MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘libertarianism’

Libertarianism In One Country – Antiwar.com Original

Posted by M. C. on July 29, 2019

“I ask you to put aside for a moment the dramatic news reports from
the Caucasus and imagine something more placid: ordinary New Yorkers or Washingtonians,
asleep in their homes. Then, in a flash, hundreds perish in explosions at the
Watergate, or at an apartment complex on Manhattan’s West Side. Thousands are
injured, some horribly disfigured. Panic engulfs a neighborhood, then a nation.”

A few years later, we didn’t have to imagine it, because we were living
it.

…opposition to US intervention is on the rise, as is support for libertarian politics in this country: Let’s not blow it by adopting the discredited ideas of our neoconservative enemies and jumping into bed with the National Endowment for Democracy.

https://original.antiwar.com/justin/2019/07/28/libertarianism-in-one-country-2/

Originally published March 28, 2014

This week [at the time this was written] marks the fifteenth anniversary of the bombing of Serbia by President Bill Clinton – and the beginning of Antiwar.com as a full-time full-coverage news site. It’s a double anniversary fraught, for me, with irony. Back then the Big Bad Bogeyman wasn’t al-Qaeda, which had barely crept into the American consciousness, although Osama bin Laden was a known quantity. No, the Enemy of the Moment was Russia, which was desperately (and unsuccessfully) trying to block Washington’s eastward expansion – and it looks like that moment has returned with a vengeance.

With Russophobia all the rage – they’re even warning us Putin, not content with Crimea, is about to invade the North Pole! – we’ve come full circle, back to where we started. But we aren’t exactly in the same place.

In 1998 the anti-interventionist movement was tiny, and our readership reflected that. With the cold war over, and many conservatives deciding it was time to “Come Home, America,” as Pat Buchanan put it, our audience and base of support came increasingly from the right side of the political spectrum. Liberals were deserting the antiwar movement in droves, cowed – or won over – by the “humanitarian” interventionists and the 24/7 cycle of war propaganda beamed at them by CNN, back then the one and only cable news station. We called it the “Clinton News Network” because there was Christiane Amanpour, married to State Department spokesman James Rubin, lying nonstop for hours on end.

And while the idiotic Slobodan Milosevic was the official Enemy, standing behind him were the Russians, who were furiously resisting the eastward advance of the NATO-crats. Putin soon dumped Milosevic, however, and reconciled himself to the subjugation of Serbia – but the West was hardly finished. Russia was still standing, and, worse, Boris Yeltsin, the West’s favorite drunkard, was gone. In his place stood Vladimir Putin, former KGB official and hater-of-oligarchs, who went after Yeltsin’s crowd of parasites and drove them out of the country. If the former Warsaw Pact countries were going to be plundered by Commies-turned-“capitalists” and then looted by the IMF, Putin was determined that Russia would avoid their fate.

The West, led by the United States, had other plans, but Putin managed to sidestep them and get on with his task of rebuilding a country wrecked by Bolshevism, decimated by alcoholism, and threatened with outright hooliganism. In the process, he created a system that was neither free nor particularly efficient – but it was far better than what had gone before. Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

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

Libertarianism’s Place In Society – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on July 20, 2019

When Buck Johnson recently asked Paul Gottfried whether the Left or the State was the chief enemy in our time, Gottfried quickly responded: “what’s the difference?”

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/07/no_author/libertarianisms-place-in-society/

By CJay Engel
Austro Libertarian

The thesis here is that libertarianism as a political theory only carries the veneer of importance and centrality due to the strength and power of the democratic, administrative, state in our time. Everywhere we look, we see the influence and effect of the state as an apparatus that guides and oversees the machinations of modern civilization. We speak not merely of the obvious libertarian issues like taxes and regulation but we see in the modern western state a cultural force. We so often push the idea that politics is downstream from culture, that we have lost the culture and therefore the state has followed the path of destruction.

