Comments

From the Comments: American Politics without the Romance

Brandon Christensen Comments, Politics , , , , ,

Longtime reader (and prolific blogger in his own right) –Rick riffs off of the Obama administration’s latest attempt to flaunt the rule of law:

Many of the tactics being used by Democrats and President Obama, today, derive from past tactics approved by Republican majorities and Republican Presidents who sought to avoid the difficult role of governing properly by seeking work around exceptions to the Constitution by reassigning or allowing the usurpation of powers between branches or though Constitutional amendments on requirements that stood as roadblocks.

So, neither party is better or more moral than the other in this regard.

Read the whole thing. Upon second thought, I probably should have titled this post “politics without romance” and just omitted the “American” part of it. In fact, you can pretty much use –Rick’s comment to explain every social conflict imaginable if you just make sure that the words ‘Democrat’ and ‘Republican’ are replaceable by any faction and the word ‘Constitution’ is interchangeable with the word ‘power.’

I got the phrase “politics without romance,” by the way, from Nobel laureate James Buchanan.

From the Comments: How, Exactly, Does One Define Terrorism?

Brandon Christensen Comments, History , , , , , , , , ,

From longtime reader –Rick, who starts off by quoting Dr Delacroix:

“Thanks to your influence, I have become more conscious of what I mean by terrorism. It includes intentionality and blindness toward the (civilian) victims. Thus, I have revised my concept of terrorism. I will be more precise in the future.”

One immediate problem I have with this is the use of force by the Allies in retaliation to the evil and unjustified use of force and murderous policies of the Axis powers in World War II. With “an intentional and blind lack of consideration of civilian casualties”, retaliatory force such as the bombing of Dresden and the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan would not have occurred and as a result, our enemies may have, instead, developed and used such strategies and weapons on us. Without efforts to annihilate the enemy and obtain an unconditional surrender, WWI, WWII, or perhaps even the American Civil war may have ended up with a decades long cease fire form of a truce as we have between North and South Korea that commits America to spending billions to keep troops and support systems in Korea as we shrink our military forces on a global scale.

Your inclusion of intentionality and blindness makes the actions taken by the allied forces in response to similar or worse actions by the enemy nations of Japan and particularly Germany make the Allies no more than terrorists for their defensive actions taken to suppress hostile nations and restore some semblance of peace to the planet.

So, depending on your view of history and warfare necessities, you may need to revise your definition even further – or not.

Dr Amburgey also adds his thoughts on Dr Delacroix’s statistical reasoning. One thing I have noticed, reading through this dialogue again, is that Dr Delacroix and other imperialists are much more interested in wielding arbitrary rules, norms and even definitions to advance their aims. Once the imperialist is called out on his arbitrariness (amongst other things), however, he begins to accuse his debate partners of dogmatism (amongst other things).

From the Comments: Are Imperialists Just Winging It?

Brandon Christensen Comments, Current Events, Liberty

The 2011 disaggregated dialogue between myself and Dr Delacroix on foreign policy has produced a number of thoughtful responses. Here is Dr Amburgey, a prestigious scholar at the U of Toronto’s business school, on one of Dr Delacroix’s many imperial myths:

@Jacques
Is there a word for someone who just makes stuff up? You claim

“[…] the following simple fact: 95% of all terrorist acts in the world in the past twenty years have been committed by people who call themselves Muslims and most often, in the name of Islam.”

If you’ll pardon the technical jargon, I think that claim is b.s. It’s easy enough to prove me wrong.

The Global Terrorism Database (GTD) is an open-source database including information on terrorist events around the world from 1970 through 2011 (with additional annual updates planned for the future). Unlike many other event databases, the GTD includes systematic data on domestic as well as transnational and international terrorist incidents that have occurred during this time period and now includes more than 104,000 cases. For each GTD incident, information is available on the date and location of the incident, the weapons used and nature of the target, the number of casualties, and–when identifiable–the group or individual responsible.

Statistical information contained in the Global Terrorism Database is based on reports from a variety of open media sources. Information is not added to the GTD unless and until we have determined the sources are credible. Users should not infer any additional actions or results beyond what is presented in a GTD entry and specifically, users should not infer an individual associated with a particular incident was tried and convicted of terrorism or any other criminal offense. If new documentation about an event becomes available, an entry may be modified, as necessary and appropriate.

