Category Archives: libertarianism

Commies vs. AnCaps: Welcome to the Rap Metal Terrordome

Throughout America and the West, the political Left have overwhelmingly dominated the culture through the arts. This dominion extends across the entire sphere of pop and rock music. With the possible exception of country, the political opinions in the pop and rock world tend to run the gamut between progressive and communist. While most generally save their grandstanding for DNC appearances, award ceremonies and social media, there is a notable handful of artists who put radical leftist politics front and center. Rage Against the Machine made Marxist angst a mass market success, so it should come as little surprise that the supergroup followup, Prophets of Rage, cashes in on the same sensibilities. Comprised of the rhythm section reactor that powered RATM and augmented by members of Public Enemy and Cypress Hill, Prophets of Rage want to make America rage again by synthesizing the combined legacies of its members.

wp-1508014216695..jpeg

While propping up establishment politics under the veneer of radicalism passes for “rebellion” on the Left, you’d think that liberty would resonate as a theme in a genre that prides itself on being the Voice of the Disaffected™. For whatever reason, very little liberty oriented subject matter has translated into mass success beyond the odd Rush or Megadeth record. Libertarians are starting to recognize that culture is upstream from politics and are now making inroads into the pop culture realm. One of the unexpected success stories has been the emergence of rap-metal Rothbardians, Backwordz. Fronted by Eric July, a man who is already recognized as a rising star in the liberty movement, Backwordz is plying their own brand of rap-metal but with a message that stands in polar opposition to the leftist grunting of the Prophets. Drawing almost exclusively from the more recent history of rap-rock hybrids, Backwordz sound invokes comparisons to Limp Bizkit, Linkin Park, Static-X and Body Count. If you had told me even a year ago that the nexus of politically fueled music converges at the intersection of hip-hop and hard rock, I’d have looked at you sideways. Yet here we are. So let’s jump into the rap-metal terrordome and see how they stack up.

Prophets of Rage vs. Backwordz

In many ways, Prophets of Rage is one of the most successful rap-rock hybrids I’ve heard. It pains me to say it because the politics of the album alternate between idiotic sloganeering, boring clichés and braindead incoherence. Prophets of Rage seem tailor made for the Age of #SocialJustice, and they’re cashing in on it by openly advertising themselves as the soundtrack to the #RESISTANCE. If you simply gathered up the highest trending hashtags from #WOKE Twitter from the past couple years (#Blacklivesmatter, #RESIST, #DumpTrump, #TakeAKnee, #HandsUpDontShoot, etc), that pretty much sums up what they have to say as a band. Add in some communist iconography, weed references and Antifa-inspired branded merchandise, and the package is complete. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear some group of campus SJWs chanting the chorus to “Unfuck the World” at any given protest.

No Hatred
Fuck Racists
Blank Faces
Time’s Changin’
One Nation
Unification The Vibration
Unfuck the World!

 

Wow. That’s deep, bro. Pass the bong.

wp-1508037253437..jpeg

Conversely, Backwordz have a lot of interesting things to say on their debut release, “Veracity”, but it is simply less enjoyable as a musical experience. And by interesting, I mean songs that represent the perspective of a full throated Rothbard style anarcho-capitalist. That’s not to say that they are less accomplished musicians or that their vision is any less cohesive. It’s just that I found myself wanting to sing along with Prophets, but didn’t have the same experience with Backwordz. If nothing else, the fact that Backwordz have written an anti-Keynesian rap-metal anthem which name checks Ludwig von Mises and The Road to Serfdom makes them deserving of respect. “Praxeology” is not necessarily a song I want to put on repeat, but I think it’s commendable that they wrote it in the first place. There’s probably more than a few people out there who scooped up copies of Anthem and The Fountainhead after rocking out to 2112, so I suspect it won’t be long before we begin to hear testimonials of kids who picked up Human Action after jamming Backwordz.

wp-1508037133216..jpeg

Backwordz songs follow a general formula. Eric July spits out a manic flow over some chunky syncopated riffage which is followed by a melodic emo chorus sung by Alex James. What the riffs lack in memorability, they make up for in rhythmic interest and mechanical precision. At their best, Backwordz’ riffage falls somewhere in between the jagged chugging of Meshuggah and the militant ratatat of Disturbed. July alternates between a smooth, rhythmically energetic flow and a full on aggro scream. There is the occasional chill electro beat section, too.

Backwordz cover a lot of ground in one record. A tour through the song titles and lyrics reveal a pretty broad spectrum of liberty oriented themes. Unfortunately, the songs are a little like monologues from Randian heroes. The content is great, but there’s something wooden and slightly cringe inducing about it. July is hitting excellent subjects, but he’s just not the greatest wordsmith. However, the one song that’s both lyrically and thematically devastating is “Statheist”. If there’s one thing that progressives don’t like to hear, it’s having their own religious faith called out.

