- Linking Eastern Christianity with capitalism Bruce Clark, Erasmus
- Why were (are) the Balkans underdeveloped? Branko Milanovic, globalinequality
- What Nikolai Kardashev really said JN Nielsen, Centauri Dreams
- Chernobyl was a disaster by design Tobie Mathew, Literary Review
Author: Brandon Christensen
Nightcap
- Down and out with Chaïm Soutine Joe Lloyd, 1843
- On Sodomy And Restoration Liam Heneghan, 3 Quarks Daily
- Human Rights and Neoliberalism Nils Gilman, LA Review of Books
- Under the Skin Gene Callahan, Modern Age
Nightcap
- Why the last two speakers of a dying language don’t talk to each other Avedis Hadjian, International Business Times
- Britain’s intellectual decline Chris Dillow, Stumbling and Mumbling
- Savagery, Barbarism, and Civilization JN Nielsen, The View from Oregon
- Venezuela’s mysterious tepuis James MacDonald, JSTOR Daily
The Mexican-American War, and another warm welcome
My topic over at RealClearHistory today is the Mexican-American War and slavery, so be sure to show me a little extra love and have a peek. An excerpt:
The British, for their part, played an ingeniously devious role. London convinced Mexico to finally recognize Texas independence in 1845, as long as Texas agreed to avoid annexation by another sovereign polity. This put enormous pressure on factions in Washington, Austin, and Mexico City, so much so that Tyler, by then a lame-duck, urged Congress to put aside its differences and offer statehood to the Republic of Texas (which it did). In Austin, the process was a little trickier. The Congress of the Texan Republic had to vote on whether to be independent or to be annexed, but so did a newly-formed convention of elected delegates, which was one of the requirements imposed on Texas by the United States. (Washington felt that a convention of elected delegates better fit the profile of an incoming state than a Congress that had been independent for 10 years.) Both the Congress and the convention of delegates voted in favor of annexation over independence. The convention of delegates then drew up a state constitution, turned it over to the people of Texas to be ratified, and then sent it to Washington for Congressional acceptance. On Dec. 29, 1845, the U.S. Congress finally ratified statehood for Texas.
Please, read the rest. Annexation is a topic I will continue to explore, albeit from NOL rather than RealClearHistory, so stay tuned. “Entrance” is just as important as “exit” in libertarian theory, even though the latter gets all of the fame and fortune these days.
Speaking of entrances, I’d like to officially, warmly welcome Shree Agnihotri to the consortium and highlight her first thoughts with NOL: “Role of a Citizen in Hegemonic Authoritarianism.” I’m not going to spoil it for you, but it’s about Hannah Arendt, so if you haven’t read it yet, now would be a good time (don’t forget to say ‘hi’ while you’re at it). Here is her bio. Here is more from NOL on Hannah Arendt. I’m stoked to see what she has to say over the years!
Nightcap
- Does the recognition lag give the Fed an alibi for 2008? Scott Sumner, EconLog
- Dudley’s Defense of the Fed’s Floor System George Selgin, Alt-M
- Progress in economics Chris Dillow, Stumbling and Mumbling
- Moral grandstanding and character-based voting Irfan Khawaja, Policy of Truth
Nightcap
- Why Orthodox Christian countries remain stuck Leonid Bershidsky, Bloomberg View
- How communist Bulgaria became a leader in tech and sci-fi Victor Petrov, Aeon
- Slobodian’s The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism Henry Farrell, Crooked Timber
- Rethinking the unitary executive in American politics Ilya Somin, Volokh Conspiracy
Nightcap
- The Sexless Life When Sex Is God David French, National Review
- An excellent, conservative history of America’s sexual revolution Kay S. Hymowitz, City Journal
- An excellent, libertarian history of America’s sexual revolution BK Marcus, FEE
- Why economics is, and should be, creepy Robin Hanson, Overcoming Bias
From the Comments: What’s worth reading from Karl Marx?
Given all the time I wasted reading Marx, I’d say I lost big time. If I had it to do over again I’d read Grundrisse and stop.
This is from Terry Amburgey, a now-retired Professor of Management from the University of Toronto’s business school. He got his PhD from the same sociology program as Jacques.
