familiar to Americans today), Joseph Goebbels, the infamous Nazi propaganda minister, gave a fanatical speech calling for “total war” from the German people. Despite disaster at Stalingrad, despite visible and widening cracks in the alleged superiority of the Thousand Year Reich, the German people largely cheered or echoed the cry for more and more war. Two years later, they witnessed total defeat as Germany surrendered unconditionally in May 1945.

As led by Adolf Hitler and his henchmen, Nazi Germany wasn’t interested in peace. These men knew only the feverish pursuit of total victory until it ended in their deaths and total disaster for Germany.  They were the original seekers of “full spectrum dominance” as they asserted Germany was the exceptional and essential nation.

We Americans were supposed to learn something from megalomaniacs like Napoleon and Hitler. Committed to democracy, we were supposed to reject war, to repudiate militarism and the warrior mystique, and to embrace instead diplomacy and the settlement of differences peacefully through international organizations like the United Nations.

America today, however, is busy beating plowshares into swords and sending them to global hotspots like Gaza and Ukraine. What gives?

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

YOU Can Hear NEW SOUNDS From OLD MUSIC!

Posted by M. C. on November 30, 2023

https://youtube.com/watch?v=-nLL0Ytn33U&si=QXZ-RC6qiZ7kcL6o

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Three Things That Prove a Thing

Posted by M. C. on November 30, 2023

By Karen Kwiatkowski

A middle-aged suit was trying to fight his own Israeli-Palestine War with a food vendor on the streets of NYC.  I was not surprised to find out that he once held high level positions in the US State Department and the National Security Council, working on Israeli and Palestinian related “peacemaking” for past-Presidents Clinton and Obama.

Stuart Seldowitz’s behavior last week in NYC communicated to any normal American that he is either a thug, or a thug-in-training, a low-life, a scoundrel.  We find that he was in the current employ of a government-connected lobbying firm profiting from the logistics of war.

What did surprise me was that once the video got out, he was fired from his job, the company wiped him from their website, and he has been charged with “hate” crimes and stalking.

That was quick – and while it is likely, given who he is and where he is, he will get off in his brush with the law scot-free – he won’t get his job back. Given the nature of the internet, he also won’t be able to wipe his recorded bad behavior from the eyes of the now and future world.

That a leading Democrat bureaucrat will experience being charged with the Democratic Party’s most salient contribution to law enforcement is not something we should take pleasure in.  In a more civilized world, cowards like Stuart Seldowitz would be fighting his war of choice in Israel in person, not being rude and nasty to people he doesn’t know, about issues he knows nothing about, in his hometown.

But it’s a thing.

This week, we also saw the amazing election of a vibrant, straight-shooting, former soccer player and current free market economist to the presidency in Argentina.  Anarcho-capitalists and libertarians everywhere must be celebrating this achievement, and also celebrating this trend in elections and party evolution in many places around the world.  It speaks to the power of simple and honest conversations about money and man, the economy, and the state.  It tells us the wisdom of Mises and Rothbard is spreading around the world like a friendly, health-promoting and welcome virus, leaving its hosts empowered, inspired and excited for what comes next.  It speaks to a public and national recognition that the ever-expanding corruption and unfettered, galloping growth of the government-bureaucratic-ruling class has become intolerable.

That government thugs, low-lives and scoundrels – the ruling elite this time – is deadly to liberty and prosperity, and that these elites will destroy their countries to maintain control, does not surprise me. That the average Argentinian gets this – and used the state’s tool of casting a ballot to make a change – does.

Javier Milei – because of who he is and what he understands about the state – is getting a chance to see what may be possible.  We must wish him well. But this confrontation between Milei and the government-bureaucratic-elite would not have happened if the Argentinian state, for generations, had not so publicly, and so thoroughly, ignored civil and moral limits, and had not been arrogant, self-righteous, and greedy.

It’s a thing.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Is Dublin Burning?

Posted by M. C. on November 30, 2023

Declan Hayes

Here, to conclude, is the loathsome Sky News Australia with the equally loathsome Douglas Murray making excuses for these no less loathsome Irish criminals. When such slugs as those are on your side, you can be sure MI6, the CIA and ASIO are playing you for the fool that you are.

