Author: Brandon Christensen

Republican Presidential Primaries

Brandon Christensen Liberty , , ,

I don’t have any witty comments or analysis because I have not been watching any of the debates or following them with any vigor. I heard Romney won both Michigan and Arizona last night, which means he’ll probably get the nomination.

What are the chances that he will have a smooth ride through the GOP convention? I think Santorum and Gingrich will fall in line and support him, but Ron Paul is quietly sweeping up delegates and I think he is going to make a major stink at the convention. He will not get too radical because of his son’s future in the Party, but he’s going to force Romney to make some concessions.

I think Paul will press him on a number of issues, but Romney will only capitulate to the Federal Reserve argument Paul so often speaks about. Gold Commission 2013?

None of this matters, of course. Obama will be re-elected. From a pragmatic point of view: he has killed bin Laden, waged a successful air war against a now-dead dictator in the Middle East, and not managed to get us into any more quagmires (yet). Continue reading →

Fear and Loathing in The Wealth of Nations

Brandon Christensen Liberty , ,

I’m plowing through Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations for the first time this quarter, and I recently came upon this sociological gem:

Fear is almost all cases a wretched instrument of government, and ought in particular never to be employed against any order of men who have the smallest pretensions to independency.  To attempt to terrify them, serves only to irritate their bad humor, and to confirm in them an opposition which more gentle usage perhaps might easily induce them […]

I count this as a sociological gem because of its insights into how people with strong libertarian streaks are apt to view their government.  If there is one thing that a libertarian despises most, it may   just be the pretension of governments everywhere to demonize and demagogue a foreign people with the use of fear.

In fact, our co-blogger Jacques Delacroix has continually used this disgusting tactic to justify the violent use of force overseas to attain what he sees as benevolent ends: that of implementing democratic regimes throughout the post-colonial world.  Indeed, he writes: Continue reading →

Links From Around the Consortium

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

Over at the Progress Report, Dr. Fred Foldvary writes on how we can extirpate poverty from the world.

Jacques Delacroix calls out Ron Paul’s statement about Iran being surrounded by the U.S. government.

Professor Jeffrey Rogers Hummel tackles the issue of slavery head-on in a Freeman article.

Brian Gothberg writes about the potential technology has to start protecting the ocean’s resources through property rights.

And our newest blogger, Dr. Ninos Malek, defends stereotyping (defending the undefendable is why I love being a libertarian!).

Iraq, War, and the Litmus Test of Rationality: Ron Paul Edition

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Politics, Religion , , , , , , ,

The Republican Presidential debates have been on TV for the past, what?, five or six months now, and I am proud to admit that I haven’t watched a single one of them.  By definition I am a left-leaning libertarian who thinks that free markets, limited government, and a humble foreign policy are the best tools to achieve social harmony, prosperity, and world peace.

So I had basically made up my mind on who I was going to vote for prior to the whole campaign season: Gary Johnson.  Now, co-editor Fred Foldvary has some very pertinent critiques of Governor Johnson’s tax policy proposals, but on the whole, I still think he is by far the best man to get my vote.

Because Gary Johnson does not have any baggage, a solid record while in office, and a personality that does not attract the worst of the worst to his message, he was essentially dead on arrival when he announced his Presidential campaign.  The media and its horse race would have none of it.  So he bolted the Republican Party and is now fighting for the Libertarian Party’s nomination.

I think this is a big mistake.  I think he should have stayed in the Republican Party and planned ahead for 2016.  Now, he is going to be the next Ron Paul, who also bolted the Republican Party to run as a Libertarian in 1988.  That move has cost him politically, and it is a shame that Johnson was too hot-headed with the national Party apparatus’ dismissal of his campaign. Continue reading →

Hillary Clinton on Somalia: More of the Same

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

Hillary Clinton has recently called for more effort on the part of the West in the War on Terror’s Horn of Africa region by issuing threats of sanctions and more military troops in the region recently (ht John Glaser).

The threats of sanction, which libertarians consider an act of war, have been issued to states who don’t cooperate with the West in their efforts to eradicate al Shabaab, an Islamic group linked to al Qaeda that controls much of the southern territory of Somalia and, until recently, sections of Mogadishu as well.

The underlying argument put forth by the West is that the Somali state itself, a creation of the West, needs to be upheld and maintained by an inclusive, democratic regime in order for stability, prosperity and an end to terrorist activities to take place in the Horn of Africa.

