Author: Brandon Christensen

The Holy Roman Empire was…

Brandon Christensen History, Law, Liberty , , , ,

…_______________ (fill in the blank!).

I’ve been meaning to link to a fascinating article in the Economist on the parallels between the Holy Roman Empire and the European Union, but travels, getting ready for school, and other stuff has gotten in the way.

Among the gems:

The empire faced the same problem as today’s EU, only worse. The EU currently has 27 member states. During its final 150 years, the empire had more than 300 territories (the number varied). Should each member get one vote? If so, any hillbilly could block progress. Or should votes be weighted by territory? If so, big princes could bully little ones. Should decisions be taken by simple majority, qualified majority or unanimity? The empire answered these questions as the EU does: with a characteristically decisive it-all-depends.

Do read the whole thing.

My only critique of the article is that it misses a huge piece of the puzzle: the presence of the US military, as a conquering power, on the continent. As long as Uncle Sam is around, Europeans don’t have to worry about descending into yet another war. None of them will ever admit this, though. Europeans would rather spend their time ignoring this point while simultaneously assaulting the very political and economic system that enables the US to provide for Europe’s security.

I’ve written about this before, but due to the inevitable fiscal constraints of empire I think American military policy towards Europe needs to go one of two ways: 1) either withdraw our troops completely or 2) start implementing trade policies that would make living, working, and traveling between the US and Europe much, much easier. Like moving to Louisiana from Languedoc should be as easy as moving from California to Connecticut.

Taking the second route would pay for itself and much, much more. Unfortunately, there are too many isolationists and too many reactionaries (mostly on the Left) on both sides of the pond that would oppose such a policy no matter how much it would benefit themselves and everybody around them. The second route might be the one we need to take. Both, as I mentioned, are going to have to be necessary if the US is going to get its fiscal house in order.

Around the Web

Brandon Christensen Economics, Links , , , ,
  1. What if there really were mutants, X-Men style?
  2. Adam Smith’s anti-imperialism. Grab a cup of tea or coffee.
  3. More environmental destruction in China. We saw the same type of thing happen in eastern Europe and Russia during the Cold War. This destruction is also rampant in post-colonial states that have largely adopted a Leninist approach to state-building. This may just be part of a harsh learning curve that comes with economic development. After all, the property rights regimes that the West now has in place took hundreds of years to develop, and they could all be much, much better. On the other hand, it seems as if Beijing is undertaking many projects without even thinking about the consequences, much less the claims to property by its citizens that are already in place.
  4. Has the Fed Been a Failure? If you read one thing this weekend, let it be this.
  5. More on militias and the second amendment, by –Rick (check out his blog here)

From the Comments: Militias and the Second Amendment

Brandon Christensen Current Events, History, Law , ,

Longtime reader (and blogger) Hank Moore has been on a roll lately. In response to a condescending (and fact-free) comment made by a Leftist concerning gun rights, Hank responds with this:

That is very interesting that you would bring up the militia. Were you sincere and knowledgeable on this matter you might know that THIS, the militia, more properly to keep the militia from becoming a rabble and to circumvent the need for a standing army, was the main point of the Second Amendment. Not gun ownership.

The right to own whatever you could legally acquire without causing harm to someone by way of that acquisition was (and is) already an inalienable right, protected not only by the Constitution’s very structure (negative law) but by the Ninth and in a sense Fourth and Tenth Amendments as well.

The Second Amendment threw in that much-hyped line about the right to bear arms precisely so people like you wouldn’t interpret “well-regulated militia” as anything other than what it was (FYI, it had absolutely nothing to do with “conquering the frontier”). That is, a group of local men banding together when the need arose to protect what’s theirs (including their guns). But that is exactly what you have done. Misinterpreted it. But not because the language of that particular Amendment is so unclear (although I do wonder if their is a language barrier between collectivists and people who like to mind their own business, and no I don’t refer here to that obnoxious limey Piers Morgan’s pretentious accent), but because as a whole, the document the Constitution has fallen into disuse. In the era of positive law and positive rights, why even have one?