But as was hinted on the AL editor’s blog, it is far more likely that Paul Gottfried has it right: the state has morphed into something much more sinister and it now leads the culture toward its own ends. The modern administrative state is the creator of culture and culture is now downstream from the state. Gottfried is especially succinct as to his meaning in his short excerpt:

Contrary to an older understanding of culture, what we are referring to is a process of moral and social radicalization. It is a process that didn’t come about unbidden but which powerful, pervasive administrative rule promoted. And the social engineering function of public administration here and elsewhere in the West has been particularly evident since the 1960s, with governmentally encouraged immigration and an accelerating war against discrimination. Presumably, when Hillary Clinton assured a gay rights group that she was addressing last year (October 5, 2015) that she would use the IRS to force recalcitrant religious institutions into endorsing gay marriage, she was not simply responding to a cultural condition. She was working to create one.

We have entered into a full politicization of society; there is nothing that the state-cultural complex does not touch. It guides the way we interact with others, the way we process and interpret events, and the way we think about social norms and basic social units and institutions.

Now then, to bring this back to the thesis: “libertarianism as a political theory only carries the veneer of importance and centrality due to the strength and power of the democratic, administrative, state in our time.” Since the state is everywhere we look, and libertarianism has a set of particular ethical critiques against the state, it seems to follow that libertarianism plays such an important place in our lives…

This creates the illusion that libertarianism plays a fundamental role in society. That political theory itself is of primary importance for a people who wish for a better world, a world that is both more ethical and more free. And from this, we work to create a libertarian political strategy and a libertarian movement as well. And thus, the disease of modern administrative statism, which takes over our minds as the lens through which we find meaning, produces the impulse that one ought to dedicate himself to libertarianism as a path toward social preservation.

But it should be made clear that the only reason libertarianism as such seems to play such a fundamental role in the self-identity and life-meaning of so many in libertarian circles is due to the politicalization of society. We live in the administrative state’s world and thus we even put our path toward social improvement strictly in terms of the political. It is not just that the state formally speaking is everywhere we look, it is that there is hardly any longer a culture that is distinct from the state. When Buck Johnson recently asked Paul Gottfried whether the Left or the State was the chief enemy in our time, Gottfried quickly responded: “what’s the difference?”…

Men form society not on the basis of a unifying legal theory, but the legal theory is adopted post-society. Libertarianism is a helpful tool in the development of peaceful civilization; it is neither the spring nor the engine from which society flows. Libertarianism as a unifying spirit is only conceivable because we operate in a world that has experienced the imposition of a political society. But perhaps, to presuppose this statist-world moving forward, and to subsequently work toward a bigger libertarian political movement, is to have already made the very mistake that continues to undermine our efforts toward a free society.

Reprinted from Austro Libertarian.

Be seeing you

4ec7b-iu

 

 

 

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

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : Conservatives Against Liberty

Posted by M. C. on July 16, 2019

The American people are not suffering from an excess of free markets. They suffer from an excess of taxes, regulations, and, especially, fiat money. Therefore, populist conservatives should join libertarians in seeking to eliminate federal regulations, repeal the 16th Amendment, and restore a free-market monetary system.

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2019/july/15/conservatives-against-liberty/

Written by Ron Paul

Recently several prominent social and populist conservatives have attacked libertarianism. These conservatives, some of whom are allies in the fight against our hyper-interventionist foreign policy, blame libertarianism for a variety of social and economic ills. The conservative attack on libertarianism — like the attack on the freedom philosophy launched by leftists — is rooted in factual, economic, and philosophical errors.

Libertarianism’s right-wing critics claim libertarianism is the dominant ideology of the Republican establishment. This is an odd claim since the Republican leadership embraces anti-libertarian policies like endless wars, restrictions on civil liberties, government interference in our personal lives, and massive spending increases on welfare as well as warfare.

Anti-libertarian conservatives confuse libertarianism with the authoritarian “neoliberalism” embraced by both major parties. This confusion may be why these conservatives blame libertarians for the American middle class’s eroding standard of living. Conservatives are correct to be concerned about the economic challenges facing the average American, but they are mistaken to place the blame on the free market.

The American people are not suffering from an excess of free markets. They suffer from an excess of taxes, regulations, and, especially, fiat money. Therefore, populist conservatives should join libertarians in seeking to eliminate federal regulations, repeal the 16th Amendment, and restore a free-market monetary system.