This is tactic is incredibly wrong, and instead of accomplishing the West’s stated aims, actually contributes to its continued failure. Continue reading →

Yes, Jacques Delacroix, Iran IS Surrounded

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

Over at his other blog, Jacques Delacroix has made it a habit of trying very, very hard to discredit the facts that Ron Paul spouts during the televised Presidential debates (I don’t think he has bothered to read any of the relevant literature that Ron Paul has put out over the years, especially on foreign policy).

This is fair enough, and, as a senior citizen (what else could it be?), Ron Paul is prone to sometimes babbling on out of turn about unrelated topics or topics that the media establishment deems unimportant (like free trade, sound money, and honest friendship).

Anyway, Dr. Delacroix wonders aloud in a recent piece about Ron Paul’s statement concerning the 45 U.S. military bases surrounding Iran.  He writes (in a tone none too condescending):

Reminder: I have said before that Ron Paul lives in an imaginary world as far as international policies are concerned.

The “imaginary world”, is, of course, referring to Paul’s argument that the U.S. is not a benevolent actor in international affairs but rather a bellicose, juvenile world power struggling to assert its primacy across the globe.  This could be accomplished if it were not for the constitutional restraints placed upon the executive branch, of course, but I am digressing.

Here is a map of the bases and airports that the United States uses for military purposes in the Arabian Gulf:  Continue reading →

Cannibalism and the Imperial Urge

Brandon Christensen History, Liberty , , , , , , ,

I am writing this from my phone during lecture, so if my grammar or my tone seems hasty, you have been warned! (Update: I found a computer to sit down at and write)

The lecture I am enjoying at this very moment has to do with the readings I was assigned over the holiday weekend, and I am a careful reader so I am not too worried about missing out on a key insight. What I would like to do is hearken back the early 15th century and the time of the Spanish attempt to conquer the major polity of the Mexico Valley: the Triple Alliance aka the Aztecs (I don’t want to get in to the specifics of why I think that the term Aztec sucks, but I will just quickly note that it sucks and has been an extremely detrimental title to the memes associated with pre-Columbian New World polities).

One of the major justifications for the Conquest was the need to rid the New World of cannibalism, which all nations practiced in the New World. The extent of this practice varied from nation to nation, of course. The Triple Alliance was perhaps the worst of the worst in this regard.  The people of the Inca Empire did not indulge very often, and the decentralized polities associated with much of the New World rarely had the elaborate practices associated with the Triple Alliance (the Mayans are an exception to this, but at the time of the Spanish arrival, the Mayans were extremely decentralized, and thus much, much harder to conquer, but that is another blog subject for another day).

Cannibalism in the New World was largely associated with war and the State, and the elaborate ceremonies of human sacrifices practiced by the priests of the Triple Alliance were loathed as much as they were feared.  So when the Spanish arrived upon the continent of the New World, cannibalism was widely being practiced not only by a not-yet-known-but-definitely-heard-about Triple Alliance, but also by the neighboring peoples of the Triple Alliance.

Now, to be fair to the Spanish (and Europeans in general), the practice of cannibalism had largely disappeared from their culture, and from the cultures surrounding European society (think of the Turks and the Barbary polities; do you think Islam permits the eating of human flesh?), so when the Spanish saw this practice they were rightly horrified as well as disgusted.

Yet, was cannibalism itself a justification for the inevitable slaughter and slavery that was to be the Indians’ lot? Continue reading →

President’s Day

Brandon Christensen Current Events, History , ,

Ever notice how the most famous and revered Presidents are the ones that have led us to war, or were responsible for massive public works projects that turned out to be more harmful than good?

Kinda weird, huh?

My highest ranking Presidents would have to be the unknown ones, simply because they must have done a good job if their names aren’t mentioned much in the historical records.  Libertarians like to cite Grover Cleveland and John Tyler as good Presidents, but these two didn’t do much for African-Americans and Native Americans.

However, as far as the old adage goes: “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, these guys stack up very well comparatively with other Presidents, especially the post-war ones.

If you have a couple of favorite Presidents in mind, feel free to share them and also explain a little bit about why you think they deserve your esteem.  Personally, I think the worst President was Franklin D. Roosevelt, followed by Lyndon B. Johnson and George W. Bush.