Say it, we know the truth
Saying Hail Mary’s at the voter booth
You are a fraud
Stop acting like you don’t believe in god
Acting like they made us
Politicians are your saviors
You are a fraud
Stop acting like you don’t believe in god

 

To my ears, the Prophets’ overall sound has more breath and a deeper reach back into rock history. The Prophets successfully negotiate a rhythmic pocket that reconciles Led Zeppelin, P-Funk, MC5 and The Stooges. Tom Morello’s politics are vile and stupid but the man is quite simply one of the most innovative guitarists in rock working today. I defy any rock lover to say that the chorus to “Hail to the Chief” isn’t the very epitome of The Riff. The Prophets’ superior conception of groove also ties into their superiority in songcraft. I can’t remember a single hook from the Backwordz record, but I can remember practically every single one from the Prophets of Rage. Having the Morgan Freeman of hip-hop doesn’t hurt, either. Chuck D’s gruff, leathery bass and relaxed flow is just more appealing to listen to than July’s rapid fire rhymes. If there was only one message that I hope to convey to the members of Backwordz, I would encourage them to learn from the Prophets’ songwriting example.

wp-1508038124846..jpeg

What pisses me off the most about the Prophets of Rage is that, in contrast to their ideological brethren GY!BE, they’re cashing in on leftist anger without being explicit about that for which they stand. Admittedly, it’s not that hard to discern their intentions, but it’s masked amidst the fist pumping sloganeering. They want you to “know your rights”, but exhort you to “burn that goddamn flag”. They lament that you “pretend there’s democracy” in one song, but insist that you should “legalize me” in another. Morello himself has been pretty explicit about his communist convictions throughout his career, and Prophets of Rage is just the latest update to the packaging. Their anti-authoritarian posture masks their authoritarian designs. It’s not that just that they want to “Smashit”; they want to “go Molotov” and “become the gun”. They insist that you know “who owns who”, but want you to ignore the question of who owns them. I contend that the following photo from their Twitter account summarizes their true intentions. The Statue of Liberty is a symbol of the one political ideal that America sought to institutionalize: liberty. Though the #TakeAKnee campaign was supposedly meant to symbolize a protest against police brutality and racial injustice, the act of kneeling is actually an act of submission. Not defiance. The fact that the Prophets of Rage would promote an image of Lady Liberty kneeling in submission is exactly what I’d expect from communists, sadly.

I realize Backwordz don’t need my support, but I sincerely wish that I could offer a more unequivocal endorsement. If there was a way to swap the message of Backwordz with the Prophets’ sound, I’d be singing a different tune. Backwordz’ music belongs to different generation, and the fact that they’ve attracted as much attention as they have is a testament to the fact that their music is speaking to people and providing value. The Left have been tremendously successful in mainstreaming their ideas through culture, so I’m glad they’re out there doing their thing. It’s entirely possible that they’ll reach more new people with rap-metal than the combined efforts of every single Mises Institute fellow.

Advertisements

Betsy DeVos Versus the Government Education Establishment


I have family members and close friends who currently or previously worked in public education, and I can assure you, dear reader, that the libertarian argument for free market education isn’t a position that’s held in high regard in my world. It is my sincere hope that those of you reading this who also oppose a competitive market for education services will take this post in a spirit of promoting a real diversity of political opinion. 
Betsy DeVos has been nominated for the Chair of the Department of Education, and as is the case with everything Trump says or does, the progressive establishment is having a conniption. Whether it’s her lack of Ivy League credentials, her advocacy of charter schools or her positively abhorrent donation to FIRE, Betsy DeVos has been branded Public Education Enemy Number 1 by the entire government education apparatus. In his recent piece in Reason, Robby Soave very carefully and methodically points out why all of them are wrong and it is they who are the ideologically hidebound zealots. 

Here’s the deal. 

Pretty much everyone agrees that education is important. The larger and more important question is over how best to promote real education; as in independent thought, critical thinking, a curious mind, marketable skills and a lifelong love of learning, versus just going to school.

It’s easy to view education as a “right”. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it’s not. If you are honest, you will easily be able to recall numerous occasions when school felt pointless and utterly without value. And the real world bears this out.  Unless you cultivate entrepreneurial skills, a high school education is basically worthless in the marketplace.  A bachelor’s degree doesn’t necessarily add much more value to your marketability either. When you treat any good or service into a “right” for which the government makes provision, you destroy the incentive to provide actual value. 

Whenever the failure of public schools is discussed, “Reform” is the default cliché deployed. Anyone who suggests a market based alternative is just someone who hates children and only wants rich people to have education. Sadly, the Left is very good at painting opposition to government education as opposition to education itself while portraying themselves as Guardians of Knowledge and Social Justice from the mindless hordes of conservatards who just want to plunge America into a regressive New Dark Age of mandatory Christianity. It should be obvious to everyone that there is no such thing as “Reform”. Once you place a giant institution like education behind the government wall, there’s little you can do to truly reform it.  

Institutional learning only reinforces deference to itself. If you want to promote real individuality and critical thinking skills, a bureaucratic, compulsory school system won’t produce that result.  

I have plenty of skepticism over whether Betsy DeVos is going to make any meaningful difference, but I’m certainly willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. The public school bureaucrats are the real zealots here. It’s easy to point the finger of reproach when you enjoy the tacit protection of the government. And no, it doesn’t make one goddamn bit of difference that she doesn’t have fancy degrees.  She’ll be in charge of a gigantic bureaucracy which sets the agenda for other bureaucracies. 

If nothing else, she should do everything in her power to squelch the Title IX jihadists and the campus star chambers dispensing extrajudicial “justice”.

The Philosophy of Star Trek


This is one of the best and most comprehensive overviews of the philosophy of Star Trek I’ve encountered. Absolutely worth your time if this subject interests you. 

James Madison: Federalist 10

image

James Madison’s essay from 1787 is generally regarded as one of the most significant pieces of modern political thought. Its reputation and importance seem a little overrated since it identifies the very political maladies the newly formed federal republic sought to mitigate, but ultimately amplified.  It’s essentially a refutation of the limits of federal power the Constitution was theoretically meant to constrain. 

