consider individual freedom as the stumbling block on which the grandiose idea of mankind’s totalization may flounder.
Thomas Molnar-Utopia: The Perennial Heresy
Posted by M. C. on November 5, 2024
consider individual freedom as the stumbling block on which the grandiose idea of mankind’s totalization may flounder.
Thomas Molnar-Utopia: The Perennial Heresy
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Individual freedom, utopians | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on October 19, 2022
PS: It is true that we can consider this situation as surprising and regrettable. But it seems obvious that this is so because classical liberalism is not an objective for most French people, who, therefore, have no particular interest in classical liberal policies applied in other countries.
The same applies for US.
Pascal Salin is an economist, professor emeritus at the University of Paris-Dauphine, and was president of the Mont-Pelerin Society from 1994 to 1996. Among the extensive list of books Professor Salin has published, mention can be made of the following titles: La vérité sur la monnaie (Paris: Odile Jacob, 1990), Libéralisme (Paris: Odile Jacob, 2000), Français, n’ayez pas peur du libéralisme (Paris: Odile Jacob, 2007), Revenir au capitalisme pour éviter les crises (Paris: Odile Jacob, 2010), La tyrannie fiscale (Paris: Odile Jacob, 2014; translated into English as Tax Tyranny [Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, 2020]), Le vrai libéralisme: droite et gauche unies dans l’erreur (Paris: Odile Jacob, 2019).
Matthieu Creson (MC): How do you judge Emmanuel Macron’s first five-year term economically and socially? You said in an interview with Le Figaro magazine, at the time of the 2017 presidential campaign, that Emmanuel Macron was not a classical liberal, and you wrote in 2018 that his tax policy was fiscal tinkering. Is this still the case in your opinion?
Pascal Salin (PS): Indeed, I published an article in Le Figaro-Magazine in 2017 entitled No, Emmanuel Macron is not a classical liberal (contrary to what was then the case of François Fillon—who was then also running for president). France had experienced low growth in previous years because the policies that had been implemented, far from being inspired by classical liberalism, were on the contrary based on the growth of taxation and regulations. Emmanuel Macron was appointed in 2014 Minister of the Economy by President François Hollande. It then seemed obvious to me that he was not a real classical liberal, contrary to what was sometimes claimed. Public spending represented 59 percent of GDP in 2021 (and 63 percent in 2020), a slightly higher amount than in all previous years; and public deficit has also become more significant. It is obvious that one cannot consider as a classical liberal a president who increases public activities in relation to private ones. For example, health insurance expenses are public rather than private and the choice of retirement age is the result of a public decision and not a private choice.
MC: What do you think of the assumption (from which most of the media seem to start in their coverage of current political divisions) according to which there would be on one side the “globalists” and the “liberals,” and on the other the “populists”? For a long time, the main political and ideological dividing line was that between classical liberals, supporters of economic freedom and globalization through the market, and socialists, favorable to redistribution and state interventionism. Doesn’t the current cleavage which seems to serve, particularly in the media, as the one and only interpretative framework of today’s political world, mask the real cleavage, that is to say that which opposes the authentic classical liberals on one side, and the collectivists on the other?
PS: It is true—and regrettable—that the opposition between classical liberals and socialists is generally not highlighted in today’s world by politicians and by all citizens. Thus, it is not appropriate to consider that the political parties of the Left are socialist and the parties of the Right classical liberal. Both have more or less the same ideas and tend to make the same decisions. This is also why a book I published in 2019 is titled True Classical Liberalism—Right and Left United in Error (in French: Le vrai libéralisme: droite et gauche unies dans l’erreur). The examples in this book prove that equivalent (nonclassical liberal) policies have been taken over the past decades regardless of the parties in power.
MC: I’m going back to Emmanuel Macron and his economic policy. Do you think he has a chance (and already a real will) to lead, since the start of his second presidential term, some of the structural reforms that France has actually needed for at least forty years? Or is it more likely for you that other so-called “reforms” (in the continuity of those carried out by Chirac, Sarkozy, or Hollande) will see the light of day in the years to come, against a probable background of presidential and governmental communication centered on necessary “transformation” and “modernization” of France—a transformation and modernization which should indeed be a priority for our country?