The answer is so that you (the politician or the lobby or the activist) can appeal to people who know deep down that arbitrary power is morally reprehensible, and thus bitterly cling to some semblance of a social contract; but who still have stupid ignorant ideas (by this I mean gun-control) that they want to shove down everyone else’s throat. Oh, and our founders wouldn’t know what you meant by military style weapons. Do you mean the military-style weapons that they used to defeat the British and would have been mercilessly slaughtered without? Or do you mean today’s military-style weapons that only certain classes of benign uniformed government-employees are permitted to own under your reading of the Second Amendment?

Anybody out there care to answer Hank’s questions? Well done! Here is Hank’s blog one more time. Do check it out.

Sharon Presley’s Newest Projects

Brandon Christensen Current Events

So, I have been begging Dr. Sharon Presley to blog with us here at NotesOnLiberty for about a year now, and largely for one big reason:

She is a rock star within the libertarian movement. She has been an anarchist and an individualist feminist since before I was born, and she has always pointed out to a largely male-dominated quadrant of American politics (the libertarian one) that the movement has been shooting itself in the foot by not being more inclusive to women. She’s right, of course. Most of the women that I talk to about politics (which is a small sample, I usually try to stay on target) think libertarianism is bad ass once it has been explained to them in a coherent, progressive manner (like we do here at NotesOnLiberty).

Since she has been an activist for so long, she has a long CV filled with top-notch editorials and journal articles, as well as a number of books (which you can find to the right of this post).

She also has a different academic background than most libertarians, which is something I can appreciate as an anthropology major. A psychologist by training, Dr. Presley, has spent a lifetime helping people free themselves from various types of control.

Right now she is currently the managing editor of Free Voices: A Magazine of Anarchist Thought, the executive director (and co-founder) of the Association of Libertarian Feminists, and has recently launched another magazine project called The Free Woman Magazine. Needless to say, she is a very busy woman and I certainly understand if she doesn’t have the time for our humble blog, but it would be awesome if/when she join(s) us! In the meantime, do be sure to check out her other projects, as they are vital to maintaining the spontaneous and decentralized nature of the libertarian movement.

PS: here is a great article that she recently linked to on her Facebook page.

Around the Web: Leftist Edition

Brandon Christensen Links

1. Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit. David Graeber takes a swipe at the discipline of economics. Does he have any valid arguments, or is it all hearsay?

2. The Red and the Black. This is an insightful essay by a doctoral candidate in history over at Cornell. His thesis: profit is the motor of capitalism. What would it be under socialism?

3. What happens when a right-libertarian takes a gander at left-libertarianism? An insightful essay, that’s what. Among the gems:

Now, a note: there are two kinds of things that don’t make sense:

1. pure crap
2. things that make sense but use a framework that’s a bit more nuanced than the one you’re used to.

 

4. Its Time for Gulf Colonialism. No summary of Leftist contributions would be complete without an ode to anti-imperialism. This one is short, sweet and to the point.

From the Comments: Red State Blue State Edition

Brandon Christensen Comments, Current Events, Politics , , , ,

Now that I have a trusty laptop again, I can answer questions and discuss comments a bit more efficiently. Hank Moore asked the following question in response to a link I provided on Left-wing secessionist sentiment:

That California piece was good. What’s your take on the whole red states mooching off the blue states thing? I keep hearing this whenever the secession question comes up. Those few libs who don’t want to confiscate Texas from the Texans say “good riddance, you’re a tax burden anyways!”

It doesn’t quite fit into my version of the conventional wisdom for some reason. [1] Are the blue states paying more than their “fair share” simply because they are underrepresented and thus the fault is the constitution, or [2] is it because they already have large populations they naturally attract big businesses in spite of the fact they aren’t as friendly to free enterprise, and because of this there is more tax revenue to be collected? [3] And then there’s the fact that some red states may in fact still be feeling the effects of being on the losing side of the Civil War (scorched earth warfare, unconditional surrender, reconstruction). These are the three possible explanations that fit with my way of thinking. Maybe its just that I’m cherry-picking “evidence” for a conclusion I’ve already arrived at.

Any thoughts?