The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) makes the GTD available via this online interface in an effort to increase understanding of terrorist violence so that it can be more readily studied and defeated.

Characteristics of the GTD
•Contains information on over 104,000 terrorist attacks
•Currently the most comprehensive unclassified data base on terrorist events in the world
•Includes information on more than 47,000 bombings, 14,000 assassinations, and 5,300 kidnappings since 1970
•Includes information on at least 45 variables for each case, with more recent incidents including information on more than 120 variables
•Supervised by an advisory panel of 12 terrorism research experts
•Over 3,500,000 news articles and 25,000 news sources were reviewed to collect incident data from 1998 to 2011 alone.

http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/about/

How about some real facts instead of just making stuff up as you go along.

Indeed. My own critique of Dr Delacroix’s made-up numbers will be up soon. Stay tuned, and as always, thanks for your comments.

From the Comments: Open Borders, Immigration and the Sociology of Gradualism

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

Dr Delacroix takes issue with my woefully inadequate summary of his work on open borders in the Independent Review. He writes:

Small yet somewhat important correction: In our piece in the Independent Review, Nikiforov and I argue for somewhat more than a guest worker program and our reference is not a to a EU “guest worker program.” (I am not sure whether there is one.) Rather, we argue that little harm would be done and, as we see now, much harm avoided, by simply agreeing that citizens of Canada, the US and Mexico (especially Mexico) can freely move across the common borders of the three countries. including for the long term. What we have seen in the EU for now more than twenty years shows that there is no reason to attach this free movement principle to citizenship.

That you may work, open a business, pay taxes in Mexico does not logically imply that you may vote in Mexican elections. That you may not does not deprive you of any “rights.” As an immigrant into Mexico you knew what you were doing. You moved under your own power. It’s unlikely anyone even invited you. If you crashed the party, you have no moral right to complain that the food is not kosher (or hallal, you decide).

Several years later, I think that the only reason for this insistence on tying residence to citizenship is the Democratic Party’s totalitarian aspirations. Observing the drift in the Obama administration toward non-legality clarified the picture for me, personally. (I am not speaking for my co-author, here. He just spent three years in Russia; I will ask him.)

Historical precedents matter, and a preference for gradualism may make it desirable -in this country- to transition through a somewhat familiar “guest worker program” rather than directly decree open borders for the citizens of the three NAFTA countries.

I am for whatever works but we must keep concepts distinct from each other: A tomato is not really a fruit, not really.

PS I am glad Notes On Liberty publishes my essays (and even my stories) and that it links to my blog. When I grow up, I want a readership like Notes’ readership!

From the Comments: Federalism, Local and Global

Brandon Christensen Comments , , , , , ,

From a post of mine on Native American sovereignty, and prompted by the thoughts of readers, I muse a little more:

Hank,

Thanks for the great link. My few thoughts, I am not so sure that Native Americans would choose sovereignty over membership into the federation currently in place. I lived near a reservation in northern California (and I’m sure you have the same sort of deal in Montana) and have some fairly extensive contact with Navajo Indians as well (they prefer the term ‘Indian’ to ‘Native American’, so long as they know you). These are people whose ancestors have fought for the US in all of its major wars over the past century. They are intensely patriotic.

What I think would emerge from working with the Indian tribes is a system where all of the major reservations were turned into regular states (like Montana and California) and the minor ones would just disappear. Indians would then be full-fledged American citizens but could still do what they liked culturally with their heritage, much as everybody else does.

Again, this is what I think would happen. If they wanted full-fledged sovereignty we should grant it (and include generous reparations for stolen property), but I think everybody would opt in for a spot in the federal system we have (despite its shortcomings, it’s still a very, very good system).

This leads to me to an odd-but-perhaps-pertinent musing: I am not so sure that the majority of Europeans, South Koreans and Japanese would want our troops to leave their states. Hear me out on this. Our military essentially provides for the defense of these states, and as a result their these societies are able to use resources that would otherwise go to military expenditures for welfare programs. As Americans, we can see why this is a bad thing, but the states we occupy militarily don’t necessarily think that it is such a bad thing.

