Year: 2012

Fascism Explained

Jacques Delacroix History, Liberty, Religion , , ,

Below is a fairly long essay. You may want to read it in installments.

[Update: There is also a Part 2 posted on this blog.]

The aim of fascism as a political movement is to substitute for individual self-confidence based on skills and achievements uncritical trust in a leader or in an organization. Fascism as a form of government has no objective. Invariably, it ends either in misery or in a catastrophe.

The word “fascist” has been so overused – entirely by Left-leaning people – that is has become an empty insult. I am guessing that most Americans alive today only know the term as a nasty epithet, perhaps with vague references to Italy’s Mussolini. This is too bad because fascism is a real socio-political phenomenon that took over a fair number of developed societies in the middle-part of the twentieth century. Fascism is also alive, under other names, in and out of power, in the semi-advanced but chronically stagnant societies of Latin America. I think that the fascist temptation is always, forever present in the background of modern societies, including democratic societies. (There are more discussions of contemporary fascism further down in this essay.)

I am addressing this brief description of fascism to my younger contemporaries, in the US and elsewhere, because fascism has become relevant to the current American situation. I am not trying to shout an alarm call as I would with a fast spreading forest fire, for example, just helping inform the curious and intelligent but justifiably ignorant as I always try to do on this blog.

Much has been written about two aspects of the best known fascist movements and regimes. First, there have been many books about the most visible leaders of the most visible fascisms, especially about Hitler and Mussolini. These works have focused on the personalities, the families and the psychological antecedents of those leaders and, to a lesser extent, on the leaders’ inner psychology while they were in power. Second, there have been a number of notable studies of the immediate followers that is, on the large numbers of ordinary people who joined explicitly fascist organizations, such as the infamous SS in Germany. There is current resurgence of interest in the long-lived Spanish brand of fascism, under Francisco Franco. (Franco achieved his dictatorship after a bloody civil war. Yet he governed Spain peacefully for more than thirty years.)

To my knowledge, it’s difficult to find much about the more passive supporters of fascist movements, the great bulk of them. This is an important question because the foremost fascist party in history, the Nazi Party, came to power through largely constitutional means. Many ordinary Germans who were probably nice people supported it. It’s difficult to think about it because of so many movies but initially, supporters of fascism are sweet-faced and pure-hearted. It seems to me many Hitler and Mussolini supporters were hoodwinked, in part because they were too lazy to think of the consequences of their choices.

To make a long story short, the Nazis won the largest number a vote in a regular election, assumed government power and proceeded to eliminate democratic rule. Nazism was brought to power by the naivety of some and by the passivity of others. Mussolini’s Fascist Party seized power with considerable popular support. The short-lived but devastating French version of fascism, was formulated and led by a general and war hero to whom the democratically elected representatives of the Republic handed power willingly.

The less known, less flamboyant, but much longer-lasting Portuguese brand of fascism was invented by a mild-mannered Professor of Economics. Although he was installed after a military coup, Salazar was for practical purposes, little opposed by Portuguese civil society for most of his rule. He led Portugal to the lowest economic rank in Europe, pretty much to Third World status. Similarly, fascist movements came to power mostly peacefully in Hungary and in Romania in the late thirties and early forties. After WWII, General Perón of Argentina implemented a successful fascist program with the assent of the broad mass of Argentineans. He was able to pull it off twice. He left the country in a shamble from which it has not recovered, thirty years later.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is a conventional fascist state installed originally by a broad mass movement. It has limited political representation. Economically, it conforms faithfully to the historical fascist experience of initial success followed by a continuous descent into poverty. This, in spite of massive oil revenues. Its apparatus of repression includes draconian laws, summary arrests, trials without protection for the accused, capital punishment for a broad range of non-homicidal offenses, and prison murders. It looks completely familiar though the repression is done in the name of religion.

So, let me correct a common mistake: Fascism is not a political ideology imposed by force from above. It’s a mass movement. It requires both mute consent from some and a high degree of enthusiasm from others.

