Categories
Culture Creation Economics Philosophy Political

A Small Epiphany?

I saw this post today and I feel like I had a bit of an epiphany.

As silly as it might sound, I’ve been trying to put up reasonably original stuff, without repeating myself too much. Kind of a “dissertation” attitude toward posts.

Honestly, it’s caused me more often than not, to tell myself it’s not worth saying something that’s been said before.

Categories
Economics Essay

Corporatism v. Consumer Sovereignty

Section 4 of Chapter 15 of Mises’s Human Action is called “The Sovereignty of the Consumers.” Mises talks about the unhampered market economy and how that democracy, in which “every penny gives a right to cast a ballot,” might be more democratic than any government could ever hope to be. This passage got me thinking about these concepts, and how the state impedes them.

Categories
Political Video Link

Sources and Propaganda

For God’s sake, cite your sources and watch out for people who don’t cite theirs!

There’s a short clip of Klaus Schwab running around the libertarian social media sphere where he’s talking about the danger of libertarianism.

It’s being touted as this great proof that the totalitarians are running scared, so I tried to find the original video.

I did, and it is not what they’re telling you, as much as I hate to say it.
Link to the original video.
Link to the same speaker, same topic, one year later.

Check the video above, also available on BitChute.

Categories
Essay Philosophy Political

Rothbard: 1, Fuzzy Language: 0

Ludwig von Mises Institute, CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

I’ve just started reading Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind and I found a lovely example of how fuzzy language obscures what the state is and how it differs from “society.”

Categories
Essay Political

Galvanizing Liberty Lovers

We liberty-lovers face a powerful and dangerous foe: the modern state. Yet we seem to end up fighting each other more often and more angrily. It’s a fact that in an ideological movement, small differences are crucial, but we really should try to be smart enough to avoid infighting as much as we do.

Consider: the two major parties are split into two or three different wings, but they mostly aim their invective across the aisle–at least in public. Libertarians and other adversaries of the state aim nearly as much at each other as they do at the state and its flunkies.

Categories
Essay Political

The Real Goals of Gun Control?

After having some time to think about what I wrote about using the “freedom from fear” to justify gun control, I kind of tripped and fell into an even more interesting conclusion:

What if the gun control isn’t the end goal?

Categories
Philosophy Political Video Link

Audio Version: “There Is No Right to a Freedom from Fear”

Audio/video version of my recent article over at the Tenth Amendment Center!

Also available at Bitchute!

Categories
Essay Philosophy Political

There Is No Right to a “Freedom from Fear”

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.

Categories
Political

Why Covenants Cannot Be Constant

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:

  1. Even without the malicious influence of power-seekers, language changes over time and all such covenants and contracts must be interpreted by currently-living people.
  2. In the same way that Friedrich Hayek observed that economic knowledge is spread out over multiple people and there are so many details that it would be impossible to give them all to a central planner, the understanding of a covenant is distributed. Even if a judge wanted to pass on his understanding of the contract to a successor, the knowledge passed on could be incomplete.
  3. In John Hasnas’s paper The Myth of the Rule of Law, he observes that large bodies of law may contain self-contradictions, and precedents are never perfectly applicable, such that two reasonably similar precedents may conflict when applied to a third case. As any judge of a covenant must rely on some combination of his own understanding of the covenant and precedent, it is impossible to guarantee that such interpretations will always be consistent.

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.

Categories
Essay Philosophy Political

The Founders and the Supreme Power of the People

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!

Click here to read it!