As a result, I would be open to our continued occupation of these states under one condition: that traveling, working, starting a business, living, moving, etc., etc. between the US and the states whom we subsidize militarily is as easy to do as it is here in the US. So, for example, moving/etc. from Connecticut to Hesse or Nankaido would be as easy as moving/etc. from Texas to South Dakota. If this were to happen, then I could accept a continued US presence in these regions. What do you think?

Update (6/11): I was inspired to bring this up because of an old post on this subject by Dr Foldvary in the Progress Report. Do be sure to check it out.

From the Comments: Going Into Syria

Brandon Christensen Comments, Current Events , ,

Longtime reader –Rick provides some helpful clarity to the Syrian debacle in the Middle East. He writes:

For me the answer is that unless there is a direct connection between Syria and their use of force against America or its population, then the right course is to let the fools kill themselves by whatever means they choose. Dead is dead. Innocents die in revolutions; it is unavoidable.

if the Syrian people are left to fight their own revolt for liberation, they might actually learn to value the peace that comes with freedom and individual rights as they shed the collective. It should be obvious that trading one collective for another collective is not a solution, only a change in masters. Only when people have the right to live as they choose, to worship or not worship as they choose, to travel freely as they choose, to freely and openly associate with people they choose and have the right to earn a living and keep most of what they earn…only then will the country find both peace and freedom.

Until Syria launches a weapon at the United States or our troops, then, Syria’s problems belong to the Syrians.

If the Syrians, either alone or in concert with some other nation choose to attack America or her citizens/troops, then, the United States should enter into the conflict with the goal of no less than unconditional surrender and a capitulation by the enemy to surrender all arms and pay for the destruction suffered by all involved for their warlike behavior. Continue reading →

Débat sur le menteur.

Jacques Delacroix Comments, Current Events, Politics , , , ,

Mon essai “Un Menteur bien français” affiché sur ce blog le 9 Avril a aussi été affiché sur le blog-copain Notes On Liberty oùil a donné lieu à cette réponse indignée:

Je ne connais pas ce type, mais avant de taper sur les Français il conviendrait de ne pas oublier les tonnes de calomnies dégueulasses racontées par une certaine presse américaine ( un grand nombre !) contre la France après 2003 et l’Irak . Au point qu’aujourd’hui tous les Américains qui n’ont pas fait d’études les croient encore . En termes de proportions, mettre en parallèle les idoties de deux ou trois journalistes et le lynchage au rouleau compresseur lancé par Fox News et autres détritus n’est pas juste .

D’autre part les tabloïds n’existent pas en France . Tout ce que balancent le Sun et ses copains en Grande-Bretagne est bien plus énorme que ce que dit ce type de TV5 .

Alors oui la presse est un problème en France, mais c’en est un bien plus honteux chez les Anglophones .

S’il n’existait pas, il faudrait l’inventer! (Je jure que je n’ai rien fait de semblable. Pourtant, c’ était tentant.) Continue reading →

From the Comments: China and the Future of Nationalism

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

Riffing off of my recent post on Chinese porn searches, Dr. Delacroix writes:

This piece is opening a big closed book about contemporary China. Many Western intellectuals keep pretending that Chinese society and contemporary Chinese culture are inscrutable. I am one of these but I can’t fool myself forever: The pretense is largely a way to avoid commenting on what we really, readily see […]

Think of the psychological implications of having no interest in seeing how others do it! Does it imply anything about the extent of the otherness of others?

Dr. Delacroix goes on to encourage more research on China in the near future and rightly points out that libertarians have not adequately studied the region. I wholeheartedly agree on this point. Libertarianism is extremely weak in most areas of intellectual pursuit. In fact, the only reason libertarianism has any clout at all in academia is because it has a strong showing in two of the most important academic fields of inquiry: economics and philosophy. Perhaps this blog will contribute towards shrinking that gap.