Federalist 10 focuses on mitigating political faction; the tendency of a political group to overwhelm and trample the rights of a minority. 

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

Madison was obviously attuned to the corrupting influence which accompanied the acquisition of political power as well as the attendant tendency of politicians to pit citizens against one another. He essentially asks you accept that this phenomenon is inevitable. He further proposes that there are only two courses of action; abolish all personal liberty or somehow engineer a mass consensus of uniform opinions and interest. 

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

Madison’s perception of man’s tendency to exploit the apparatus of state power to exploit and inflame the passions of citizens against one another is incisive and relevant. 

So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.

His specific identification of greed and envy and the tension between Haves and Have Nots that has animated the passions of political sociopaths for centuries is also spot on.

But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society.

He begins to go off the rails by suggesting that statesmen are “enlightened” in the first place or that the “public good” is something that can be defined or achieved through the legislative process.  This sounds more like an admission of futility than an affirmation of sound principle.

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.

The solution to this inevitability is to mitigate the effects.

The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.

The specific mechanism by which this would be achieved is through a republican mode of governance over a democratic one.  Much is made of the difference between a democracy and a republic amongst Constitution wonks and paleoconservatives, and Madison draws a few useful distinctions between the two.

Madison rightfully points out the that the main flaw of democracy in which all are granted perfect equality of representation is that it devolves into tyranny.

Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, on the other hand, is a form of government in which citizens delegate power to a select number of representatives.  The distinction seems pretty arbitrary if those in power trample the liberty of the citizens, but Madison insists that this difference is crucial. 

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

Madison argues that these “enlightened” delegates presiding over the Union would somehow thwart this tendency towards faction, but each of the “wicked projects” he feared have materialized. Ironic, given that the first one he mentions, the “rage for paper money”, didn’t take very long to materialize and Alexander Hamilton is the guy who agitated for it. 

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project.

Each of the “wicked projects” he names were enacted or are being actively championed by one interest or another. Based on the palsied state of affairs and the dim view of Washington the public holds, the factious spirit is more an entrenched reality of the political process than ever.

If anything, Federalist 10 gives more credence to the Anti-Federalist position that the Constitution under consideration in Philadelphia in 1787 was destined for mission creep.  It seems less an affirmation of the soundness of the Constitution and more of a vague hope that things won’t degenerate quite as badly as other experiments in democratic government.

On the other hand, the political class has followed Madison’s advice very closely, and used it to their advantage. Despite the veneer of a vast ideological divide between Democrats and Republicans, the two party duopoly has been very successful in engineering a uniform consensus.  The limits on federal power were trampled starting with the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion and were arguably completely eroded during the Woodrow Wilson administration.  Presently, the President of the United States governs by Executive Order, and no one in Congress raises a peep of opposition. Democrats and Republicans are now completely united in preserving the institutions, policies, programs as well as the abuses, manufactured outrages and animosities which keep Americans obedient to the system.

The Constitution was meant to produce what John Adams famously described as “a government of laws, and not of men.” It was meant to delimit and constrain the power the federal government could exercise. In Federalist 10, James Madison seems to be preparing you for the inevitable destruction of that principle.

Lawrence Reed: Great Myths of the Great Depression

image

I remember very little from the US history courses I took during my time in public schools. It felt like a relentless flogging of names and dates. I remember covering the major stuff. The Revolutionary War, the Constitutional Convention, the Civil War, the World Wars, and of course, the Great Depression were presented as a mind numbing barrage of details to be dutifully regurgitated in an exam. Beyond my impression that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was a funny sounding name for a piece of legislation, the most I remember about the Great Depression was that capitalism failed and the government under FDR’s leadership saved the day.  Based on the sentiments expressed by progressives to this day, this impression seems widely shared. 

However, this romantic view doesn’t square with reality.  A great deal of clear eyed research has been conducted to expose the factual record, and Great Myths of the Great Depression is a fantastic primer on the true legacy of the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations. 

Written by Foundation for Economic Education president, Lawrence Reed, the piece is filled with interesting facts and summarizes the best of this research very effectively. Perhaps the most interesting revelation is how the Hoover administration’s economic activism paved the way for of the FDR administration’s highly interventionist policies of the New Deal. Contrary to popular mythology, Hoover was not the hands off, laissez-faire Republican many claim. 

Starting with a highly inflationary monetary policy spurred by the Fed, the 20’s stock market bubble was induced by central bankers. This catastrophe was only compounded by the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922 followed by the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930. These tariffs triggered deep contractions in agriculture and sparked an international trade war. In the wake of a global collapse in commodity and asset prices precipitated by the ’29 market crash, the Fed took a bad situation and made it worse by raising the Fed funds rate and throttling the money supply into a deflationary spiral.  Hoover further compounded the problems by increasing subsidies to businesses and farmers which were doled out through the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and the Federal Farm Board respectively. Just as modern politicians and would-be intellectuals believe that high wage mandates lead to increased purchasing power and higher consumer spending, Hoover’s Department of Commerce bullied businesses into keeping wages high.  This allegedly laissez-faire president threw another wrench into an already sputtering economic engine by passing the Revenue Act of 1932.  Hardly the legacy of a president friendly to free markets. 