All three of Hank’s reasons are good, but I’d like to zoom in on the last one about the Civil War. I think has the gist of why many red states are poorer than blue states, but with a couple of tweaks. Continue reading →

Santa Brought Me A Laptop

Brandon Christensen Current Events

…so expect more posts from yours truly this year. In case you guys didn’t know, I was robbed over the summer while living on the streets and attending summer school. It was a tough situation, but I’m on track to graduate debt-free from school, so boo-freaking-hoo for me.

I hope you guys stick around for another year. We launched this consortium just under a year ago and we’re excited and proud of what has become of it so far.

Take a look at the recommendations page, as it just received (another) overhaul. Also be on the lookout for more bloggers this year. We’ve got a bunch of academic economists, a historian, a law professor and an academic psychologist-turned-anarcho-feminist who have expressed interest in our humble project.

The most popular blogger (at least in terms of views) was Dr. Delacroix. Here are three of our readerships favorites (again, at least according to views):

  1. Guns and Truth
  2. Pure Racism and Chinese Dining
  3. Karl Marx Was Right (Pretty Much)

Rounding out the Top 5 Most-Read Blog Posts were “Celebrating Chevron’s Profits” by Dr. Gibson and “Colonialism: Myths and Realities” by yours truly.

I’d also like to extend my sincere gratitude to Hank Moore for helping the consortium to launch its Facebook page. Without his support we wouldn’t be where we are today.

I’d like to thank everybody who has chimed in and added his or her own two cents as well. I know you certainly help me flesh out my thoughts on everything. Here’s to an amazing 2012 and a rollicking 2013.

Around the Web

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Links
  1. The Case to Keep Dividing Africa
  2. The Cato Institute recently held its 30th annual monetary conference, and the Economist reports
  3. Gun Control’s Racist Origins
  4. The Past is Gone: Why Liberals Should Rethink States’ Rights
  5. Republicans Must Get Real on Foreign Policy

Leaving the Left: Three Dangerous Features I Left Behind

Brandon Christensen Current Events , , , , , , ,

The blatant hypocrisy, the obstinate ignorance and the penchant for authoritarianism within the American Left today are the three reasons why I left the Left in the first place. Riffing off of my recent post on Leftist thought and its major deficiencies, I thought I’d point out a few more recent examples.

Remember, Leftists by and large don’t realize that what they are doing is a) hypocritical, b) ignorant, and c) authoritarian. It is, as Brian Gothberg pointed out, more of a cognitive block than anything. However, there is really no excuse for this cognitive dissonance once it has been explained. Perhaps I need to work on doing a better job of this, but I suspect, as does Dr. Delacroix, that most of it is simply obstinate ignorance and a failure by Leftists to actually read what their opponents are writing.

Writing over at EconLog, David Henderson points out the blatant hypocrisy of the Left in regards to freedom of speech. He draws readers to the attention of calls for solidarity by Leftist academics blogging at Crooked Timber (it’s to the right, on our blog roll, and has been for quite some time) for one of their own after he was targeted by Right-wing groups for his vile thoughts on the NRA’s CEO (a Mr. Wayne LaPierre). Henderson writes: Continue reading →

No Upticks in Mass Shootings…

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Liberty, Politics

…so, what is to be done?

Brad Plumer of the Washington Post has a graph up on mass shootings:

Mass Shootings in the US 1980-2010

Plumer explains:

Mother Jones found that 24 of the last 62 worst mass shootings have taken place in the past seven years alone. That seemed like a clear increase.

But is this the right way of looking at things? Over at Reason, Jesse Walker criticizes my post and points to data from James Allan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern, who has found that there’s been no discernible increase in mass shootings since 1980 […]

Why the difference? Fox is looking at all mass shootings involving four or more victims — that’s the standard FBI definition. Mother Jones, by contrast, had a much more restrictive definition, excluding things like armed robbery or gang violence. They were trying to focus on spree killings that were similar in style to Virginia Tech or Aurora or Newtown. The definitions make a big difference: On Fox’s criteria, there’s no uptick. On Mother Jones’, there’s a clear increase […]

So, duly noted. One final point, though: Even if mass shootings are simply staying constant, and not actually increasing, that might still be of interest given that the overall rate of gun violence and homicide in the United States appears to be on the downswing.

So, not only have mass shootings not increased, but violence overall in the US is decreasing as well.