All fascist regimes ended in blood and disaster or in whimpering economic disgrace because they showed themselves unable to provide more than the bare necessities of life. Given the dramatic ending of the more dramatic fascist regimes, again, such as Hitler’s and Mussolini, we tend to ignore this prosaic truth: Fascism is a recipe for prolonged poverty, at best. That’s when it does not end in total economic ruination as in Germany. The end of Spanish and of Portuguese fascism were negotiated affairs conducted under Army pressures. Spain’s and Portugal’s economies began taking off immediately after the transfers of power to democratically elected government that lacked any economic experience.

Fascist economic programs never work.

In power, fascist parties invariably attempt to concentrate the levers of the national economy in a few government hands. They do so either by nationalizing outright the means of production, or by forcing employers and employees into the same state-controlled organizations. Often, they cynically call these organizations “labor unions,” or “trade unions.” This mode of organizations is technically called “corporatism.” The word does not imply that corporations have power but the reverse: The government or its agents make the main decisions for corporations. Of course, corporatism is the complete negation of capitalism which requires all-around competition. That includes the competition of owners and controllers of capital with workers. All-around competition is inherently messy. It’s the converse of a well-trained army marching in lock-step, for example. Fascists hate disorderliness. They are fussy.

Technical note: Nationalization, the government take-over of a company owned by stockholders almost never requires a majority of the shares of ownership. Under current laws, in the US, the control of 15% of the shares is usually sufficient. Frequently, it takes much less than 15% ownership for a government to dictate a corporation’s policies. That’s because the stock is usually widely dispersed, with the largest stockholders owning a very small % of the total.

Fascists concentrate economic control in the name of orderliness.

Fascist governments and fascist movements detest capitalism.

A fascist movement always preaches national unity. Fascists begin by deploring unpleasant partisanship. In the name of national unity, fascist parties seek to weaken open discussion. They use words such as “bi-partisan,” and “overcoming our differences,” repeatedly and until they appear to describe what is obviously desirable. The American practice of democratic governance, by contrast, is based explicitly on confrontations followed by negotiations, one issue at a time, between often-changing coalitions.

When it comes to power, the fascist party abolishes competing political parties. It may do so by absorbing them or by persecuting them and murdering their members. The same fascist government often practices both forms of elimination. Thus, the powerful German Communist Party pre-1933, ended up partly in Nazi concentration camps, partly in the Nazi SS guard.

Fascist politics require the elimination of competing voices.

Fascist movements are often headed by providential leader, one who presents himself a a savior from a grave crisis, real or imagined ( real or imagined, and sometimes made up). The best known fascist leaders such as Hitler, Mussolini, and Perón, have also been charismatic. This is not absolutely necessary, providential is enough. Salazar of Portugal, a rotund, short man, was as lacking in charisma as anyone. Franco was downright sinister, even to many of his followers. Yet, personal charisma certainly helps a fascist leader achieve power. It helps his credulous followers suspend their sense of criticality.

Fascists profit by the unchecked veneration of leadership and they cultivate it.

Fascist movement are usually not content to suppress dissent. They demand the sincere submission of individual wills to the benefit of a greater collective good. That’s because only inner submissions guarantees a long, unchallenged rule in spite of increasingly bad living conditions. The fascist movement imposes this demand first on movement followers and then, on all citizens.

Fascism places the collective (real or not) much ahead of the individual.

The muzzling of the press, serves both to eliminate the voicing of dissent and to achieve the submission of individual wills. A society with no press though is not the most desirable goal of a fascist government. Fascism seeks to whip up mass enthusiasm. So, the best situation is one where the press speaks in a unified voice in support of the fascist party, or of its leader. What is true of the press narrowly defined, is true of other mass media as well. Thus, Hitler, actively encouraged the development of a German cinema entirely to its devotion. So did the French fascist regime between 1940 and 1942 (with active German Nazi help, by the way.) Enthusiasm helps ordinary people bear burdens and it helps them suppress their pangs of conscience when they witness immoral actions.