Instead of fighting to end the welfare-regulatory system that benefits economic and political elites at the expense of average Americans, populist conservatives are promoting increased economic interventionism. For example, many populist conservatives support increased infrastructure spending and tariffs and other forms of protectionism.

Like all forms of central planning, these schemes prevent goods and services from being used for the purposes most valued by consumers. This distorts the marketplace and lowers living standards — including of people whose jobs are temporally saved or created by these government interventions. Those workers would be better off in the long term finding new jobs in a free market.

Anti-free-market conservatives ignore how their policies harm those they claim to care about. For example, protectionism harms farmers and others working in businesses depending on international trade.

The most common complaint of social conservatives is that libertarianism promotes immorality. These conservatives confuse a libertarian’s opposition to outlawing drugs, for example, with moral approval of drug use. Many libertarians condemn drug use and other destructive behaviors. However, libertarians reject the use of government force to prevent individuals from choosing to engage in these behaviors. Instead, libertarians support the right of individuals to use peaceful means to persuade others not to engage in destructive or immoral behaviors.

Libertarians also support the right of individuals not to associate with, or to subsidize in any way, those whose lifestyles or beliefs they find objectionable. Social conservatives object to libertarians because social conservatives wish to use government power to force people to be good. This is the worst type of statism because it seeks to control our minds and souls.

Most people accept the idea that it is wrong to initiate force against those engaging in peaceful behaviors. Libertarians apply this nonaggression principle to government. Making government follow the nonaggression principle would end unjust wars, income and inflation taxes, and the destruction caused by the use of force to control what we do with our property, how we raise our children, who we associate with, and what we put into our bodies. Making governments abide by the nonaggression principle is the only way to restore a society that is free, prosperous, and moral.

 

 

 

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

Tucker Carlson’s Broadside Against Austrian Economics | Mises Institute

Posted by M. C. on June 6, 2019

Tucker Carlson knows better, He knows full well how tariffs make society overall worse off, how markets make poor Americans far better off than the poor in many countries, why government medicine doesn’t work, and how minimum wage laws hurt the least-skilled workers. His argument is about priorities and strategy (and TV ratings), not ideology.

https://mises.org/power-market/tucker-carlsons-broadside-against-austrian-economics

Jeff Deist

Fox News host Tucker Carlson took to the airwaves of this popular show last night to lambaste Austrian economics and libertarianism, which he views as twin pillars of a failed ideology that doesn’t protect American workers and their interests.

The GOP, he argues, is in thrall to free-market corporate interests and esoteric economic theories from dusty textbooks. Republicans remain wedded to unbridled libertarian political philosophy, tax cuts, deregulation, and unilateral free trade, all of which enrich elites but hurt average people. Meanwhile, presidential aspirants like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders offer the American electorate real-world solutions to economic insecurity, jobs, and healthcare.

It’s a compelling story, but untrue. Does Carlson honestly think Republican members of Congress are overly theoretical and ideological? And here we thought they were a bunch of unprincipled and poorly-read hacks!1

Does he honestly think the budget-busting GOP of recent political memory, from Bush II (Iraq War, Medicare Part D, Department of Homeland Security, Patriot Act), John McCain, Mitt Romney are ideological libertarians? Why did Ron Paul and Rand Paul fare poorly among Republican primary voters, if in fact free-market ideology and its donor class dominate the party? And hasn’t the party been overtaken by Trumpist protectionists?

Of course we’re pleased when Right populists recognize the influence of the Austrian school, just as we’re pleased when Left-liberals at the New Republic convince themselves that Misesean “neoliberalism” has taken over the world. We note that Mises and Rothbard continue to receive criticism decades after their respective deaths, a testament to their deep (and apparently nefarious!) influence and an honor given to few economists.