Every time something horrific happens, be it mass shootings, a collapse of the financial sector, a terrorist attack, whatever, there are calls from the people for the government to “do something.” These calls do not emanate from the Left alone.

The Austrian (and Austrian School) economist Ludwig von Mises recognized this nearly a century ago. I understand why there are calls from people for their government to “do something” after something awful happens. I understand why politicians respond to such calls. I always feel awful when I read about things like some psychopath gunning down little children at school or people losing their homes in an economic downturn.

Also, I always feel a little bit awkward standing athwart these calls waiving cold, hard evidence around that states disasters are extremely rare, and that passionate calls for more government intervention in our lives when there is absolutely no need for it is an invitation for more trouble, not less.

(h/t Tyler Cowen)

On another note, Pierre Lemieux and Jacques Delacroix have comments on guns and psychopaths. Both are worth reading.

Around the Web

Brandon Christensen Economics, Links

  1. Seven Sins of our Forced Education

  2. Growth: Markets Broad and Deep
  3. Going Off the Rawls. A philosophical conversation with David Gordon.

  4. Learning to Love Volatility

  5. Schools for Slavery

Guns and Debate: An Issue Within An Issue?

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Liberty, Politics

I’ve been making the rounds on Facebook in regards to the inevitable catcalls for more gun control. Two things have jumped out at me.

1) The people who are calling for more gun control (whatever that means) are not very good with numbers. I suspect this ignorance is of the obstinate kind.

For example, when I politely pointed out to a friend-of-a-friend that, statistically-speaking, gun-related violence amounts to almost nothing, he responded with a half-assed blog post by a DC policy wonk with a title that read something like “9 Things You Need to Know About Gun Control.” There were at least 12 things on the list. Continue reading →

The Israeli-Palestinian Mess: Some Historical Context

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

I just finished up an anthropology course on the Middle East as a culture area, and for reasons beyond my explanatory power, I got to look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a bit more in depth. A brief narrative of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict follows.

The historical context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can best be understood by breaking it up into three separate but interrelated segments: the collapse of cosmopolitan empires, the emergence of nation-states, and seismic shifts in demography that accompanied collapse and rebirth.

The post-World War I era can be defined largely in terms of the collapse of the cosmopolitan Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires. The spectacular collapse of these centuries-old empires has been attributed to the policies of democrats in western Europe and the President of the United States at the time, Woodrow Wilson, by a number of historians. The underlying idea being promoted by Western elites for central and eastern Europe was that of national self-determination, a belief that each ethnic and linguistic group should have the right to govern itself within a free and democratic state. The movement was intended to break the back of “despotism” in eastern and central Europe (as well as the Near East), but the policies unleashed instead a hotheaded nationalism amidst pockets of power vacuums prevalent throughout the now-dead empires. Continue reading →

Finals Week (with an update 12/9)

Brandon Christensen Liberty

Thanks for your patience, folks. I have about four half-finished mini essays just begging to be finished over the break. Stay tuned!

Update (12/9): I’ve been sinking my teeth into this book on and off again. It’s about the idea of Europe and how it has been floated around for millenia. I think the essays on Dutch republicanism and Kantian federalism are fantastic. I sometimes wish I wasn’t going to law school. Then I could pursue a dream of researching and teaching about federalism and all its varieties for the rest of my life. Now THAT would be cool.

Alas…

Anyway, the book has some insightful essays by historians, anthropologists, political scientists and philosophers. Look it up next time your hanging out in an academic library!

Abe Lincoln and the Historical Record

Brandon Christensen History

A new article is out on Abe Lincoln’s plans to ship former slaves to some part of the world’s tropical regions rather than make them U.S. citizens. From the New York Times:

But stepping back a moment, the assumption that Lincoln must have shunned colonization by 1865, and that the debate revolves around identifying its time of death, betrays a misplaced burden of proof and an incredibly narrow argumentative scope.

We can be defense lawyers, or we can be historians.

The whole article is fascinating, and I know that there are a few of you who read Tom DiLorenzo and are eager to get some dirt on Honest Abe.

The author of the piece is an Englishman who specializes in 19th century American history. For some reason that seems weird to me.