Fascism requires the uncritical enthusiasm of many to achieve power, and more so to keep it because of the progressive impoverishment it causes, and also to gain toleration for its bad actions.

In some important historical cases, there is not much muzzling to be done because much the bulk of the mainstream media is already supporting the providential leader, before he comes to power. That was the case in Germany in and, to a lesser extent in Italy. Mussolini himself was a journalist, presumably with ability to manipulate the press rather than suppress it. Having the movie industry endorsing unconditionally a fascist leader would prove invaluable in a contemporary society because of the superior ability of movies to engage the whole person’s emotions along with his intellect. Also, it’s likely today that many more people watch movies than read newspapers. This is especially true of the young.

The intelligentsia, the educated class, or a large fraction of it, invariably plays a role in the ascent or legitimation of fascist ideas. Martin Heidegger, then and later, an important German scholar philosopher, became an active Nazi directly upon Hitler’s accession to power. In the case I know second best, that of France, foremost novelists, such as Drieu la Rochelle, and Louis Ferdinand Céline, were early and ardent supporters of fascism. Marcel Déat, a noted philosophy professor with the best academic credentials turned politician, was one of the most effective collaborators in the Nazi occupation of France. (It’s also true that many more French intellectuals supported the totalitarianism of the Left, instead. So?)

Fascism gains intellectual respectability from the endorsement of conventional luminaries.

Given their insistence on national unity, fascist movements must appear respectable to the political center, the main abode of respectability. The great American sociologist Martin Seymour Lipset famously called fascism, “the extremism of the (political) Center.” Hence, fascists cannot afford to suppress opposition openly by illegal means. Once they are in power, they change the laws so that anything they wish, including the mass murder of the mentally ill and later, the attempted destruction of all Gypsies and all Jews within their reach, is made legal. Before they reach power however, they must appear civilized to avoid unnecessarily alarming ordinary middle-class citizens. In order to pursue both ends, fascist movement employ goons, organized extremists toughs whose actions they are able to condemn when expedient.

Fascist movement commonly employ goon associates to wreck democratic elections by putting unbearable pressure on electoral organs designed for a civil transfer of power. In a normal democracy, it usually takes a small percentage of the votes cast to win an election. Thus, pressure tactics are often successful. Fascist movement sometimes sacrifice their goon wing once they are in power. Hence, Hitler liquidated his strong-arm SA guard in 1934. that is, after he had gained the chancellorship (more or less the presidency), when they had outlived their usefulness as a tool of street terror. Hitler may have had only a hundred or so SA leaders assassinated. The bulk of the SA rank and file learned to stay down. Many were incorporated into the other and rival strong-arm branch of the Nazi movement, the SS.

Fascists use extra-legal methods to gain political power, in addition to legal methods.

Fascist regimes are never conservative. They are revolutionary or radical reformists with an agenda of social justice. These words mean always and everywhere, “equalization.” There is some confusion in history books on this issue for several reasons. First, the head of Spanish fascism, General Franco had a Catholic agenda that looks culturally conservative on the surface. In fact, Franco tried to restore his own archaic version of Catholicism in a country where religious practice had gone down to near-zero levels among the men. Thus, Franco was not trying to conserve anything but to go back to a largely illusory, invented past.

An other source of confusion in that in several European countries and most dramatically, in Germany, big business circles eventually did lend their support to fascists governments. Two reasons for this. First big business leaders were then afraid of a Communism which had not yet demonstrated its incompetence as a solution to anything except the good life. (More below on the relationship between fascism and Communism.) Second, the owners and/or managers of large business enterprises are often natural collectivists. They tend to abhor real, unfettered competition and to prize workplace discipline. Fascist regimes protected them from the one and provided the other to perfection.

I believe that liberal scholars in the West have deliberately fostered the confusion, the idea that conservatism and fascism are two positions on the same axis. I don’t have the space to develop the basis of my belief here. Yet it’s a critical belief I developed during thirty years around liberal and left-wing scholars. Fascists and big business leaders love neatness above all. They detest the give-and-take and the tumultuous competition of the market.