Ironically, the candidate who charged the Hoover administration of leading the country to socialism and promised to restore fiscal rectitude by shoring up the gold standard was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Rather than making good on these promises, FDR escalated every one of Hoover’s policies in ways that prolonged and protracted the misery of the Depression. 

Paving the way for the eventual destruction of sound money, one of FDR’s first major acts as president was to criminalize the ownership of gold through the signing of Executive Order 6102.  When you’ve got a hard money supply and you’ve got designs on an expanded warfare-welfare state, the Fed can inflate the money supply a little more easily if the proles don’t own too much gold. 

FDR’s first big legislative move which had the unfortunate effect of turning business into quasi-fascistic wards of the state was the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933.  Instead of responding to the natural forces of supply and demand, businesses were forced to comply with a raft of arbitrary mandates imposed from on high. 

image

One of the particularly horrific and wasteful mandates of the New Deal was the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933; a legislative abomination that seemed more befitting of Stalin than an American president.  Crops were burned, livestock were slaughtered and taxes were levied all in service of eliminating surpluses and increasing the purchasing power of agriculture producers. Despite being initially stricken down as unconstitutional in 1936, the AAA’s destructive consequences weren’t limited to kneecapping the agriculture industry. The seed of the eventual destruction of the gold standard known as the Thomas Amendment was written into the AAA. This amendment paved the way for unlimited credit expansion by the Fed.  FDR would eventually revive the AAA in 1938 and institute a vast array of agriculture price supports, quotas and subsidies through Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and Commodity Credit Corporation. These actions enshrined an era of farm belt crony capitalism and big agribusiness for years to come. 

image

By 1935, FDR implemented the Works Progress Administration. This bureaucracy doled out millions to fund domestic infrastructure projects. It also left a seemingly indelible impression of the virtues of federal economic activism in the minds of the public. Though many roads were paved and bridges built, a closer examination of the WPA legacy reveals more than a few arbitrary mandates, squandered resources and crony coffers lined. 

image

Things went from bad to worse with the passage of the quasi-Marxist National Labor Relations Act of 1935 aka the Wagner Act.  The Wagner Act took labor grievances out of the courts and into the purview of a new federal bureaucracy, the National Labor Relations Board. Under the cover of legitimacy accorded by the Wagner Act and NRLB, labor unions could threaten and intimidate employers and nonunion workers into compliance and acquiescence.

image

As if these actions weren’t damning enough, the origins of the 2008 housing crisis can also be traced to Federal Housing Act of 1934.  The vast complex of government sponsored entities and federal agencies were charged with overseeing home ownership mandates. Instead, they created a set of incentives which provided more than enough legislative helium for a housing bubble when conjoined with an inflationary monetary policy.

The conventional wisdom about the government’s role in alleviating the Great Depression and the private sector’s role in creating it is badly perverted.  Sadly, politicians benefit by peddling promises of prosperity that they can never fulfill.  Each dollar diverted towards a subsidy is a dollar of wealth destroyed which could have been diverted towards private enterprise. Each dollar of subsidy dispensed by a bureaucrat enriches a crony, aggrandizes the bureaucracy and diminishes the sphere of voluntary exchange.  Each minimum wage increase is an increase in production costs and prices low skill labor out of the market.  Each federal agency charged with upholding abstract notions of “public good” creates a license for corruption and moral hazard which only diminishes people’s faith in private enterprise. 

As politicians agitate anew for yet more intervention into an economy to “fix” problems that were legislated into existence with the laws they wrote, the history and legacy of the Great Depression deserves a deeper reexamination.  Mr. Reed’s essay is an essential starting point. 

Frédéric Bastiat: The Law

image

I graduated from public high school and obtained a bachelor’s degree from a music school with some basic liberal arts requirements, and up until recently, I was never introduced to Frédéric Bastiat’s work. I’m disappointed by this fact, but after reading it, not surprised. 

Frédéric Bastiat’s masterpiece, The Law, should be read by everyone who values the freedom of the individual or a free society.  For those unfamiliar with Mr. Bastiat, he was a French businessman, political philosopher, and statesman and could be described as the Ron Paul of 19th century France. This book was published before he died and many justifiably regard it as his definitive masterpiece of political thought. The Law was intended as a response to the ascendant socialist policies and politicians. 

The Law is the megaton warhead of truth bombs. There isn’t so much as a wasted word. Every sentence bursts off the page and cuts through the fog of sophists, academics, socialists and would-be intellectuals with the precision of a Hanzo sword. 

The Law is a powerful argument that exemplifies the tradition of European classical liberal thought from which the American founding fathers drew inspiration and shaped the principles on which the modern libertarian movement is based. 

Bastiat argues that there is a supreme, natural law to which all written law must be subordinate, and that this ur-law has been perverted to serve its opposite purpose: legalized plunder. The right to “individuality, liberty and property” is the proper conception of the law and that the very existence of the state is merely the collective assignment of self-defense to a public institution.  Bastiat argues that as long as the state circumscribes itself to this function, individuals will not assign undue allegiance to the state nor petition for its expansion. It’s a compelling argument, but since socialism was ascendant when it was written, Bastiat attends to the logical consequences of empowering the state to engage in legalized plunder, the defining feature of socialist politics, in the remainder of the text. 

This book is one hundred sixty-six years old, and yet, everything in it would easily be shouted down as heretical and retrograde today by apologists for the state.  The truth of what he’s arguing cannot be denied. 