Carlson, a onetime Cato Institute staffer and Weekly Standard writer, understands both Republican politics and the DC world of think tanks and punditry. When he references the Austrian school or libertarianism, it’s shorthand for “Koch money and influence” rather than any real ideology. It’s his shorthand for the “self-interests of rich guys,” interests given an intellectual veneer by academics and writers who are happy to accept billionaire crumbs in exchange for cozy non-profit sinecures. “Conservatism, Inc.” (or “Libertarianism, Inc.”) has become an self-serving industry unto itself, sclerotic and ripe for criticism.

There is truth to this. But it’s not an ideological truth. Tucker Carlson knows better, He knows full well how tariffs make society overall worse off, how markets make poor Americans far better off than the poor in many countries, why government medicine doesn’t work, and how minimum wage laws hurt the least-skilled workers. His argument is about priorities and strategy (and TV ratings), not ideology. And it accepts a fundamental tenet of the Left: self-interest for me is noble and warranted, self-interest for others (especially the rich) is suspicious if not sinister.

In other words, Carlson presents a fundamentally zero-sum perspective, which is to say a fundamentally political perspective.

That said, his populism—particularly his antiwar stance—should not be dismissed…

Be seeing you

Video | Media Matters for America

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Watch “19 Things Men Should Never Wear – Men’s Fashion & Menswear Style Mistakes & What Not To Wear” on YouTube

Posted by M. C. on November 4, 2018

Stopping the degradation of society and saving the world isn’t limited to converting to Libertarianism.

It can start with manners and removing your hat indoors.

Be seeing you

take off your hat

Take the hat off

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

Are Open Borders Libertarian? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on July 11, 2018

Long article. Below is the basic idea.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/07/hans-hermann-hoppe/immigration-and-libertarianism/

By 

…But on what grounds should there be a right to un-restricted, “free” immigration? No one has a right to move to a place already occupied by someone else, unless he has been invited by the present occupant. And if all places are already occupied, all migration is migration by invitation only. A right to “free” immigration exists only for virgin country, for the open frontier… Read the rest of this entry »

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

The Pope Criticizes Libertarianism – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on May 13, 2017

https://lewrockwell.com/2017/05/walter-e-block/pope-criticizes-libertarianism/

At the core of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle (NAP): just law consists, only, of prohibiting the initiation of violence against innocent people. That is it, in its entirety. The remainder of this political economic philosophy deals with logical implications of the foregoing. Thus, in economics we favor laissez-faire capitalism, deregulation, free trade, the only system guaranteed to overcome man’s natural state of poverty. In the area of personal liberties, we support the legalization of (but not at all the engagement in) victimless crimes pertaining to sex, drugs, gambling, etc. And in foreign policy we advocate a strong defense, but non-intervention in the affairs of other nations. It is a very narrow perspective, focusing, only, on just law; it is not at all a philosophy of life.

Does Pope Francis reject any of that? Not at all. Instead, he attacks libertarianism not for what we espouse, but, rather, a made up version of this philosophy of his own devising. He ought to take a course in libertarianism 101 if he wishes to engage our real views, not a parody of them.

Walter Block gives Pope Francis a lesson in Libertarian philosophy.

Be seeing you

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

Is Francis a Fascist? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on May 1, 2017

https://lewrockwell.com/2017/05/thomas-dilorenzo/is-francis-a-fascist/

Fresh off a hate-filled rant against populism (a.k.a. consent of the governed), Pope Francis recently delivered another mean-spirited, hateful diatribe about the “grave risks associated with the invasion of . . . libertarian individualism at high strata of culture and in university education.” 
Read the rest of this entry »

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

Everyone Alive Believes in Private Property

Posted by M. C. on April 7, 2017

http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/everyone-alive-believes-in-private-property/

Not really.

Government’s promote a culture of rape by failing to gain the consent of individuals before forcing them to do any number of things with their body, like forcing someone to labor for the state, or when the state arrests/ kidnaps someone for a victimless crime.

Mob rule is not consent, others cannot justly decide for you what is done to your body. Remaining where you were born is likewise not consent since compelling you to move or face violations of your rights is itself a violation of the natural right to self-ownership.

Government monopolizes final control over all property within their jurisdiction, thus inherently violating the rights of citizens.

Private property stems from self-ownership, because anything you originally appropriate, plus add labor to, becomes your property. Read the rest of this entry »

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