As Americans tucked into their Thanksgiving Day turkeys, Ireland was rocked by its first ever mass stabbing of children exiting a Dublin kindergarten school, which was followed only hours later by the worst riots Dublin has witnessed since Sinn Féin’s 1981 betrayals of the H Block hunger strikers. On hearing the news as it unfolded, I surmised it was either a heroin addict, a family issue or one of the countless undocumented foreigners the Irish government has flooded the country with as part of NATO’s efforts to turn all of western Europe into a war-compliant wasteland. As the alleged culprit, who was beaten within an inch of his worthless life by Brazilians and other praise worthy passers by, seems to be a middle aged Algerian man, a mixture of all three of those reasons may still be to blame. As central Dublin is awash with all three types of flotsam, do yourself a favour and scrub visiting it; it is, as the American and allied embassies have warned, simply too dangerous and too expensive to be worth the effort.

And skip the rest of Ireland while you are at it, as women taking midday jogs in their home towns are now prime targets for psychotic Slovakian criminals and Kurds are castrating and decapitating homosexuals, whilst ISIS are busy murdering Japanese interpreters.

Horrific as all those attacks on innocent Irish children and adults were, in shades of the CIA’s Black Lives Matter front group, this most recent outrage against Dublin children was quickly overshadowed by the ensuing riots and looting that will cost tens of millions of euros to put some way to rights.

As the heaviest rioting occurred near the General Post Office (GPO), from where the iconic 1916 Rebellion was directed (and beside which adult males have recently been gang raped), thыщсшese latter events afford this article an excellent opportunity to assess revolutionary Ireland’s past, present and future.

The first relevant thing to note about 1916 is that James Connolly, the head of the GPO garrison, ordered his troops not only to fire on the rioters and looters of his day but to shoot to kill. The next thing to note about Connolly is that he imagined, in his absolute innocence and ignorance of events in Europe, that the British would not bring their heavy guns to bear on his adopted city. The British gunboat Helga, which levelled much of the GPO and its surrounds, quickly put him to rights on that score.

Such historical idiosyncrasies are important to mention as they show that, even during those golden revolutionary years Yeats’ indomitable Irishry, despite their Labour syndicalism, agrarian Fenianism and their robust Catholicism, had not the faintest clue where they were going politically.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

A History of Sino-American Relations

Posted by M. C. on November 30, 2023

by Joseph Solis-Mullen

Apart from considerations of possible war or human extinction, as an advocate of constitutional, republican government, it is a fact that such a limited government is incompatible with a state powerful enough to engage in overseas adventurism and militarism as the United States does. It is economically and morally bankrupting us. In the words of Pat Buchannan, we are meant to be a republic not an empire, an example, not an enforcer.

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/a-history-of-sino-american-relations/

The following lecture was delivered at Spring Arbor University, October 2023.

There is hardly anything more important to the future of the world than Sino-American relations. And that’s quite a thing to say when looking at the state of the world these days. But over the long-haul these, the two largest economies, militaries, and navies on earth must find some way to coexist, or else there is going to be trouble for everyone. The aim of this talk is to outline the course of Sino-American relations.

As I presume most everyone here is generally familiar with the history of the United States, my talk will follow Chinese history and I will be introducing the relevant intersections between the U.S. and China as we go along. The United States being less than three hundred years old, and the first recorded ruling dynasties of China dating back to the second millennia BCE, I will be beginning my narrative of Chinese history rather abruptly, and quite late. Fascinating though its antecedents are, considerations of the time allotted to us today demand that we start with the last of the several foreign dynasties that ruled the area we associate today with the Chinese state. This was the ethnically Manchu Qing Dynasty (1644-1911). These were the descendants of an earlier northern “barbarian,” that is non-Han Chinese, people who had conquered northeast China in the early twelfth century, establishing the Jin Dynasty (1115-1234), which was subsequently destroyed by the Mongol Yuan Dynasty a hundred odd years later (1271-1368).