My own impulse is to look at institutions for cultural, economic and political explanations of society. I’ll have more on this later, but another fascinating post by Shanghaiist on the Russian state’s recent debut on Weibo (the Chinese version of Twitter) is worth highlighting. From the report:
Continue reading →

Religion or Institutions: A Final Word

Brandon Christensen Comments, Current Events, Liberty, Religion , , ,

Over at Facts Matter, I believe I finally settled the issue of whether or not Islam is to blame for the violence in the Middle East. I put the nail in the coffin with this:

Still no evidence. I am, again, arguing about the real color of a unicorn’s horn…

Dr J asks:

Refresh my memory: Blasphemy laws where? “Popping up….”

Right now? Post-socialist Europe. And post-coup Thailand. And post-monarchist Nepal. Go ahead: Google it!

Are you implicitly stating that Russia is part of the historical West? Peter the Great just another Montesquieu?

Nope. You didn’t specify that the examples had to be from the traditional West. Speaking of moving the goalposts:

Death for converting, anywhere? (I did add this.)

Can you provide me with an instance of this happening in a Muslim state?

One more from Dr J:

With what penalties? (Death or more?)

Fines as far as I know. Again, can you give me an instance of a death sentence carried out in a Muslim state in the name of blasphemy?

David: rather than try to rebut every one of your points, I think I’ll just let your comments stand on their own. For your own benefit, insert the word “Muslim” in place of the word “Christian” throughout your lengthy defense of the latter.

If you do this, you’ll not only be proving my point, but you’ll have a better understanding of what is going on in the Middle East today. The difference between the United States and, say Russia or Egypt, is institutional.

Max Weber famously argued that Protestantism was responsible for the rise of capitalism in the West. There was something about Protestantism that changed the way northern Europeans thought about the world, as well as how they justified their actions. He was wrong, of course, but his argument continues to influence large swathes of opinion today. Why? Because of “selective anecdotal evidence that is fortified by the perceived well-being of contemporary Protestant states.”

The myth of Islam’s violent penchant should die with the same last breath of the imperialist’s claim of superior foresight. If anybody wants to go a couple more rounds in the ‘comments’ section here, I’d be glad to take you on. If you are hesitant, ask yourself if this is because you are afraid you might be proven wrong, or because you know deep down inside that you are absolutely correct about Islam’s mythical penchant for violence.

Rebirth of Competitive Federalism

ryancgorham Comments, Current Events, Liberty, Politics

Before I begin I have a confession, I am a Party man. That being said, I have ties to the Liberty movement beginning when I was at Florida State and I am well-versed in Libertarian Theory and the Austrian School. I believe in a concept, which was termed recently “Competitive Federalism”. I first heard the term used by former Senator Jim DeMint at a Gala for the James Madison Institute on Wednesday (March 13th). The Liberty Foundation recently released a report outlining the idea, written by Opportunity Ohio President Matt Mayer, linked above. Senator DeMint described the idea by discussing the on-going competition between Governors Rick Scott and Rick Perry over the State-level Job Creation numbers, working to create a business-friendly regulatory environment (history here and here). This healthy State versus State competition is what our Country needs to revitalize the economy and clean up the statutory mess at both the Federal and State level.

This idea has been something that I have been thinking about for a long time, through my search to define for myself where I stood on the political spectrum. Through college, there seemed to be a constant need for those politically involved or politically interested to define themselves with labels. What I discovered is my views aren’t all that hard to pin down, but there is no true label for them. Personally, I am conservative, but I don’t believe everyone must live their life how I choose to live mine. I espouse the belief that competitive federalism should guide our policy debate; as for many, I believe the Constitution is the guideline for which we were meant to restrain our Federal Government, and I believe the Federal level is not the place for the Social battles unless absolutely necessary.

Some battles are meant to be fought at the State level; if California as a State decides to vote for one issue and I don’t agree with it, I should have the ability to vote with my feet. This would create a much more hospitable environment in the movement as a whole, and open up the floor for the other issues looming over our heads. Winning the battles over these pertinent issues is the only way to move the National Discourse forward. While Social issues are vital to how we live our lives day-to-day, moving them back to the States where possible allows us to build a true coalition for issues such as Tax Reform, Governmental Spending, Education, Transportation, and Trade.

Look for more posts in my series on Labels and defining political views in a changing landscape in the coming weeks.