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Classical Liberalism, French, Individual freedom, Pascal Salin | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on May 2, 2022
The upshot is that if people’s values are not consistently pro-liberty, it won’t matter in the long run much what the Constitution “says,” and if they are pro-liberty, then it won’t matter whether there is a written constitution — or a state for that matter.
“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain—that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist” – Lysander Spooner
https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/tgif-what-really-protects-liberty/
The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated, as if we needed another demonstration, that little stands between the government and our liberty. Champions of individual freedom have been properly disturbed by how much power governments at all levels have seized since the pandemic hit in 2020.
To make matters worse, officeholders and public-health officials object when the judicial branch occasionally overturns their power grabs because judges are said to be unqualified to rule on “medical” matters. So, if judges furnish constitutional and other legal grounds against power grabs, we’re supposed to ignore them because they in fact are issuing medical opinions for which they are not qualified. That’s pretty inventive reasoning, but unfortunately it is in the service of tyranny and serfdom.
Some judges have made good, that is, power-limiting, decisions during the pandemic, though they might well have gone the other way. (See John Hasnas’s “The Myth of the Rule of Law.”) It’s only a slight exaggeration to say the judicial process is a coin toss.
When judges get it right, the devout constitutionalists among us cheer: “The system works!” But what about all the times the rulings went the other way? Where does that leave the constitutionalists? They will say that the problem isn’t with the Constitution; it’s with the judges. But considering that the Constitution doesn’t interpret itself, who were they expecting to interpret it? Robots that have been correctly programmed? Who would do the programming? Even people within the competing schools of constitutional interpretation don’t agree on everything.
Since it’s people all the way down and the process is internal, not external to society, don’t the constitutionalists have a wee problem?
James Madison called the Bill of Rights, which he wrote, a “parchment barrier.” But he couldn’t have really meant that because parchment is a poor material for making the heavy-duty, barrier liberty requires due to the predatory nature of politicians. The only real barriers in this regard are the people themselves — people, that is, who refuse to give, carry out, or obey unjust orders. Paraxodically, orders require consent, and that can be withheld. (Think of the scene in Monty Python’s Life of Brian in which Brian tells a prison guard that he doesn’t have to follow orders and the guard replies, “I like orders.”)
Strictly speaking, constitutions and statutes cannot compel unjust conduct or compliance. They are merely words. When governors ordered “non-essential” businesses and schools to shut down and people to stay home in 2020, those politicians didn’t point guns at anyone. People obeyed, but I suspect that only a few did so lest they be punished. If someone had disobeyed, armed agents of the state might have been dispatched, but why did they obey orders? No gun was held to their heads. They might have been fired and others put in their place places, but no one would have been subjected to force.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Constitution, Individual freedom, Liberty, Lysander Spooner | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on June 17, 2021
Unfortunately, the answer is that the Republicans would not have saved us, and for two reasons, one historical and the other philosophical: (1) Republicans have never saved us from the bad policies and programs of Democrats, regardless of whether they had partial or total control of the government and could have done something, and (2) Republicans are philosophically not much different from Democrats, regardless of how often and how loud they recite their conservative mantra about the Constitution, the free market, limited government, federalism, traditional values, free enterprise, a balanced budget, individual freedom, free trade, and property rights.
https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/the-gop-is-not-your-savior/
If Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) had not gotten sick and resigned his Senate seat, then the title of this article would have been “Will the Republicans Save Us?”
After serving in the Georgia state house and senate, Isakson served three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004. He was re-elected in 2010 and 2016. Although his Senate term did not expire until January 2023, in August 2019 he announced that because of his Parkinson’s disease and other health challenges, he was resigning his Senate seat effective at the end of 2019. Under Georgia law, the governor—Brian Kemp, a Republican—was allowed to make an appointment to fill the unexpired term until the next regularly scheduled statewide election (November 3, 2020). He selected Republican Kelly Loeffler, the co-owner of the Atlanta Dream of the Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA), who had never held political office. She assumed office in January 2020.