War is the health of the state, and between these three Presidents the state grew immensely.  Bastard tyrants, all three of ’em!

P.S. the New Yorker just profiled Congressman Ron Paul.

From the Comments

Brandon Christensen Comments, Current Events, Economics, Liberty , , , , , ,

Co-editor and Economics professor (who happened to predict the economic crisis of 2008 in a book a year before it happened) Fred Foldvary makes a very important point regarding some of the common fallacies associated with trade deficits and tariffs:

The reason the US has a big trade deficit is that US taxes make exports more expensive. Most other countries have big value added taxes, which get subtracted from export prices. WTO rules allow for the deduction of VAT but not of income taxes from exports. If the US shifted from income taxes to either VAT or LVT (land value taxation), the trade deficit would largely disappear.

But given current taxes and WTO rules and the trade deficit, high tariffs on imports would destroy US comparative advantages, artificially boosting high-cost industries. The US would have to abandon the WTO, and other countries would retaliate with tariffs against the US.

If California has a big trade deficit with New York, would a tariff against imports from NY help? If not, then a tariff against China is likewise counterproductive. The law of comparative advantage works regardless of borders. I have a big trade deficit with my local grocery store; I import their food and they get no products from me, only a money asset. Would a tariff on the food store’s exports help me? Sure I would buy less of their food, but I want their food, and I want it cheap!

Two things I would like to draw attention to in this great piece of insight: 1) income taxes are horrendous and 2) the avowed internationalism of the freedom message.  I would like to repeat a basic insight that Dr. Foldvary provides to readers: “If California has a big trade deficit with New York, would a tariff against imports from NY help? If not, then a tariff against China is likewise counterproductive. The law of comparative advantage works regardless of borders.”

One of the best ways to tell a “real” libertarian from a “fake” libertarian is the defense of internationalism that is given for any argument.  Nationalism is a vulgar and often extremely harmful way of thinking and has destroyed countless lives and restricted countless others from attaining affluence and dignity.  It feeds the growth of the State at the expense of the individual and contributes to malice in foreign affairs.  The concept of international trade as it is spelled out by Dr. Foldvary is especially important.  Also remember, if you have any questions regarding subjects, don’t hesitate to ask.  This is a blog run (mostly) by intellectuals, and one of the goals of this consortium is to help educate the intelligent layman on sophisticated subjects.

My prompt regarding democracy also produced a number of great insights, and so far I have found subconch‘s input to be the most thought-provoking:

“The individual is core in a democracy, and the process should not be beyond his reach, or overwhelm him so, that he may not select his representative by reason, or further recognize intrusion on his or his neighbor’s liberty. The people are the ultimate check and balance on the system, but if they be separated from it, the scales will continually tip toward tyranny.”

I highly recommend reading the whole ‘comments’ section.

Democracy: Warts and All

Brandon Christensen Liberty , ,

I am currently writing a paper for a political philosophy course on my ideal state (we are reading Plato’s Republic).  I have made it a democratic one, despite some serious misgivings.

I realize that the people can be easily fooled by sophists and schemers, but in the end, I think that democracy represents very well the dignity of the common man.  In fact, I am tempted to think that democracy is the best form of government, despite Churchill’s lament.

How democracy is structured is probably more important than if it is the best form of government.  Our federal republic is pretty good as it stands (unless you are Ruth Bader Ginsberg, of course; according to her, South Africa has a much better constitution than our own), but there have been some serious flaws discovered over the centuries.

Can you name a few?  The compromise on slavery and the inability of the Supreme Court to enact the 14th Amendment to protect black Americans from Jim Crow laws both stand out prominently in my view.  Furthermore, can any of you come up with a better way to utilize the democratic process that is so integral to the dignity of the individual?

More Great News!

Brandon Christensen Current Events , , ,

As many of you know, Dr. Jacques Delacroix has begun posting to the blog. Dr. Delacroix has a PhD in Sociology from Stanford and his work has been published in the discipline’s top-flight journals. Prior to retiring, he taught at Santa Clara University’s Leavey School of Business alongside co-editor Fred Foldvary. You can read more about him here.

We also have another new addition to the consortium as well: Dr. Ninos Malek, an Economics Professor at San Jose State, De Anza College, and Valley Christian High School.  Dr. Malek earned his PhD in Economics from George Mason University and his work has been published in a wide variety of academic and online publications.  You can read more about Dr. Malek here.

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 →