Amy H. Sturgis
Roderick T. Long
[cross-posted at Austro-Athenian Empire]
I’ve argued that the decision as to whether to support Ron Paul’s candidacy involves a trade-off between long-term and short-term gains; that there is no one rationally compulsory way for libertarians to resolve this trade-off; that my own commitments give me reason not to support his candidacy, but that nevertheless I wish him success.
Keith Halderman evidently thinks I am lying. That is, he apparently believes not only that my position as described above is mistaken (which of course it may well be) but that it is not my real position. Or so I infer from a recent L&P thread in which he writes, addressing me:
let us be clear about this, your time preference is not to ignore Paul’s effort because you do not think he can succeed, your time preference is to actively work against his success
This is a surprising assertion. After all, here’s a sampling of my remarks about Ron Paul over the past year (from posts here, here, here, and here):
1. Most of my libertarian comrades seem to think that Ron Paul is either a) the Second Coming, or b) the Apocalypse. ... I’m somewhere in between: I have a lot of serious problems with his candidacy, but I admit I’m also gratified every time I see his poll numbers rising.
2. I have plenty of problems with Ron Paul – most notably on immigration, abortion, and gay rights. But he is astronomically superior to any other Republican candidate out there; I wish him well, and hope he shakes up the GOP plenty.
3. I neither endorse nor oppose Paul (I disagree with him on too many issues to officially “endorse” him; but I vastly prefer him to all his rivals and thus wish his campaign well).
4. Paul, despite his deviations, would likely pursue policies whose direct results would be significantly more libertarian than otherwise. ... I think that’s a reason to hope he does well, and I do hope he does well. In fact, I will go so far as to say that if there were a button such that pushing it would guarantee Paul’s election … then I would happily push it.
5. I don’t support Ron Paul’s candidacy, then, because my own talents, proclivities, and commitments lie with the Agorist and left-libertarian projects, and I value the promotion of those projects over the short-term benefits that Paul’s candidacy might gain at the expense of those projects. But I can’t see that this preference is compulsory for everybody. Even if every libertarian ought to be an Agorist and a cultural lefty ... it seems to me that it does not follow that every libertarian ought to make the trade-off between those long-run projects and the possible short-run gains from Paul’s candidacy the same way I do.
I think it’s fairly clear, then, that my position is not fairly describable as “to actively work against his success.” Keith Halderman’s description of my position is baseless.
I’ve repeatedly asked him to offer evidence for his claim, but so far he has made no response. Well, perhaps he hasn’t looked in the comments section to his last post lately. So I’m moving my query to L&P’s main page.
Keith, please either back up your charge or retract it.
David T. Beito
Johnson, a former governor of New Mexico, advocate of pot legalization, and a defender of the second amendment, is a long-time favorite of people at Cato and Reason.
Could he unite all the factions as a third party candidate in 2008? If the other choices are McCain and Hillary, he could poll many votes by default.
Aeon J. Skoble
In other news (same page), actor Heath Ledger has died, age 28, cause unknown.
David T. Beito
In The Know: Is The Government Spying On Paranoid Schizophrenics Enough?
Roderick T. Long
[cross-posted at Austro-Athenian Empire]
The petition I posted in draft form a couple of weeks ago is now available for signing. Here’s the text:
To: All those currently exercising positions of responsibility in the Government of the United States of America, whether elected or appointed, and whether at the federal, state, or local level
Whereas the United States Government’s claim to legitimacy is purportedly based on such principles as the consent of the governed, human equality, and the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and
Whereas few if any of those over whom you claim authority have ever consented to such governance; and
Whereas governments, as claimants to such authority over others, are by their nature inconsistent with human equality; and
Whereas your laws, ordinances, decrees, and policies generally stand in violation, directly or indirectly, of the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;
We, the undersigned, hereby demand:
That you cease to claim to be acting in our name or as our agents; and
That you cease all attempts to exercise authority over your fellow human beings, on this continent or elsewhere; and
That you work to dismantle the institution or set of institutions known as the Government of the United States of America, in every branch and at every level, as speedily as possible; and
That you make no attempt to interfere with its replacement by voluntary associations of free and equal individuals.
Click here to sign it. (Signing it in this blog’s comments section doesn’t count!).
Mark Brady
That statement, of course, rests on the assumption that the concept of mental illness is intelligible. But even if you do think it makes sense, it doesn't follow that what passes for Oppositional Defiant Disorder is a form of mental illness.
Mark Brady
So begins Alan Cane's enthusiastic review of Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body (New York: Pantheon; London: Allen Lane, 2008).
"Shubin's book is packed with the evidence to support his contention that everything innovative or apparently unique in the history of life 'is really just old stuff that has been recycled, recombined, repurposed or otherwise modified for new uses'. It's not a new notion, but rarely has it been expressed so clearly and with such good humour."
Roderick T. Long
[cross-posted at Austro-Athenian Empire]
One of Isabel Paterson’s earliest novels (indeed her first published, though not her first written), The Shadow Riders, has turned up on Google Books.
While it’s not the literary tour de force that many of her later novels would be, it is nevertheless, like all her novels, damn good.
Although several westerns have since used the title The Shadow Riders, Paterson’s 1916 novel is not a western; its setting is western Canada, but in an era when the frontier is well on the wane. The milieu reflects (as usual) Paterson’s own background, and the heroine is (again as usual) a thinly disguised version of Paterson herself; the book’s subject matter is the interrelated realms of business, politics, journalism, and social mores.
But that synopsis sounds rather dull, and the book is no such thing, so let me simply quote a few passages, picked nearly at random – some witty, some serious – to give you a sense of the book’s style:
He was quite a young man to write a diplomatic communication. He thought, if a thing was to be made understandable, it should be said plainly.
Lesley felt symptoms of imminent suffocation. She wished benevolently that she could share them with Mrs. Cranston – in short, that she might choke that injudicious lady.
There is an old proverb which says that one can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. It is doubtless a true saying; I only wonder what one does with the flies after having caught them.
And his patriotism – it burned, oh, indeed, it went up in fireworks that left trails of glory down the lowering sky! One could see him repelling an imaginary enemy at the point of a lance – well, no, hardly that, but one could see a band of gallant youths doing the repelling, while Folsom waited with decorations and wreaths in the rear.
He envied Ross, who had somehow gone past these things, got beyond good and evil to necessary and unnecessary, inexpedient and expedient, pleasant and disagreeable. Had he known through what bitter waters Ross had reached his Fortunate Isle, he might not have envied.
Eileen’s face betrayed no consciousness of victory. It expressed neither triumph nor disdain, but a peculiar innocence and unawareness, which innocence itself cannot achieve. It is a look only possible to a woman who has suffered, and deliberately forgotten; it can outface innocence itself because it has no mingling of curiosity; it is invulnerable – from the outside.
The sole impress of a too fortunate youth was discoverable in some quality of his manner which made plain that he was no longer interested in himself. Life had been too kind to him in every material way; he was politely perplexed with a profusion so great, and ambition lay dead of satiety.
Her senses rebelled against her will, and though she retained command, for a sweet and terrible moment she could feel her inner self bend and sway toward him like a reed in the wind. It cost her a sharp, sickening pang to rise and move away from him a step. ... For a long, long time afterward she could feel that pain again when she remembered, for it seemed as if she had then lost something out of her life that would never come again with quite the same power, the same promise of completeness and delight. All that he saw was that her mouth set hard for a moment, the short pink upper lip losing its laughing tilt; and her hands, so lax and helpless in her lap, shut determinedly.
[I]n all passionate love there’s a hard, insatiable core, that nothing could fully satisfy, so it always burns beneath the ash of fulfilled desire. No man or woman is quite absolutely enough for any other woman or man. Neither would a world of them be.
(On Paterson’s novels generally see here, here, here, here, here, and here.)
Keith Halderman
Roderick T. Long
[cross-posted at Austro-Athenian Empire]
Only two of Molinari’s books have been translated into English – The Society of Tomorrow (badly – the translation is quite incompetent) and Religion (incompletely – the editor explains that “it was found necessary to omit the recapitulatory chapter which commences M. de Molinari’s additional matter, and to indicate in footnotes the sources, rather than to quote at length the long catena of authorities published in the appendix to the French edition”). Both translations also mysteriously feature introductions (and in the case of Religion, intrusive footnotes) by authors fundamentally out of sympathy with Molinari’s viewpoint, who mostly take the opportunity to ride their own hobby horses. Still, these translations are far better than nothing.
The Society of Tomorrow has been available online for a while. I’m pleased to see that the English version of Religion is now available as well, via Google Books.
Religion represents an interpretation of the history of religion from the point of view of libertarian economics and evolutionary social theory; the chief political moral that Molinari draws from his analysis is that attempts either to impose or to suppress religion by force of law are harmful to society (as are all interferences with free competition), and he accordingly calls for a complete exclusion of the state from matters involving religion.
Molinari is coy as to whether he himself accepts any religious belief. He defends religion to the extent of arguing, first, that its central claims (which he takes to be the existence of God and the immortality of the soul) are not contrary to science, and second, that religion is beneficial for society (this latter on the grounds that a belief in divine reward and punishment is necessary for ordinary people, though perhaps not for the wise few, to feel sufficient motivation to behave rightly). Yet his explanations of the historical development of religion and the triumph of one faith over another are purely economic and never make any reference to the truth or falsity of religious claims. (For example, he maintains that Christianity displaced paganism because it was cheaper.) Hence both believers and unbelievers will probably find themselves occasionally annoyed while reading it; still, it’s a fascinating book, whatever one may think of the details.
Sudha Shenoy
A. The particular circumstances in which the objectionable issues on race & homosexuality were published, are critical. Paul was a private individual then (see further.)
B. Including the small amount of new material, 18 such issues appeared (on present knowledge) from Dec 1989 to Sept 1994. Assuming publication was monthly, some ?58 issues came out in this period.
The time-pattern has hardly changed: 11 out of 16 issues specified (by extracts or in quotes ), appeared in the 17 months Dec 1989 -- May 1991 (inclusive.) The remaining 5 were scattered: 1992 (two) 1993 (one) 1994 (two.) And there are quotes from two unspecified issues. (Also see further.)
------------------
A. Ron Paul was a private individual from 3 January 1985 to 3 Jan 1997. During these 12 years, his principal occupation was as an obstetrician/gynaecologist. The first is fairly time-consuming, of course. He also travelled widely, giving lectures.
Paul held no political office in these 12 years -- he was a fully-occupied obstetrician. He was a private individual, & the newsletter was published & sent out to subscribers by a company in which he had a ‘minority holding’. In 1988 he ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket; during this period he had campaign staff, of course. He then resumed his private practice. It was then -- mostly in the 17 months December 1989--May 1991 -- that the objectionable issues appeared. Since the newsletters went to subscribers, they had to be printed & sent out regularly, even when he was travelling (“Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around.”) *
In 1996, when Paul ran successfully for Congress, he again had campaign staff. It was in this campaign that (some of) the objectionable issues surfaced. In other words, his campaign staff were then dealing with a newsletter published (under his name), while Paul was a a private individual, a full-time obstetrician. Paul says that in 1996 he “actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly” but ‘campaign aides’ advised against it: “that's too confusing”. They advised Paul that as his name was on the newsletters, he would “have to live with it”. *
Paul does give us some idea of how things proceeded with the newsletter. This came out when he was speaking about the derogatory comments on Barbara Jordan. The newsletter (issue unknown so far) said of her:"the archetypical half-educated victimologist" whose"race and sex protect her from criticism." In Oct 2001 , however, Paul said: “I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."
One possible construction: Paul read & approved of the derogatory comments, & then lied through his teeth to retrieve his position. However, he also says:"we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."**
This suggests a general discussion with the person actually in charge, about the topics to put into the newsletter. Then the (de facto) editor was left to get on with it (while Paul got on with his practice & lecturing. ) It would seem that Paul trusted the editor implicitly -- ie, he felt no need to then see what was actually sent to subscribers. He says this pretty much: “I have [publicly] taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name" (emphasis added.)
During the 12 years he was in full-time private practice, did Paul employ anyone whose job it was to keep track of the newsletter, inter alia? Did any subscriber (s) complain to him? Did any friend tell him? Only further inquiry will tell. We are told Paul learnt about the comments “much later [,] when they were brought to his attention…He was angry when he saw them.” * When was he told? How did it happen?
A serious biographer, or an historian writing on Ron Paul’s candidacy, would also want to know how busy his practice was in these 12 years, what travelling he did, etc., particularly between Dec 1989 & May 1991, & then to Sept 1994.
---------------------
B. This time, TNR are able to give the editors, publisher, & contributing editors, as listed in three issues only, all before Dec ’89 (see above.) These are: March 1987, April 1988, May 1988. (a) Ron Paul is named as editor & publisher in the first, & as editor in the second. Lew Rockwell becomes editor in the third. (b) Nadia Hayes is ‘VP and Treasurer’ in the first, then publisher for the other two (see below) (c ) In March 1987, four contributing editors are listed: Lew Rockwell, William Sumner, Chris Weber, Sam Wells, in that order. In March 1988, William Sumner is the sole contributing editor. There is none in April 1988. -- Various statements may be found on the web as to the editor, publisher, etc, in the 1990s, but this is not the same as seeing the actual newsletters themselves.
[NB There are allegations about Nadia Hayes on the web. I have not been able to find any reliable information. Others more skilful may be able to do better.]
-------------------------
The above analysis of the issues available through TNR, is, of course, simply an exercise in frustration. These selections were made for the purpose of axe-grinding (which is fair enough.) What is really needed is a sensible overall analysis of all the issues available. What was in the remaining 40 or so issues in the period Dec 1989 -- May 1991? What sort of material appeared from 1977 to November 1989, & from October 1994 to December 1998? What was in the newsletters when Paul was in office, & had a political staff, as compared to the years when he was a private individual? Who were the editor/publisher/ any contributing editors? What changes occurred? When?
It is only when we have answers to these questions that we can properly elucidate Ron Paul’s position in the whole situation. This is essential because Ron Paul’s candidacy & its substantive impact, is possibly the most significant development in American politics & political thinking, in the early 21st century. This impact has crossed into the wider world, with people in some 27 countries eagerly expressing their enthusiasm for the ideas he is putting forward.
-------
* All quotes are from those portions of the article by S C Gwynne, ‘Dr. No’, Texas Monthly, Oct 2001, quoted in Free Market News Network, 11 Jan 2008, ‘Ron Paul Race Smear Erased?’ or from that report. The link is in the text above, under ‘Oct 2001’.
**This is taken from the article by S C Gwynne, above. Unfortunately, this is from the portion behind subscription.
Chris Matthew Sciabarra
I've authored an entry on Ayn Rand's philosophy,"Objectivism," which appears in the new International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, a 9-volume, 4000-page work published by Macmillan Reference USA, edited by William A. Darity, Jr. (Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2008). The article can be found in Volume 6: Oaxaca, Ronald - Quotas, Trade, pp. 6-8, but the people at Gale / Cengage Learning have been kind enough to give me permission to post the PDF of the article on my home site.
You can access the essay as a PDF document here.
Cross-posted at Notablog.
Roderick T. Long
First Kevin Carson makes it into the pages of The Freeman with his article “Economic Calculation in the Corporate Commonwealth.” And now Charles Johnson follows with a “Scratching By: How Government Creates Poverty as We Know It.”
Congratulations to Charles! And I bet that’s the first time that that Marilyn Frye quote has appeared in The Freeman! The left-libertarian quest for global domination continues apace.
Incidentally, Charles is a, and probably the only, third-generation Freeman author.
Amy H. Sturgis
That's why the two have started a new service allowing such filmmakers from around the world to share and show their work on a website that could become the YouTube of aboriginal cinema.
The duo's new website, called Isuma.tv, has already gathered 100 films and videos from four countries in the four weeks since it began.
The offerings, all free to watch online, range from complete versions of Kunuk's features Atanarjuat and The Journals of Knud Rasmussen to accounts of a Swedish Sami girl's efforts to learn her native language.
Read more here.
Mark Brady
Roderick T. Long
[cross-posted at Austro-Athenian Empire]
Great quote from Tom Woods today:
In the 1980s, the Ayatollah Khomeini called for a jihad against America, on the grounds that we were degenerate, had filthy movies, our women didn’t know their place – all the reasons that we’ve been told are the causes of the current attacks. The result was absolutely nothing. No one blew himself up. No one did anything. Khomeini issued the call and there was no interest. It was a total flop – no one wanted to sacrifice himself on those grounds.
Then the 1990s come along, and we have Osama bin Laden. He does not make that fundamental cultural critique – obviously, he doesn’t like those aspects of American culture, but that wasn’t his main critique.
His criticism is actually very specific. He says the U.S. is responsible for propping up police states around the Arab world; exercising undue influence over oil markets; showing undue favoritism toward Israel; supporting countries that oppress their Muslim minorities; basing American troops on the Arabian peninsula, and on and on.
This is the sort of thing he offers as a rationale. So while there may certainly be the potential for Islam to be violent, what sparks that fire? It’s the combination of practical grievances and the Islamist ideology. Some people will do battle on behalf of an abstract philosophy, but most people will only fight and die for a specific grievance. For example, when you look at the Al Qaida recruitment tapes, they don’t simply quote from the Koran. They actually show images of people killed by U.S. weapons.
Why are they making those tapes if there’s no connection between U.S. foreign policy and what the terrorists are doing? It just doesn’t make sense.
David T. Beito
David T. Beito
The recent newsletters controversy has hurt badly but the campaign still can have a postive impact if it radically shifts course through a hard-hitting, pro-liberty ad campaign. Television and radio commercials should stress the following: the destructive impact of the war on drugs, the racist impact of this war for a whole generation of black men, the threat to civil liberties by the Bush administration and the Democratic Congress, and, most of all, the war in Iraq and the threat of war in Iran. These need to be supplemented by regular news releases.
It is a travesty that most antiwar Republican voters in New Hampshire and Michigan appeared to have believed that John McCain was the antiwar candidate. This might have been different had an ad campaign repeatedly informed them that Paul is the only Republican candidate to oppose the war.
Lets face it. Ron Paul will not win the nomination. If he goes out in a flourish, however, he can do a lot of good for the future of libertarianism. If the campaign continues to run the current ads, it will soon fade into nothingness and few supporters will be willing to contribute more money.
Jesse Benton, the man who designed this campaign, should be fired immediately. A new ad director should then implement this strategy. Scott Horton has suggested a youtube contest for ads but it may be too late. At the very least, the campaign (hopefully sans Jesse Benton) can produce commercials that highlight the many clips of Paul giving pro-liberty and antiwar comments on these and other issues.