Under Georgia election law, all candidates for a special election, regardless of their political party, compete in a “jungle primary” where every name is on the November general election ballot. If no candidate in what is usually a crowded field receives more than 50 percent of the vote, then a runoff election is conducted in January. All told, there were twenty-one candidates—including a write-in candidate who received seven votes—most of whom received less than 1 percent of the vote. Loeffler finished second in the special election with 25.9 percent of the vote. That is why she was in the January 5 runoff election for the Senate seat she held at the time. But although Loeffler claimed to be the most conservative Republican in the Senate, and was considered to be the richest member of the Senate, she lost in the runoff election to the Democrat Raphael Warnock by the slim margin of 50.8 to 49.2 percent.
It is because of this special election that Georgia was the only state to hold two Senate elections in 2020. In the Senate, the 100 senators are divided into three classes with staggered terms. Thus, only one-third of the Senate seats are contested at any election, and never more than one Senate seat in a state. In the regular Senate race in Georgia, the incumbent Republican David Perdue—the cousin of former Georgia governor and Trump administration Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue—was seeking a second term. But as he received only 49.7 percent of the vote (47.9 percent went for Democrat Jon Ossoff and 2.3 percent went for Libertarian Shane Hazel), Georgia law required a runoff election between the top two candidates. But in the January 5 runoff election, Ossoff defeated Perdue by a margin of 50.4 to 49.6 percent.
Winning these two Georgia Senate seats is how the Democrats wrested control of the Senate from the Republicans, who had controlled the Senate since January 2015. Prior to the Georgia runoff election, there were 50 Republicans in the Senate and 48 Democrats (including the two independent members of the Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine, who caucus with the Democrats). So now that the Senate is tied 50-50, the Democratic vice president, the former senator Kamala Harris, gets to cast the tie-breaking vote, effectively giving Democrats control of the Senate.
One-party control of the government is dangerous. Gridlock in the Congress helps prevent one party — whether Democrats or Republicans — from exercising unbridled power. Thus, even if one Georgia Senate seat had been won by a Republican, it could have stopped bad legislation proposed by Democrats from passing (assuming that all of the Senate Republicans voted together). But the reality is that life under Democratic rule will be especially dangerous to privacy, liberty, and property.
Now, we know that the Democratic Party for many years has been the party of liberalism, progressivism, collectivism, socialism, paternalism, statism, environmentalism, “social justice,” economic egalitarianism, organized labor, taxpayer-funded abortion, public education, climate change, affirmative action, welfare, higher taxes on the “rich,” universal single-payer health care, increased government regulation of the economy and society, increased government spending, larger and more-intrusive government, and assorted income-transfer programs and wealth-redistribution schemes. The Democratic solution to every problem, injustice, or crisis — real, imaginary, or contrived—is invariably more government, more government intervention, or more government money.
The Democratic Party is not just going to pick up where it left off at the end of the Obama administration. Democrats in Congress will stop at nothing to achieve their agenda. The Democratic Party of today is even more radical than it was twelve years ago during the first two years of Obama’s first term, which was the last time that Democrats had total control of the federal government (House, Senate, presidency).
In an episode of “The Libertarian Angle” recorded just two days after the Electoral College vote was certified, Future of Freedom Foundation president Jacob Hornberger and Citadel professor Richard Ebeling examined the question of life under Democratic control and it was not a pretty picture they painted. According to Hornberger and Ebeling, we are going to see massive increases in federal spending, and the debt ceiling rendered totally irrelevant; massive foreign intervention, since Biden is essentially owned by the national-security state; increased focus on official enemies, expansion of the role of the military in American life, expansion of the welfare state, the revitalization of Obamacare, the attempt to implement a full-fledged government health-care system, and the expansion of the war on drugs (a war that Biden supported when he was vice president and Harris supported as a prosecutor); increased federal regulations, massive welfare-state socialism, a more centrally planned economy, massive debauchery of the currency, tax increases, increased anti-trust enforcement, a national increase in the minimum wage, elements of the “green new deal,” and emphasis on equality of outcomes and proportional representation of minorities in all groups; and more money creation by the Fed, increased inflation, wage and price controls to combat inflation, and a more interventionist foreign policy. They concluded that under a Biden administration, everything is on the table that could be a danger to our liberty, privacy, income, wealth, property, and freedom in the marketplace.