It goes without saying that once they are well established, fascist governments attract the usual conscience-less opportunists, in addition to several breeds of fanatics and sadists. We know roughly what kind of personalities are attracted by the potential to exercise unchecked power. More interesting is the question of what kinds of people tend to become passive followers of fascist movements before they assume power or, in the early stages of their being in power. The question is important again because fascism is not imposed from above. Rather, it comes to be the government through the acquiescence of masses of people no-one would call, “fascist.”

It seems to me that at the basis of this acquiescence lies a combination of dispositional attributes. The first such attribute is probably a tendency to become alarmed, to live in the expectation of frequent or impending disasters. Such inclination will cause some people to throw up their arms from impotence and to search for a radical solution. This makes sense: If the real situation is extraordinarily threatening, the hope that the usual, ordinary solutions will work may vanish. This attitude historically led to an abandonment of institutionally valid politics, such a majority vote, or respect for legality in general, and for individual liberties in particular. Second, since fascism is an impatient recourse to authoritarian solutions, it’s often a psychological return to childhood.  (Almost all children are impatient. ) Under a perceived serious threat, some people will pull harder while others will revert to the days when, in their own personal experience, Mom or Dad made things right. Third, backers of fascism tend to be naive. This is difficult to comprehend because their naivety is often accompanied, in every other respect, by normal intelligence. The naivety I refer to operates as if a corner of their brain shut itself off from regular, adult reality checks. I suspect the part of the brain that becomes activated then is the same that makes us love fairy tales, and fiction in general.  Fourth, and neither least nor last, followers of fascism are almost always burning with a sense of justice. Their requirement for justice is impatient (see above) and of the simplistic, kindergarten variety: Jimmy got two apples; I have to have two apples also, and Charlie must have  two; otherwise, it’s not fair!

In summary: Fascism abhors the idea of the individual will of ordinary citizens. In this, it is the complete moral opposite of classical conservatism which recognizes only the individual. Fascism’s main achievement everywhere and in every epoch, is to make ordinary people poor, dependent and afraid. Fascism is not imposed by force. It wins through the support of the uncritically enthusiastic

This is just and introduction. It’s easy to find good material to read on fascism. Or, you might just decide finally to read the great short book you pretended to have read in high school but never did: George Orwell’s “1984.”

Next: The relationship between historical fascism and communism. (Hint: Same damn thing!)

Adam Smith, Or: The More Things Change…

Brandon Christensen Economics, History , ,

…the more they stay the same.

I have moved on from Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws to Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations in my Honors course on Western thought (it is being taught by a professor who is part of this blogging consortium, in case you are curious; it is part of my daily reading).

Many, many things have stood out to me so far, but I would like to share two of them here. The first thing has to do with the back of the book (I am reading the cheap paperback published by Bantam and edited by Edwin Cannan). The back of the book plainly states:

He argues passionately in favor of free trade, yet stood up for the little guy [emphasis mine – BC].

This mischaracterization of classical liberalism (libertarianism) is not limited to the publishers of Adam Smith’s most popular work, and it frustrates me to no end that free trade and classical liberalism are somehow treated as arguments in favor of a privileged class.  The entire idea that drives classical liberalism is one that is rooted in the dignity of the individual and of the common man.  This is one fight that the libertarian should easily be winning, yet he is not.

The second passage that I would like to share is one that most of us are extremely familiar with, and can perhaps provide a chuckle rather than frustration (I know I laughed):

The annual produce of the land and labour of England […] is certainly much greater than it was, a little more than a century ago […] Though, at present, few people, I believe, doubt of this, yet during this period, five years have seldom passed away in which some book or pamphlet has not been published, written too with such abilities as to gain some authority with the public, and pretending to demonstrate that the wealth of the nation was fast declining, that the country was depopulated, agriculture neglected, manufactures decaying, and trade undone.  Nor have these publications all been party pamphlets, the wretched offspring of falsehood and venality.  Many of them have been written by very candid and very intelligent people; who wrote nothing but what they believed, and for no other reason but because they believed it.