Like their conquering predecessors, the Manchus had been effectively Sinicized. That is, in a manner not dissimilar to the case of the Normans of Europe during the Middle Ages, the ruling Manchus merged with and in important ways adopted Han Chinese culture, Confucianism, Taoism and Legalism. There were pragmatic reasons for this, and the reasons are in some ways central to the story of China in the nineteenth century, when it had its first sustained conflict with the newly industrialized states of Western Europe and the United States. You see, China is very large, the terrain is very challenging, and then as now it was extraordinarily populous. The Confucian bureaucratic elites and the existing governing structures were critical to anyone who wanted to effectively govern China, and prevent it from disintegrating into warring states, which happened at several points during Chinese history, most recently in the early twentieth century.

Marshalling the considerable resources of the Chinese state, scholars estimate that at the time China accounted for fully forty percent of global output, the Qing thereafter brought the Chinese Empire to its greatest territorial extent, adding new territories in central Asia, such as the province of Xinjiang and in the adjoining seas, such as Formosa, that is Taiwan. The centrifugal forces that would fatally weaken, undermine, and ultimately destroy the Qing dynasty were already at work, however, and these are what you see up on the screen here.

Obviously, any one of these problems is going to pose a severe challenge to any regime. Population growth strained the capacity of China’s non-industrialized agricultural sector at the same time a series of severe weather events put additional stresses on the ability of Chinese society to feed itself. Economically, local elites dominated markets that were in theory unified internally and without barriers. However, these markets were relatively limited by the vast distances involved and by the low level of urbanization and industrialization that had occurred. With regards to corruption, the problem was two-fold: on the one hand you had local elites who were resistant to obeying the central government, who were willing, for example, to let the British and Americans run opium into China in exchange for a cut of the action; while on the other hand, you have the more basic kinds of corruption like preferential treatment, bribery, et cetera. As for foreign interventions and rebellions, we’ll have plenty to say about those on the next slide.

Though internally there was relatively free movement of goods, as well as networks of finance, outwardly it was protectionist and, by the standards of the time, heavily bureaucratized. This hadn’t really mattered because for centuries there had been little the few visiting Europeans had to offer that the Chinese wanted, or that the Chinese government had wanted them to have. That last is, of course, a reference to opium. Because there was one thing the primarily British, but also American, sailors were increasingly bringing that millions of Chinese increasingly wanted and that was opium. Poppies were being run from India and later the Ottoman empire, processed into opium on a couple of offshore locations, and then smuggled into the country. This was as lucrative for the British East India Company and other traders as it was destructive to Chinese society, and so the British government was loath to put a stop to the flow when asked by the Qing. When diplomacy failed to stop the incoming opium, the Qing administration under the Emperor Daoguang took steps to try and block off and interrupt the illicit trade—going so far as to destroy British owned stocks of opium in Canton, at that time the only trading outpost open to the Europeans. A little pressure by the East India Company in London, and with that the First Opium War had begun.

Like the Second Opium War, which as you can see was fought just over a decade after the conclusion of the First, and was primarily concerned with enforcing the terms of the treaty of Nanjing, the military operations of the western powers concerned were primarily naval. That is, they primarily involved the blockading and shelling of ports. As for their aims, the wars were concerned with the expansion of the Europeans, and Americans’, privileges in China: these were things like extraterritoriality, the rights of citizens of, say, Great Britain, to not be subjected to Chinese authorities but rather to locally based British ones. The cession of so-called Treaty Ports, additional enclaves for foreign traders to do business, Shanghai perhaps being the most significant. And, lastly, the rights of Christian missionaries operating in China were protected. I’ll have more to say on Christianity in China later.

So as we can see from the conditions imposed on the Qing by the Europeans in the various treaties we see listed on the slide, neither the Opium Wars, nor any of the subsequent interventions we’re going to talk about by the European powers or the United States in China, had as their goal replacing the existing Chinese imperial system. In fact, several of the most important interventions in China by the other powers were operations conducted in order to protect the Qing from domestic opponents to its regime. Why did they do this? Well, essentially for the same reason conquering invaders like the Manchu or Mongols had allowed themselves to be incorporated into existing structures. The Europeans couldn’t possibly have occupied China, and after the experience of India few, particularly in England, at this point by far the strongest power, wanted to try. Leading intellectuals and politicians, people like William Cobden, believed colonizing India had been a mistake, and they wanted the British presence in China to be all the benefits of commerce with none of the expense and baggage of direct rule.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

The 2009 “What if…” Speech

Posted by M. C. on November 30, 2023

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Carry The Torch of Liberty With A Heart of Thanksgiving

Posted by M. C. on November 28, 2023

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Who really owns the United States?