Bastiat righteously eviscerates the sheer elitism and contempt socialists have towards humanity by attempting to link moral choices and civic virtue to lawful coercive force. By supplanting the free choices of individuals with the forcible imposition of the will of the legislator and the bureaucrat, the socialist systematizes sociopathy, avarice and obedience.  All of the dysfunction Bastiat described in 1850 applies to the sad state of current affairs.

All of his observations of socialists are devastatingly accurate.  Socialists do not care for facts or reason and let neither get in the way of the forcible implementation of their agenda.  Socialists view humanity as empty vessels that need their divine guidance and their pretensions intellectual superiority. 

In the latter half of the book, Bastiat takes direct aim at the would-be ministrations of the philosophers, politicians and didacts of the day.  From Robespierre to Rousseau, Bastiat takes apart these insufferable authoritarians and their detestable designs on managing human affairs down to the last detail.  As a result of the perversion of the law to which this book is devoted, America and the West have colonized academia and created vast cottage industries dedicated to the various sects of state worship and their doctrines of obedience. The will to dominate others has polluted the minds and perverted the ambitions of people since the time of Plato, and Bastiat’s rebuke remains sadly relevant. Bastiat says it best:

If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?

Bastiat identifies the proper application of law as defensive force.  Every individual has an inviolable right to defend life and property. This is the sole function of the state confined to its proper role. In America presently, the respect for this basic, natural right is consistently undermined by the deranged and manipulative bleating of politicians, activists, and media alike in their ceaseless quest to consolidate power.  For some, mere ownership of firearms makes your motives suspect and armed protest will get you branded a terrorist by the bloodthirsty mob. 

One of the most provocative arguments is Bastiat’s skepticism towards universal suffrage.  Nowadays, all you hear from academic, media, identity politics and feminist circles is a relentless drumbeat of scorn and reproach heaped on the “white male capitalist patriarchy” and a seemingly ceaseless campaign to browbeat men everywhere into a posture of penitence for daring to exclude anyone from the ballot box despite having no role in crafting the founding documents.  It’s very easy and tempting to view Bastiat’s argument as the retrograde view of a man who wants everyone else to be subordinate, but this reasoning emerged from a philosophical conviction that political power was not meant to be coveted or actively pursued in service of anything beyond preservation of liberty in the first place. He contends that if the law were confined to its proper function, everyone’s interest would be the same. Films like Selma and Suffragette seem explicitly calculated to inculcate feelings of guilt and shame in men (white men specifically) for committing the unspeakable crime of disenfranchising women and minorities from voting. It’s more than a little ironic that feminists don’t want male politicians making decisions by legislative fiat over their reproductive choices, but are simultaneously completely content to advocate for expropriating resources for material benefits and special legal privileges by the same method.

Speaking of Suffragette, it’s also ironic that movie with such a pro-suffrage message seems to have borrowed from Mr. Bastiat. Bastiat wrote, “The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable”.  In the film, Violet Miller says, “You want me to respect the law? Then make the law respectable”.  Where was Inigo Montoya when we needed him?

Despite the attainment of universal suffrage, this achievement is apparently no longer sufficient either.  Between open appeals from our enlightened progressive overlords for mandatory voting and completely sincere appeals for children voting, the appetite for government sponsored avarice and unchallenged fealty to the state knows no boundaries.

Another important point Bastiat makes is that one cannot formulate political theory without first developing a rational, scientific theory of economics. Modern economic thought takes government intervention as a given. Bastiat died before the Marginal Revolution, but it’s apparent that his conception of economics assigned greater importance to human action and seemed closer to the theoretical framework of praxeology that was eventually articulated by Mises.  

As compelling as the idea of a limited state is, it seems fairly apparent that this idea has proven itself a failure. The law has been perverted to serve its opposite purpose, and many now take it as a given that the law must serve socialist agendas. Generally speaking, arguments to the contrary are immediately regarded with scorn, ridicule and censure. After years of inflammatory anti-capitalist rhetoric from the political, academic and media complex, we are living in a time when a self-identifying socialist is running for president. Imagine Mr. Bastiat’s disappointment in the current state of affairs were he alive to bear witness.

Despite the rhetoric of Constitutional conservatives and minarchists, they have no track record of success in scaling back the state.  During the Obama administration alone, the funding for the Department of Homeland Security dried up and the charter of the Ex-Im Bank was allowed to expire.  Both were revived and conservatives played a role in their restoration. And when conservative candidates for president openly champion minimum wage indexed to inflation, it’s fair to say that modern American conservatism has drifted far away from its original principles.

Forget the pretentious Marxists, socialists and the so-called anarcho-communists and their attempts to resuscitate dead ideas and pass them off as transgressive thought.  These people dominate academia and have plenty of sympathy in the media, political and intellectual classes and they continue to present themselves as beleaguered underdogs whose voices are being choked under the oppressive stranglehold of capitalism. What utter horseshit. 

Those who’ve borne the torch of liberty have always had to fight the socialists, centralizers, planners, and academic elitists who think they know what’s best for you. Sadly, the false promise of socialism retains its appeal in the 21st century. Fortunately, the message of The Law remains undimmed by the passage of time and more urgent than ever. 

Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now

image

We find ourselves living in times of increased strife and conflict both domestically and abroad, and rational thought and open discourse often seem in short supply, and in some circles, under siege. As the war on terror, the ongoing debate over the role Islam plays in fueling violence and the battle for free speech weigh heavily on the body politic, Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s latest book, Heretic, arrives at a crucial moment and makes a fearless and important case which speaks to all three issues simultaneously.

The courage of this book burns like a bonfire of righteousness warding off an ever encroaching darkness of cynicism and nihilism. Ms. Hirsi Ali’s story and the argument contained in the book are a shining testimony to the durability of Western liberal ideas of universal rights and individual liberty.

The premise of Heretic is very straightforward. Ms. Hirsi Ali argues that Islam is not a religion of peace, the acts of barbarism and terrorism are encoded in the Qur’an, the Sunnah and the Hadith, and that if Islam is to be regarded as a religion of peace, it must undergo a Reformation.

One would certainly hope that a country like the United States founded on principles of Western thought, including and especially universal rights, would openly embrace Ms. Hirsi Ali’s call for reform, but the task is challenging even in a liberal society such as ours.  Presently, the current media and political environment is polluted and overcrowded by preening PC scolds and mendacious politicians who seem intent on both silencing any meaningful debate over Islam or sowing seeds of confusion with feebleminded postmodern appeals to nihilism and moral relativism.

Fortunately, Ms. Hirsi Ali’s clarion call for freedom and reform requires neither politicians nor leadership from above of any kind.  Though the primary audience for this book are the non-violent Muslims throughout the world she refers to as Mecca Muslims, anyone who values universal human rights and freedoms should have a stake in a Muslim Reformation.

Just as Christina Hoff Sommers drew a very useful distinction between gender feminism and equity feminism in Who Stole Feminism, Ayaan Hirsi Ali makes three important distinctions between Muslims. The first group she regards as Medina Muslims and are largely beyond reach. In other words, followers of Muhammad’s doctrines of violence against infidels found throughout the latter half of the Qur’an written in Medina and seek the union of mosque and state known as Sharia Law. Mecca Muslims, on the other hand, form the majority of the Islamic world, follow the peaceful teachings of Muhammad’s time in Mecca, but live in a state of “cognitive dissonance” with the modern world. The third group of Muslims are reformers and dissidents found throughout the Muslim world and the West who are putting their lives on the line to call for changes to a religion that has doggedly resisted change since its inception in the 7th century.

Contrary to what irritating sophists and preachy progressives would have you believe about Islam, virtually every horrific crime against humanity and decency you can name has foundations in Islamic text. From the barbaric corporal punishments of stoning and amputation mandated in Sharia to acts of martyrdom and jihad, each of these actions has foundations in scripture.

Contemporary feminists in the Western world have made both a cottage industry and a very influential political apparatus solely dedicated to whining about the alleged jackbooted oppression of the white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, but these idiotic grievances are revealed as the petty and childish delusions they are when measured against the horrific treatment to which women are subjected by the actual patriarchal oppression of Islam. Whether it’s arranged marriages for young girls, gang rape, genital mutilation or the subordinate role to which all women in the Muslim world are routinely circumscribed, the absence of feminist outrage as well as the rote charges of Islamophobia are deeply revealing of the true intentions of Western establishment feminism.

Worse still, Islam’s collectivist, authoritarian, and murderous tendencies extend beyond Sharia Law and into the realm of extrajudicial justice known as “honor killings“.  Whenever any woman is perceived to bring dishonor to the family name, she is often subject to the harshest retribution. Sometimes from her own family.

The treatment of homosexuals and transgender folk is equally harsh. Once again, the fact that social justice progressives have opted to frame criticism of Islam as bigotry is both deeply ironic and revealing.

Far and away, Islam’s biggest crime against reason and humanity is the demand for the death penalty for apostasy. It goes without saying that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has put her life on the line to write this book. The Protestant Reformation begat the Scientific and Industrial Revolution and gave rise to the Enlightenment principles which have animated the human spirit and lit the fire of progress throughout America and the West.  Islam has resisted any comparable reform. This resistance to criticism has had only deleterious effects on the Islamic world. By resisting Reformation, the Islamic world has compromised economic and intellectual progress and produced generations of Muslims who value blind faith and obedience over individualism.

As Ms. Hirsi Ali so brilliantly states it, the Muslim Reformation will need a relentless campaign of blasphemy. The War on Terror will not ever succeed. The battle for human freedom must be fought with ideas, not bombs. Islam in its fullest expression is the union of mosque and state. This union must be severed.

Politicians and the social justice warriors who parrot their talking points are actively invested in browbeating dissidents into silence over Islam.  They need a divided population in order to sustain political and economic interests in the Middle East.  Fortunately, we do not need them. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has sounded the fanfare of freedom with this book. If this is something that matters to you, you know what you need to do.

Henry Hazlitt: Economics in One Lesson

image

This book holds a vaunted status amongst libertarians. Not only does it live up to its reputation, it’s a damn shame that this isn’t the go-to text for anyone seeking a rational and clear-headed approach to economics. 

Hazlitt builds his case by taking the central fallacy found throughout mainstream economics. This fallacy was famously revealed in the Frédéric Bastiat parable, That Which is Seen and That Which is Unseen, and he proceeds to apply it to each realm of economic life. By applying this logic, he demonstrates how the various manifestations of government intervention destroy wealth, savings, and positive incentives to work and produce.  

Stated very simply, the lesson is this: the effects of economic policy cannot be evaluated in terms of its effects on one group, but on all groups. 

Not only do these fallacies persist, but they are accumulating strength and being accorded cultish deference. 

Hazlitt covers all the bases in his analysis. He opens with the one-two punch of the fallacy of destruction followed by a withering exposé of the production disincentives resulting from taxes. Hazlitt runs a steamroller of truth over every conceivable government policy initiative and deformation. The effects of automation, subsidies, loan guarantees, tariffs, trade quotas, industrial policy, price fixing, rent control, minimum wage, and inflation are all explored. 

The opening chapter exposes the perverse obsession with destruction as an economic incentive that persists to this day.  One only needs to peruse the pages of Rolling Stone to find this doctrine in the insufferable moronic blathering of Jesse Myerson. He openly praises rioting as some kind of economic boon and mutates the broken windows fallacy into an ugly article of faith.

The chapter pertaining to the rise of automation is particularly fascinating since fantasies of a “post-labor” economy are gaining traction in the media. The widespread belief of the imminent arrival of a world in which robots displace human labor hinges on the assumption that there is a finite amount of work to be done in the first place. Or perhaps the public fails to grasp the role price floors on labor may have played in hastening the creation of the automation in the first place.  Either way, the belief of a Star Trek-like world of plenitude has taken root. 

On the issue of free trade, Hazlitt argues that people are correct to be suspicious of free trade agreements like the TPP and NAFTA, but are mistaken to attribute any benevolence to the very idea of a managed trade agreement in the first place. Especially if it’s cloaked in gauzy rhetoric about workers and the environment.

Just what the government planners mean by free trade in this connection I am not sure, but we can be sure of some of the things they do not mean. They do not mean the freedom of ordinary people to buy and sell, lend and borrow, at whatever prices or rates they like and wherever they find it most profitable to do so. They do not mean the freedom of the plain citizen to raise as much of a given crop as he wishes, to come and go at will, to settle where he pleases, to take his capital and other belongings with him. They mean, I suspect, the freedom of bureaucrats to settle these matters for him. And they tell him that if he docilely obeys the bureaucrats he will be rewarded by a rise in his living standards. But if the planners succeed in tying up the idea of international cooperation with the idea of increased State domination and control over economic life, the international controls of the future seem only too likely to follow the pattern of the past, in which case the plain man’s living standards will decline with his liberties.

His analysis of minimum wage is as elegant a refutation of minimum wage as you’ll ever read.  He argues that the minimum wage is more correctly viewed as a minimum price law.  If the price of labor is artificially raised, the price of production is raised. Populist politicians always attempt to sell minimum wage law as a boon for low skill labor and ignore the adverse effects.  Sadly, the fervor for this boondoggle remains as strong as ever.

The most potent analysis by far is the section dealing with inflation.  As we enter our 10th year of ZIRP administered by our allegedly benevolent overlords at the Fed, the ill gotten gains and economic perversions abound. While politicians beat the drums of hate and envy, they draw more support for further expropriation as a corrective. 

Economics in One Lesson is a timeless classic and the lesson contained in its pages burns with even greater urgency. It’s easy to look at the current state of affairs and despair, but Hazlitt ends with an optimistic note. The principles for which Hazlitt fought are indeed proliferating, but the voices agitating for socialism grow louder as well. The best defense against the lazy and callous recriminations of apparatchiks and statists is this righteous lightsaber of reason left for us by a Jedi master of economics. 

Robert A. Heinlein: Starship Troopers

image

This legendary 1959 novel holds up reasonably well as work of military SF, but falls short as an example libertarian philosophy. Heinlein enjoys a vaunted reputation as a liberty oriented philosopher, but this book’s message of maximizing liberty and moral virtue through voluntary military service is flawed and rife with mixed messages. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that there’s very little about this book that’s truly libertarian.

The book tells the story of Johnnie Rico, an upper middle-class kid who chooses military service over an opportunity to work the family business. Despite his father’s protests, he opts to enlist in the military to fulfill the sense of duty that was imparted to him by his professor of History and Moral Philosophy, Mr. Dubois.  Through a first person point of view, we follow Johnnie’s evolution from his lessons in Moral Philosophy to the punishing ordeal of basic training to his subsequent service on the front lines of The Great Bug War.

As many others have written, it’s difficult to view a society which places military service as a prerequisite for voting as one which would ultimately maximize individual liberty and moral virtue. Between the twin sanction of corporal punishment and servitude to law celebrated as the cornerstones of an allegedly civilized society, the world of Starship Troopers can only be viewed as a deeply sadistic and fascistic society. Paul Verhoeven may have been criticized for omitting many of Heinlein’s philosophical musings in his 1997 cinematic adaptation, but if anything, he just took the book to its logical conclusion.

Philosophically, there are many places where the book goes off the rails.

The book’s most chilling theme is the full throated endorsement of corporal punishment. Given Heinlein’s apparent earnestness in crafting a liberty oriented editorial, this aspect alone is completely contrary to any serious argument for liberty.  It’s undoubtedly a product of Heinlein’s proximity to his own military service and perhaps his own childhood, but when one considers Heinlein’s keen intellect and obvious affinity for human freedom, it’s strange that he would promote this line of thinking. It suggests an absence of faith in humanity to generate morality through non-violent, rational thought.

This theme is undoubtedly tied to his astonishing rejection of any concept of natural rights.  In a key exchange between Johnnie and Mr. Dubois, Heinlein openly denigrates the idea of natural rights.

He even extends this idea so far as to basically reject the idea of freedom of speech. Not only does he casually mention censorship of soldier’s mail during spaceflight, one particularly chilling scene describes a group of infantry getting tazed for having a debate which gets a little too heated.