Does this not sound awfully familiar? I could produce a number of links to a number of books and pamphlets on just this topic, but I am sure that readers had their own memories jarred when reading Smith’s keen observation. It looks as if we still have a lot of work to do.

Foreign Policy and Human Ignorance: The Attack on Non-Intervention

Brandon Christensen Current Events , , , , , , , , , ,

I have recently been having more than a few back-and-forth debates with my old sparring partner Jacques Delacroix concerning matters of foreign policy.  The most recent debate has produced a number of great insights and opportunities to further enhance an understanding of foreign affairs.

Against the backdrop of this lively and hopefully continuing debate is the recognition that both of us are extremely ignorant human beings, and that we know far too little about anything to be in a position to command or direct institutions that are not based upon mutual consent and agreement.  The one institution – government – that is widely regarded to be necessary for the use of coercion should have its monopoly on force widely distributed throughout various avenues of power and severely restricted by the use of legal precedent.  This small paragraph essentially sums up the foundation of both libertarian and conservative thought in the United States, and as you read through this essay (or any other writings believed to expound upon conservative or libertarian ideals) I would highly recommend remembering this small but important fact.

Indeed, if I had to pinpoint the exact locus of difference between a Leftist and a conservative/libertarian, it would be this fundamentally opposite view of man that each camp harbors.  Seldom have I met a Leftist  Continue reading →

Great News!

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Economics, Links , , ,

Co-Editor Fred Foldvary has been invited to be a contributor to a blogging symposium about “Libertarianism and Land” put on by the Bleeding Heart Libertarians consortium.  Here are the details:

I’m very pleased to announce that from April 23-27 of 2012, the Bleeding Heart Libertarian blog will be hosting a virtual symposium on the topic of “Libertarianism and Land!”

The five day event will explore different libertarian perspectives on questions pertaining to the moral justification of and limits on property rights in land. Each day will feature a keynote post from one of our main participants. The other main participants will have the opportunity to respond with posts of their own, and the general public is welcome to participate in the comments thread.

We’ve lined up some terrific people for this event. Our main participants will be:

  • Eric Mack – Professor of Philosophy at Tulane University
  • Hillel Steiner – Professor of Political Philosophy at the University of Manchster
  • Fred Foldvary – Lecturer in Economics at Santa Clara University
  • Kevin Carson – Blogger and author
  • David Schmidtz – Professor of Philosophy and Economics at the University of Arizona

More information to follow as the date draws nearer. I hope you’ll join us for what I think will be a fascinating discussion!

Do be sure to tune in to Bleeding Heart Libertarians all that week.  I am sure that many good things will come of this, especially since Fred Foldvary was one of the few people in the world to accurately predict the housing bubble collapse based upon his knowledge and understand of land and its connection to the economy.

Rebellion in Homs

Brandon Christensen Current Events , , , , , , , , ,

As we speak, the brutal dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad is slaughtering his people.  Assad is the son of one of the most notorious dictators of the modern Middle East, Hafez al-Assad, and, like his father, is a member of the socialist Ba’ath Party.  It worth mentioning that Saddam Hussein’s ruling party was also a socialist Ba’ath Party, though I don’t know how closely connected the Iraqi and Syrian parties were.  I just know both parties are Arab nationalist and socialist in nature.

One of our co-bloggers, Jacques Delacroix, has been an outspoken proponent of bombing the Assad regime in the name of democracy lately, and he has not shied away from proclaiming the Iraq War a success, or condemning libertarians (you read that right) to hypocrisy for U.S. refusal to bomb Rwanda during the 1990’s.  He is also a proud supporter of the military occupation of the Balkans by NATO troops and the subsequent partition of Serbia into a plethora of different narco-states, and has not hesitated to heap praise upon President Obama for the recent bombing campaign that led to the removal of Muammar Ghaddafi from power in Libya.