Posted by M. C. on November 28, 2023

Walter Block

There is also more than just a little bit of hypocrisy involved in this left wing land recognition movement. If the native peoples really own it in total, all others should either depart (back to Europe? Back to Africa? Back to Asia?) and/or start paying rent to the rightful owners. Has anything of this sort, on a serious basis, been placed on the table by any of these advocates? If so, not by too many of them;

Nowadays, it is common, when introducing an event, to say something along the lines of: “We are grateful to the XYZ Indian Tribe for allowing us to hold this gathering on what is really their land.” Universities, bastions of the left, have been particularly intent upon engaging in this practice. For example, Northwestern University offered this “expression of gratitude and appreciation to those whose territory you reside on, and a way of honoring the Indigenous people who have been living and working on the land from time immemorial.” Here is another instance: “Princeton (University) seeks to build relationships with Native American and Indigenous communities and nations through academic pursuits, partnerships, historical recognitions, community service and enrollment efforts.  These communities and nations include the Lenni-Lenape people, who consider the land on which the University stands part of their ancient homeland.”

Do the American Indians really own the entire country based upon homesteading, mixing their labor with the land? Not at all. There are now some 350 million people in the country, and there are still vast areas of it that have never so much as been touched by human feet, let alone homesteaded as farms, factories or residences. Before the white man came to the continent the best estimate is that there were only 2-3 million native persons in existence (the lowest estimate is less than one million; the highest, 18 million). It is difficult to see how they, alone, could have accomplished any such task.

There is a continuum issue heavily involved in homesteading. How intensively must the land be homesteaded, and for how long, before it can be clearly stated that ownership has been attained? Experts aver that it must be more intense, and less acreage attained for any given amount of effort, east of the Mississippi rather than west of it. Why? This is due to the fact that area off the Atlantic is far more fertile, on average, than in most of the west. Thus, a family of four would rationally invest in the homesteading of less acreage in the east than in the west.

Not only is there a continuum in terms of how intensively must be the homesteading, and the duration thereof in order to attain ownership, but, also, the degree of property rights after the fact. Consider many Indian tribes in the Midwest of the United States.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

How to find your soul mate

Posted by M. C. on November 28, 2023

https://youtube.com/watch?v=obu78DWfYlg&si=hpsYdDlbiCGUpXYb

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Separate Tech and State

Posted by M. C. on November 28, 2023

by Ron Paul

Big tech censorship is a problem created by big government. The solution lies not with giving government more power but with separating tech and state.

https://ronpaulinstitute.org/separate-tech-and-state-2/

Some libertarians dismiss concerns over social media companies’ suppression of news and opinions that contradict select agendas by pointing out that these platforms are private companies, not part of the government. There are two problems with this argument. First, there is nothing unlibertarian about criticizing private businesses or using peaceful and voluntary means, such as boycotts, to persuade businesses to change their practices.

The second and most significant reason the “they are private companies” argument does not hold water is the tech companies’ censorship has often been done at the “request” of government officials. The extent of government involvement with online censorship was revealed in emails between government and employees of various tech companies. In these emails the government officials addressed employees of these “private companies” as though these employees were the government officials’ subordinates.

Government officials using their authority to silence American citizens is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Yet some conservative elected officials and writers think the solution to the problem of big tech censorship is giving government more power over technology companies. These pro-regulation conservatives ignore the fact that it would be just as unconstitutional if a conservative administration was telling tech companies who they must allow to access their platforms as it is when progressives order social media companies to deplatform certain individuals. Furthermore, since the average government official’s political views are closer to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez than to Marjorie Taylor Greene, giving government more power over social media companies is likely to lead to more online censorship of conservatives.

Instead of giving government more power over social media, defenders of free speech should work to separate tech and state. An excellent place to start is pushing for passage of the Free Speech Protection Act. Unlike other legislation, such as the PATRIOT Act and the Affordable Care Act, this bill is accurately named.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »