This category covers posts with political content.
My latest over at the Tenth Amendment Center! Today I’m debunking the idea of a right to “freedom from fear,” which has been widely used to justify mass civilian disarmament.
Turns out, #1) That’s not even what FDR was *!&^ing talking about, and #2) We’d have to give up a huge number of valuable common-law and Constitutional protections to enforce such a right!
Worth it? I think not.
I might–nah, should–do a video version of this, because I thought some parts are pretty fire. We’ll see.
There’s a funny story–possibly apocryphal–about how the fuel in nuclear reactors came to be called “piles.” The way I heard it, Enrico Fermi was showing off his new, experimental reactor to some of his benefactors, and they asked him what he called it.
Fermi, lacking a cool or new name to call it, said it was a “pile,” and the name stuck.
I get the feeling that the same thing is happening with people reading Hoppe’s Democracy: The God That Failed.
In the book, Hoppe goes over the incentives that monarchs have, compared to democratically-elected political leaders, and concludes that monarchs have better incentives that are more forward-looking. Fair enough. I think his points are solid.
The problem is that this ignores one of the implications of monarchy, namely that most monarchs in history attained their “ownership” through conquest, which political theorists began to recognize as illegitimate only in the late seventeenth century.
This implication colors people’s perception of what monarchy is, whether we like it or not. Therefore, when we say “Hoppean Monarchy,” the average member of the public thinks of a guy with a crown who claims ownership of some territory by conquest, as well as powers such as taxation, conscription, etc. of people within that territory.
It’s true that in a Hoppean Monarchy, the monarch has gained his territory by purchasing it with wealth he earned by serving consumers. It’s true that he doesn’t have plenary power over the people living on his land. But that detail is easily missed or deliberately obscured by our disingenuous detractors.
So, I’m here advocating for a different term. I like Hoppe’s “private societies” way better than “Hoppean Monarchy,” but I’m open to other ideas.
What do you think? Am I barking up the wrong tree, or am I making sense?
I stumbled into an interesting situation the other day while doing some research for a new essay on the absurdity of treating “freedom from fear” as a right (coming soon!).
I’ve seen this quote cited as from Lysander Spooner by several reasonable-looking sources:
“To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the law abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless.”
But for my essay, I wanted to track down the original source in Spooner’s writing. And guess what?
I couldn’t find it.
I found some collections of Spooner’s work and did text searches of everything I could find, and it wasn’t there.
As I continued to look, I got more suspicious. The language was oddly modern for Spooner. Could it be a misquote?
It turns out that this quote is not by Spooner at all, but was written by Jeffrey Snyder about the 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban.
So, if you’ve used this quote, it may be time to update your citation. Apparently this is from an article that was in the American Rifleman and the Washington Times. Neither makes archives available that far back, so the best I could find is two sites that get the citation right.
Hat tip to Joe Huffman and the Weapons Education Forum for hanging on to proper citations.
A friend of mine recommended this episode of the Dangerous History Podcast, and I thought it was really interesting. It’s the first in a mini-series talking about the American Revolution.
One point made by Prof. CJ is that there was a peculiar strain of religious belief, held more by the common people of the colonies than the aristocratic founders, that helped move the revolution forward.
Basically, the belief developed that the failure to defend one’s natural rights was a betrayal of God’s grace, as manifested in oneself. There is a lot of good info in the podcast, but this point was something I hadn’t heard before.
There are a few episodes in the mini-series, but I’ve only listened to this one so far. Worth a listen.
In my recent piece over at the Tenther Blog, it wasn’t the focus of the essay, but I state:
“even with the best intentions, the interpretation of a long-term compact like a constitution will drift over time, as its interpreters change and as the language changes”
It would have made the essay too long to include the detailed reasoning behind that conclusion, so I thought a small supplemental post, explaining the reasoning, might be helpful.
I will quickly cover three reasons why long-term covenants are never going to hold the same exact meaning over time:
These three reasons mean that long-term covenants, which are expected to last longer than a person’s lifetime, will always shift somewhat in how they are interpreted. In fact, these changes are often significant over the life of a single person. Therefore, it is impossible to guarantee that anyone who joined a covenant will not find fault with some later interpretation and disagree with it.
Therefore, covenants must either recognize the ability of members to leave at-will or provide terms for exiting the covenant. Failing to provide terms implies that the covenant is at-will.
I wrote a short piece about the basis of power in the American constitutional system, and the Tenth Amendment Center was kind enough to publish it on their Tenther Blog!
(Video also available on Bitchute.)
A recent article by Jon Miltimore over at FEE about Russell Brand’s demonetization got me thinking about this phenomenon. I think we’re all aware that there are some very shady people who really want to pull the strings of society, but even so I feel like Neo-Feudalism is one of those terms that gets treated as whack-job but really isn’t when you think about it.
One of the tools necessary for a relatively free (but not stateless) society to function is free speech. Free speech allows for vigorous arguments to flourish and help people understand contentious issues. As a state becomes more censorious, or as people become more vindictive about those presenting differing opinions, it is natural for people making arguments that counter the narrative to want additional protection. The use of anonymity or pseudonyms provides this additional protection for dissidents.
The other day I read an article over at Mises that makes an interesting, if somewhat obvious point: that despite incentives which encourage long time preferences in monarchical rulers compared to democratic rulers with limited terms, other circumstances can encourage rulers of all kinds to have different time preferences.
The modern U.S. federal government cannot serve the purposes for which it was created. It has interceded in too many issues, and now it is only an instrument of tyranny to be passed back and forth by elites to subjugate you while providing a veneer of freedom.