I have addressed Professor Delacroix’s arguments for Libyan intervention here (there is a long dialogue between he and I in the ‘comments’ section).  I have addressed his arguments for bombing Rwanda and occupying the Balkans here (again, there is another long dialogue in the ‘comments’ section).  I have addressed his claims of Iraqi democracy here (it’s in the middle of the dialogue) and recent events in Iraq have, of course, borne out my argument.

I would like to draw attention now to his most recent idea for helping out the rebellion in Syria, and specifically in the city of Homs, close to where Bashar’s father murdered 20,000 in 1982 in the city of Hamah.  This is not embarrass Delacroix or to start a fight, but rather to initiate a dialogue and see where it takes us.  I had to ask him what his plans for Syria would be, since interventionists are infamous for being beholden to their hearts rather than their heads.  From his other blog: Continue reading →

Links From Around the Consortium

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Economics, History, Links , , , , , , , , , ,

Brian Gothberg’s piece on whaling and property rights deserves another look, as he channels Nobel laureate Ronald Coase:

According to a simple version of the Coase (1960) theorem, if the costs of transacting were very low, it would not much matter for the allocation of resources how stock rights were initially assigned. Trading ensures that rights would be put to their highest-valued uses, whatever they might be. If particular whales have more value as a source of pizza toppings than as the subject of a tourist?s photo session, whale-watching companies would be encouraged to sell any rights that they might have to whalers. If, on the other hand, particular whales have great value simply as magnificent creatures whose existence is to be nurtured and cherished, conservation groups would tend to end up with the rights to those whales.

Reality is not always simple, however. Transaction costs are sometimes high. In particular, there is a free-rider problem […]

Co-editor Fred Foldvary opines on how deregulation hurts the economy.  This is perhaps the best piece I have found on regulation and its effects on the economy at large.

I found this piece by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel on President Martin van Buren, whom he calls the ‘American Gladstone’.  If you’re itching for some historical information on one of the American republic’s little known presidents, I recommend you grab a cup of coffee and enjoy.

And, not to be outdone, Jacques Delacroix asks if the French have it better.  He is specifically referring to the debt-to-GDP ratios of France and the U.S.  The whole thing is good throughout, more so because Delacroix professes to hate the French.

Montesquieu Is Back!

Brandon Christensen History , ,

I just finished up Montesquieu for a class on political theory. I know economists will probably roll their eyes, but I liked the readings on the whole. From yet another passage in his magisterial work The Spirit of the Laws:

It is the triumph of liberty when criminal laws draw each penalty from the particular nature of the crime.

If one were to take a step back and examine the laws of the United States today, would one find Montesquieu’s liberty? I am thinking specifically of the drug war, and how there is almost nothing so cruel and opposed to liberty than Washington’s stance on drug use (and abuse).

In another section the book, I found this to be the most compelling summation of classical liberal thought I have ever read (no really):

There are two sorts of poor peoples: some are made so by the harshness of the government, and these people are capable of almost no virtue because their poverty is part of their servitude; the others are poor only because they have disdained or because they did not know the comforts of life, and these last can do great things because this poverty is a part of their liberty.

I can’t think of a better defense of individual liberty than this.  Perhaps I am being too nuanced in my reading of this passage, but it struck a chord with me.  I’d like to hear what sort of passages you have heard in regards to liberty over the years that have a profound impact upon the way you think about the world!

Talking to the Left: the Sword and the Shield

Brandon Christensen Current Events, History , , , ,

I regularly read the Bleeding Heart Libertarians blog, and today’s post has not disappointed, as Matt Zwolinski points his readers in the direction of James Peron’s blog.  In a piece entitled “Why Libertarians Need to Talk to the Left and How to Do It,” Peron has to remind libertarians that they are neither of the Left or the Right:

Classical liberals found much to agree with socialists on and worked with them. There are risks in alliances, one of which is that you may be tempted to compromise principles to appease partners. Classical liberals started doing just that. Instead of liberalizing socialism, the alliance resulted in pushing liberalism in a socialist direction.