To this we can certainly add increased deficit spending, further increases in the national debt, unrestricted funding for Planned Parenthood, loosened restrictions on taxpayer-funded abortions, increased enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, expanded gun-control laws, a federal family-leave policy, government-funded child care, increased resources devoted to fighting climate change, increased violation of privacy and civil liberties in response to the coronavirus, fewer welfare-work requirements, and increased promotion of the transgender movement.
On the basis of statements in the 2020 Democratic Party platform, the recommendations in the “Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force Recommendations,” and statements from Biden himself, we can also look forward to extended unemployment benefits, a $15 per hour minimum wage, and more-generous refundable tax credits that give even more Americans tax refunds of money that they never paid in; increased funding for food stamps, WIC, and school-meal programs; greater “investment” in mass transit and transportation public-works projects, “fair” trade policies and deals, expanded farm and housing subsidies, a national goal of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions for all new buildings and vehicles, and “environmental justice”; increases in corporate tax rates, aggressive attempts to increase the supply of “affordable” housing, increased government efforts to close the racial wealth gap, increased spending on K-12 education, tuition-free college, increased federal education grants, extended student-loan payment suspension, and student-debt relief; and making Washington, D.C., the 51st state, an increased push for a reduction in the use of fossil fuels, the ending of cash bail, the passing of an Equal Rights Amendment, increased condemnation of “hate speech,” the reauthorization and expansion of the Violence Against Women Act, the securing of equal pay for women, and increased funding for arts and culture.
Read the rest here
This article was originally featured at the Future of Freedom Foundation
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: a balanced budget, Constitution, federalism, free enterprise, free trade, GOP, Individual freedom, Johnny Isakson, limited government, Property Rights, the free market, traditional values | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on December 2, 2020
Another example: my daughter shared a post from Pennsylvania State Representative David Rowe, who was seated in a bar holding a drink in one hand and a phone showing the time—5:01 p.m.—in the other, with the post’s message reading “Happy Thanksgiving, Governor Wolf!” Wolf had ordered all bars and stores to quit selling alcoholic beverages at 5 p.m. on Thanksgiving Eve.
Whether Trump is reelected is immaterial to this cause. Indeed, given his penchant for spending us ever deeper into debt, we should hold Trump’s feet to the fire as well. We must rise above politics and start advocating for what’s best for the country and for individual freedom.
It’s the American Way, and we need to get back on this path as soon as possible.
https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/blog/the-new-resistance-is-rising/
By Jeff Minick
In the 1976 film Network, a newscaster driven to the brink of insanity by his rage exhorts his viewers to throw open the windows of their apartments and homes, and shout “I’m mad as h—, and I’m not going to take it anymore.” Within minutes, thousands of people are roaring these words into the night.
In the wake of a decades-long culture war, four years of bile and lies from the left and the mainstream media, nine months of coronavirus lockdowns, and now an election possibly rife with fraud, more and more Americans are opening their eyes to the debased state of their political system and the abusive machinations of their governments.
More and more of them are spitting mad and are not going to take it anymore.
The COVID-19 lockdowns are seeing greater pushback from angry citizens who fear the loss of their jobs and their way of life. In “Civil Disobedience Over Lockdowns Spreads Across America,” Foundation for Economic Education’s Jon Miltimore cites several examples of these protests in the streets, by private citizens and even by sheriffs and country officials who refuse to carry out the extreme orders of their governors, particularly the dictates and regulations issued just before the holiday season.
In “Cops Refuse to be the Thanksgiving Police,” Daniel Greenfield reports in even greater detail the refusal of many police departments to investigate citizens in their homes for possibly violating such orders. From coast to coast, the police are bravely and righteously ignoring dictates demanding they knock on doors and disperse families and friends eating supper together.
Here in Warren County, Virginia, for example, the sheriff’s department issued a statement just before Thanksgiving instructing residents not to call 911 or the sheriff’s department to report neighbors hosting large numbers of visitors. Instead, the department politely asked those with such concerns to contact public health officials, as such matters fell under their jurisdiction.
In other words, the sheriff was saying that they were not going to be knocking at the doors of those enjoying their Thanksgiving meal.