At its core, the book is essentially attempting to endorse some form of militaristic minarchism, but it’s ultimately deeply nationalistic and collectivist.  Since he very clearly acknowledges state power as a monopoly on the usage of force, he sees those who serve in the military as best suited to use the power judiciously. Subsequently, they are the only people permitted to vote. While I’m willing to chalk this up to his residual feelings of goodwill towards his own service, it’s another odd artistic choice given the fact that he touches on the concept of economic freedom. He extols the virtues of limited government and low taxation and does a nice little demolition job on the Marxist Labor Theory of Value. However, he ignores the extraordinary cost of maintaining an interstellar fighting force through compulsory taxation. It also strains the imagination that such a sophisticated military could be kept strictly voluntary without a very heavy handed propaganda campaign or without violent crackdowns when a majority of the population isn’t even voting. If anything, the inclusion of propaganda is one great improvements Paul Verhoeven made on this story when translating to cinema.

Heinlein’s outlook on gender is very egalitarian and, in this book at least, is the kind of treatment that one assumes that even feminists would cheer. He pushes the limits of imagination once again by presenting a military population that’s 40% female and mysteriously free of assault or harassment. He balances it out with a surprising bit of insight about female pilots. He posits the idea of females as the best pilots of spacecraft; a speculation that was perhaps ahead of its time. Despite this potential bit of prescience, the number of women who presently serve as military pilots is nowhere what he portrays in the book.

When evaluated from the point of view of pure storytelling and SF militarism, it mostly succeeds at the former but falls short in the latter.  Sure, there were aliens, different planets and spacecraft which could traverse interstellar distances.  But the SF actually felt subordinate to the philosophical exposition and some rather turgid rhapsodizing over the dignity of military life and the intricacies of military hierarchy. The descriptions of Mobile Infantry battle armor were cool and helped ground the story in the future, but I was hoping for just a little bit more actual warfare. If you’re going to exalt the extraordinary bravery of the soldier, give me a little bit more action.

Shortcomings aside, this book is a worthwhile read and its controversial reputation is fully earned. The amount of satisfaction you get from it will depend largely through which lens you view it.

The Moral Decrepitude of Vox’ Galactic Republic

image

In a recent Mischiefs of Faction piece, Jonathan Ladd argues that the Galactic Republic’s fatal flaw was that it ceded its police powers to the Jedi.  As is often the case for those who espouse liberal views, he rationalizes this argument by saying that they were a “autonomous religious cult” and that military or police personnel who aren’t sufficiently subordinate to the state will inevitably create problems.

Balderdash.  On every front.

As liberals are often wont to do, Mr. Ladd argues the counterfactual in favor of his apparent bias towards those who hold religious beliefs.

To Mr. Ladd’s great credit however, he’s refreshingly honest about the core principle at the center of state power as well as his clearly stated conviction that this principle is essential to the function of a healthy state.

All governments need a monopoly on the use of force. A sign of an unstable republic is when the military and police are not subordinate to civilian political institutions.

I submit to you that not only did this hasten the ascent of the Empire, this is precisely the problem with all state power and that the Jedi were exactly the right people to ensure peace and stability.

The Jedi certainly carried an aura of mysticism and those who mastered the Force were able to wield supernatural powers, but the Jedi code of morality was spelled out very plainly in Yoda’s lesson to Luke on Dagobah.

Yoda: Yes, run! Yes, a Jedi’s strength flows from the Force. But beware of the dark side. Anger, fear, aggression; the dark side of the Force are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan’s apprentice.

Luke: Vader… Is the dark side stronger?

Yoda: No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.

Luke: But how am I to know the good side from the bad?

Yoda: You will know… when you are calm, at peace, passive. A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, NEVER for attack.

In short, the Jedi code was not veiled in impenetrable religious babble.  This code of conduct was not only completely libertarian and fully in accord with the non-aggression axiom, but it lent itself to the possibility of a police force truly dedicated to the preservation of life and property.

Mr. Ladd groused about their autonomous organizational structure, but from this realization we can assume that they preserved independence due to the fact that they received voluntary compensation for their services just as easily as we can assume they were wards of the state.  It was the Jedi code of morality which separated them from the Imperial Stormtrooper goon squad and clone army who only lived to carry out the bidding of whoever was in charge.

The problem was not anything inherent in Jedi teachings or mysticism or their apparent autonomy; it was the abandonment of Jedi principles that was the problem.  Once Palpatine had gained full control of the apparatus of power, there was nothing to stand in his way from exerting violent totalitarian rule.

Using the example of the first French Republic, Mr. Ladd even makes a pathetic attempt at misdirection which ends up exposing the moral void inherent in his argument.  By his reasoning, the only thing wrong with this picture is insubordination; not a group of thugs pointing guns at you and your family and looting you of your belongings.

Rather than relying on the government in Paris for their pay, French armies were paid from resources looted or taxed from territories they conquered.

As recent events attest, a state monopoly on the usage of force ensures neither moral outcomes or greater accountability. The Jedi were the least of the problems faced by the Republic. Some more valid questions would be how was the construction of the Death Star sold to the public and how did a military program of that scale completely elude the press?  That seems like a more glaring failure of democracy than than anything the Jedi ever did.

In short, it’s another sad rehash of liberal talking points and bias in what one presumes is an attempt to be edgy and contrarian.

It says far more about liberal ambitions and their apparent willingness to accord total legitimacy to their favorite autonomous religious cult: The State.

image