This alliance remained in place until the early 1900s. During this time, classical liberalism waned, losing its intellectual power and appeal. In the end, the progressives not only destroyed liberalism but made off with its name as well.

Just as classical liberalism ended up being corrupted by the Left, the modern libertarian movement has Continue reading →

Some Possible Consequences of a U.S. Government Default

Jeffrey Rogers Hummel Economics, History, Politics , ,

My Econ Journal Watch article on Treasury default is now available online. It appears in a special issue that is devoted to various articles with differing perspectives on the probability and consequences of a U.S. government default.

America’s War of 1812

foldvary History , , , ,

I am anti-war, but if war there must be, then the people should be honest about its financing, and pay for the war while it goes on rather than pushing the finance to future generations.  The War in Iraq was fiscally dishonest in that the costs were not in the official federal budget, and it was paid for by borrowing.  The World Wars and Civil War were also paid for in large part by with war bonds and money creation.  As this year is its bicentennial, it is worth looking at how the War of 1812 was financed.

At first, Congress doubled the tariff to pay for the war, but since trade shrunk during the war, tariff revenue shrank rather than grew.  The US Constitution empowers Congress to levy a direct tax if it is apportioned by state population.  So Congress levied a direct tax on property, mostly on real estate.  The states could take a 15 percent discount if they collected the taxes themselves and transferred the revenues to the federal government.  Most states took advantage of this, which spared the federal government the expense of assessing the real estate and taxing the landowners.  Another federal tax was levied in 1815 to pay for the war of 1812, and then the federal property tax terminated.

Adam Smith wrote that wars should be paid for by taxes rather than borrowing, so that the people would not favor a war unless it was needed such as to defend against foreign aggression.  If the War in Iraq had been finance by taxes, it would most likely not have started!

The use of real estate taxes for the War of 1812 is a lesson for public finance.  If taxes there must be, then instead of a national sales tax or flat-rate income tax, the federal government could tax the states rather than the people.  Let the states pay, at their option, their share of the budget based on their share of population.  This works best if there is a federal tax on land value rather than on income or goods.  If all states did this, there would not have to be any federal tax bureaucracy.

Unfortunately, as Hegel observed, people and governments do not learn the right lessons from history.  At least libertarian candidates should learn from the War of 1812.  Two hundred years ago, the federal government was able to pay for national defense without an intrusive income tax.  We don’t need stinking taxes on wages and goods.  Let the states finance the federal government.  Let the states then have whatever public finance system they want. Political power would then flow back from the federal to the state level, and this decentralization would be good for liberty.  Remember the War of 1812!

Notes From Libya

Brandon Christensen Current Events, History, Liberty , , , ,

Daniel Larison and Jason Sorens have alerted me to the most recent updates on Libya’s situation.  In case you are wondering, it is not good.  In fact, things look a lot worse than they did under Ghaddafi.  From the BBC:

UN human rights chief Navi Pillay meanwhile raised concerns about detainees being held by revolutionary forces, saying there were some 8,500 prisoners in about 60 centres.

“The majority of detainees are accused of being Gaddafi loyalists and include a large number of sub-saharan, African nationals,” she said.

“The lack of oversight by the central authority creates an environment conducive to torture and ill treatment.”

No good can come from this.  Libya is an artificial state created by European colonialists, and the Libyan factions that managed to dupe the West into doing their dirty work for them will now be competing for the power structure left by the Ghaddafi regime.

Indeed, not to brag or boast or anything, but in a dialogue with co-blogger Jacques Delacroix I correctly predicted what would happen in post-Ghaddafi Libya:

I still think we’ll see bloodbaths because most naive factions see centralized power as THE way to achieve stability. The not-so-naive factions also see centralized power as an attractive option. As long as everyone is competing for power at the center of these states, we’ll continue to see bloodshed and instability. I have yet to see anything, unfortunately, to suggest otherwise. The mass graves may stop for a time, but without a game plan that involves smaller states and more trade/less aid, they’ll be back. No matter how many times we bomb a dictator from his palace.