Another example: my daughter shared a post from Pennsylvania State Representative David Rowe, who was seated in a bar holding a drink in one hand and a phone showing the time—5:01 p.m.—in the other, with the post’s message reading “Happy Thanksgiving, Governor Wolf!” Wolf had ordered all bars and stores to quit selling alcoholic beverages at 5 p.m. on Thanksgiving Eve.
Many Americans are also incensed over the 2020 presidential election results. President Trump’s lawyers are attempting to find evidence of possible frauds—mail-in ballots, tens of thousands of dead voters who miraculously cast ballots, massive computer irregularities and malfeasance—that if nothing else reveal the sorry state of our election system. Thousands of Americans have come forward to swear under oath that they observed such irregularities, again a sign of protest.
Social media provides more evidence of American fury with the system. With social media giants such as Facebook and Twitter censoring different outlets, including Intellectual Takeout, droves of people are abandoning those platforms for less suppressive outfits like Parler, Rumble, and MeWe.
Meanwhile, millions of Americans are expressing their anger with the system in more personal ways. Many families this past summer, for example, abandoned the public school system, switching to private schools or taking matters into their own hands and teaching their kids at home.
Others are supporting one another through social media and informal networking. For example, my friend John was at the laundromat this week, where he has befriended one of the employees. When the man asked how he was doing, John gave a disheartened answer, referencing the state of the country, at which point his friend gave him such an impassioned speech—“It’s not time to quit, it’s time to get fired up!”—that John left with his spirits renewed.
For four years, we have heard about the Resistance, a conglomeration of radicals, leftists, officials in various government bureaucracies, wealthy donors, and others, all of them determined to damage Donald Trump’s presidency or remove him from office altogether.
Now the time has come for a New Resistance. Into this merry band we should welcome everyone—Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, libertarians, men and women, straight and gay, black, brown, and white—who cherishes liberty and despises tyranny. We can make our voices heard in myriad ways, we can protest every time a “servant of the people” puts on a tin-pot hat and starts issuing edicts as if he were an emperor, and we can stick together and stand fast in the face of oppression.
Whether Trump is reelected is immaterial to this cause. Indeed, given his penchant for spending us ever deeper into debt, we should hold Trump’s feet to the fire as well. We must rise above politics and start advocating for what’s best for the country and for individual freedom.
It’s the American Way, and we need to get back on this path as soon as possible.
Jeff Minick lives in Front Royal, Virginia, and may be found online at jeffminick.com. He is the author of two novels, Amanda Bell and Dust on Their Wings, and two works of non-fiction, Learning as I Go and Movies Make the Man.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: American Way, David Rowe, Individual freedom, lockdowns, New Resistance | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on March 19, 2019
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/03/laurence-m-vance/the-tyranny-of-conservatism/
Conservatives say they believe in the Constitution, limited government, federalism, free enterprise, individual freedom, private property, and the free market. But, of course, this means absolutely nothing since they say they believe in these things even when their actions show that they don’t believe in any of them.
Consider the drug war.
Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to have a war on drugs? Of course not. But that doesn’t stop conservatives from supporting the DEA and the federal drug war.
Is a government limited to reasonable defense, judicial, and policing activities compatible with government interest in the eating, drinking, smoking, medical, and recreational habits of Americans? Of course not. The only limited government that conservatives seek is one limited to control by conservatives.
Do conservatives believe that all drug polices should be instituted on the state level and that the federal government should have nothing to do with prohibiting or regulating drugs? Of course not. Conservatives only believe in federalism when the federal government does something they don’t like.
Do conservatives believe that free enterprise includes the freedom to buy and sell drugs? Of course not. They want the government to prohibit people from peacefully buying and selling drugs. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Conservatism, Constitution, federalism, free enterprise, Individual freedom, limited government, Private property, Tyranny | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on November 21, 2017
If the media’s thinking really is this sophisticated, who or what prompted the program?
Individual freedom terrifies those in power. But it is an innate desire that cannot be suppressed. Therefore the media attempts to replace the drive for personal liberation with sexual liberation.
It is a carnal animalistic type of “freedom” that those in power want you to focus on. They promote a temporary feeling, a fleeting pleasure. Individual freedom is about building your future. Sexual freedom is about living in the moment. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Individual freedom, Sexual Liberation | Leave a Comment »