Here is a link to Grundrisse (pdf), and note that Marx spends a good deal of time near the end of his manuscript on “the Frenchman,” Frédéric Bastiat. Oh, and Grundrisse has over 800 pages of reading in it.
Nightcap
- Kurdistan still has a chance (2014) Avedis Hadjian, International Business Times
- The invincible Mrs Thatcher Charles Moore, Vanity Fair
- “Enhance your penis!” Arnold Kling, Medium
- The influence of Karl Marx—a counterfactual Branko Milanovic, globalinequality
“The Dutch Empire”
That’s the subject of my weekend column over at RealClearHistory. An excerpt:
6. The Dutch Empire vied for supremacy with the Portuguese empire, which, beginning in 1580 with the Iberian Union of Spain and Portugal, was a rival Catholic state attempting to establish a global hegemony of its own. The Portuguese were actually the first Europeans to establish trading forts throughout the world, but the aforementioned Iberian Union severely weakened Lisbon’s plans for global hegemony due to the fact that the union made Portugal the junior partner. The Dutch conquered and then established colonial rule at Portuguese colonies on four different continents, and unlike the Portuguese, focused on commercial interests rather than converting the natives to Catholicism and creating a politically connected empire. Because of the commercial nature of the Dutch project, many of the indigenous factions were happy to switch from Portugal to the Netherlands as business partners. And partners they were. Both the Portuguese and the Dutch (as well as the British and French later on) paid rent to local political units on the trading forts they built throughout the world. Such was the nature of power on the world scene before the end of the Napoleonic Wars in the early 19th century.
Please, read the rest.
Nightcap
- Was Cairo’s Grand Opera House a tool of cultural imperialism? Adam Mestyan, Aeon
- Back in the USA, from Japan Scott Sumner, TheMoneyIllusion
- Why we must rethink our outdated ideas about international trade Richard Baldwin, Chicago Booth Review
- The complicated legacy of colonial contact William Buckner, Quillette
Nightcap
- Learning about World War I through German eyes Jonathan Boff, OUPblog
- The Danger of a Distorted View of the Right Conor Friedersdorf, the Atlantic
- It was supposed to be a simple troll John Holbo, Crooked Timber
- Strauss on Nietzsche: the God Killer Keith Whitaker, Claremont Review of Books
Nightcap
- A Common Free Speech Misunderstanding Ken White, Popehat
- Giovanni Gentile’s philosophy is to this day highly original Flaminia Incecchi, JHIBlog
- Why dictators exploit ancient ruins Paul Cooper, BBC
- The French Revolution’s impact on diplomacy Blake Smith, the Wire
RCH, and a warm welcome
My topic over at RealClearHistory today is the Mexican-American War. I lay out a general background on all the players, hoping that a primer will do readers there some good. An excerpt:
Texas. In 1821, the newly-established Mexican government was having severe trouble with the Comanche in the area and invited Americans to settle the region. This pushed the Comanche west and helped weaken them, but it also laid the groundwork for a Texian secession from Mexico. Texas declared independence from Mexico in 1835, but of course nobody in Mexico City recognized this declaration. Texas and Mexico fought for more than a decade before representatives from the Lone Star Republic finally succeeded in lobbying Washington to annex Texas and incorporate it into the American federation. It’s worth noting here that immigration was not the cause of Texian secession from Mexico, as some nativists are apt to claim today. Texas was, like Yucatán, tired of being governed poorly from Mexico City. The anti-immigration argument would be much stronger if Mexico wasn’t facing revolts and secessions everywhere it turned.
Please, read the rest. I’m going to, as I promise in the piece, delve into slavery and the war next Tuesday, but there’s also other topics to think about. Secession comes to mind for me, as I can’t help but ask what could have been if the Senate had not rejected Yucatán’s bid for annexation. Also, is annexation the missing piece of the puzzle when it comes to not only “exit” in libertarian circles, but entrance as well?
Speaking of entrances, I’d like to officially, warmly welcome Mary Lucia Darst to the consortium and highlight her first thoughts with NOL: “The Sad Retreat.” I’m not going to spoil it for you, so if you haven’t read it yet, now would be a good time (don’t forget to say ‘hi’ while you’re at it). Here is her bio. I am extremely excited to read what she shares here over the next few years.
Notes On Liberty 