Instead of trying to rebuild the Libyan state, as the UN human rights chief suggests (why am I not surprised?), the West should try to work with Russia and China and other North African polities to try and carve Libya up into smaller states that are loosely affiliated politically but tightly connected economically.

Now, being right all the time is one thing, but getting people to think more clearly is quite another.

Secular Theocracy Part 2

Brandon Christensen Current Events, History, Links , , , , , ,

One of our co-bloggers, Jacques Delacroix, has suggested that I pass the following argument along.  It has been written by the founder and president of the Independent Institute, a highly respected think tank in Oakland, California.  From Delacroix’s blog:

Below is the link to the second part of an article by David Theroux I posted a couple of weeks ago. David Theroux is the founder of the Independent Institute and its current president. I have major differences with the Institute about American foreign policy but Theroux is well worth reading anyway.

The second link below is to the whole article with footnotes.
Part 2:
http://blog.independent.org/2012/01/12/secular-theocracy-the-foundations-and-folly-of-modern-tyranny-part-2/

The full article with footnotes is here:
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=3206

I remember browsing through Part 1 of Mr. Theroux’s essay (thanks to Delacroix’s heads-up), but I will have to read them both when school lets up.  If you have any thoughts on the argument, feel free to post away in the ‘comments’ section!

Rainy Day

Brandon Christensen Links , , , , , , , , , ,

Here is a quick list of links around the web from our bloggers at the consortium:

Fred Foldvary weighs in on the 2011 Nobel Prize winners in Economics

Some Possible Consequences of a U.S. Government Default by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel

One of Jacques Delacroix’s famous short stories (and this co-editor’s personal favorite)

Brian Gothberg introduced me to Colossus: The Forbin Project at a summer seminar in 2009

I hope everybody stays dry out there!

Ron Paul’s Power Problem

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Liberty , , , , , , , ,

I first came across libertarianism through the 2008 presidential campaign of Ron Paul.  Prior to his campaign, I considered myself a left-wing, conspiratorial anarchist of sorts.  Over the years I have tried to steep myself in a better understanding of what it means to be free.  In 2009, I attended summer seminars put on by three different classical liberal think tanks: the Independent Institute (where I came across both Fred’s and Brian’s arguments), the Foundation for Economic Education, and the Institute for Humane Studies.

The past four years have also led me to distance myself from some of Dr. Paul’s policy prescriptions, including his views on border security, international trade agreements, and amending the constitution to eliminate birthright citizenship.  None of these policies are persistent with the liberty movement’s arguments for individualism, internationalism, and private property.

Nevertheless, I think that Jon Fasman’s (somewhat) recent post on the Labor Day forum held by the American Principles Project and hosted by Senator Jim DeMint, Congressman Steve King, and conservative/libertarian pundit Robert A. George highlights why I still respect Ron Paul immensely and why I am a libertarian: Continue reading →

Libertarianism and Republican Virtue

Brandon Christensen History, Liberty , , , , , ,

I am short on time and effort these days, so I apologize for bringing up my school readings on the blog. I have moved on from Locke’s Two Treatises to Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws.  This passage in particular has stood out to me so far:

When Sulla wanted to return liberty to Rome, it could no longer be accepted; Rome had but a weak remnant of virtue, and as it had ever less, instead of reawakening after Caesar, Tiberius […] Nero, and Domitian, it became ever more enslaved; all the blows were struck against tyrants, none against tyranny (pg. 22).

The decay of the American republic has been a worry of learned men since the agreement first took place.  My big question here is not so much about decay or liberty, but rather what virtue is.  I have some conception of it, but any sort of clarification would be great.

Montesquieu treats the desires and defenses of manufacturing, commerce, wealth, finance and luxury as the end of virtue and the beginnings of ambition, which leads to despotism and tyranny.

Given that most libertarians are also republicans (small “r”), how do we go about explaining that the freedom to pursue material goods is what is actually compatible with democratic government?  Was Montesquieu attacking a straw man?