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 →

From the Comments: Foreign Policy and the Rule of Law

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

This excerpt comes from a debate I had with Dr. Delacroix on his main blog awhile back. It pretty much made me a star within Santa Cruz libertarian circles (i.e. four people now know my name). Behold:

The idea – nay wish! – that the newly liberated people of the Arab world will somehow elect secular, Western-friendly governments after 50 years of oppression by regimes that were perceived by the Muslim public to be secular and Western-friendly belongs to be filed under the category of ‘fantasy’, not foreign policy.

and this:

I think Egypt and Libya are going to be just as bad as they have been, if not worse. Only Tunisia, which did not rely on foreign support AND recently elected Islamist parties to their new government, will come out of this for the better. I hope I’m wrong, of course, but libertarians rarely are!

and finally this:

The idea that Paul knows everything about anything is one that sure does look a lot like dogmatism at first glance. But Ron Paul will be the first to claim that he does not know everything. That’s why he insists that everything go through the Constitutional process – including overseas activities. That is to say, Ron Paul’s idea of dogmatism is to adhere to The Rule of Law. Imagine that!

I highly, highly recommend reading through the whole exchange (it starts after a few other comments in the thread; just scroll down, you won’t regret it, and don’t forget the popcorn!).

From the Comments: Social Conservatives Need to Go

Brandon Christensen Comments, Current Events, Politics

Longtime reader –Rick observes:

The Republicans need to re-brand and delete all social conservative positions from their platform. If the God freaks don’t like it, too bad. Let them stay home, vote Democrat or Republican as they wish. So called conservatives should be concentrating on small government, a strong military, a philosophically principled foreign policy, and a secular judiciary that ignores all religions and judges based on the facts and the rule of law.

Their new platform needs to be more inclusive, particularly with Hispanic concerns, not out of a sense of pragmatics, but if America is to develop an expanded trade relationship with Hispanics, how willing will their governments be to participate with radical xenophobes who treat their southern neighbors with disdain in juxtaposition to the favorite status given to our neighbors to the north?

It’s economics. They need jobs, we need workers and an expanded tax base as well as new trading partners. Let the Xenophobes vote with the KKK as a bloc. Their absence won’t be missed. The Constitution states that all men were created equal – not just U.S. citizens and Canadians.

However, I won’t get my hopes up that the leadership will suddenly turn rational and see the possibility of gaining 2 or 3 new voters for every one bigot they ignore in constructing their philosophical/political planks.

I couldn’t have said it any better myself. The sooner the GOP turns its back on social conservatives, the sooner it can get back to being a national political party again. Be sure to check out –Rick’s blog here.

Dr D. on Sex, Homosexuality, Language Usage

Jacques Delacroix Comments, Current Events, History , , , , , , , ,

A reader, MM, sent a comment criticizing an off-hand, snide remark I had made in my micro-essay, “Sex Advice.” I welcome the opportunity MM gives me to take him into the alley and beat him to a pulp. His full comment:

Though usually considered much of a stick-in-the-mud regarding language, and especially neologisms, I must offer a cordial disagreement regarding the word “gender” when used instead of “sex.”

Ordinarily I despise changing the language (you should see, for example, my battles with the ignorami who say “healthy” when they mean “healthful”), but when a change improves and clarifies, then I can not only accept but embrace it.

You are right that “gender” was originally intended for language references — more important in French and other furrin tongues — but since “sex” has become such an important, or at least such an ever-present, part of everyday life, having a separate word, such as “gender,” keeps the meaning clear.

I mean, I have compromised my formerly inviolate principles so that now I even use the word “gay” rather than “homosexual,” after swearing I would never degrade the language in that fashion.

But, after all, “gay” is the polite term, the one preferred by the people to whom it applies.

So, if I can change, linguistically, so can you.

MM’s justification for the widespread substitution of “gender” for “sex”makes sense. I agree that it clarifies. However, it ignores the fact that such a change rarely occurs as a result of a technical-rational process. Such changes, this one in particular, are loaded with sociological and, with political importance. To ignore them is to assent. Winning the substitution of one word for another is like winning an election forever, an election in which the winning party never even ran and the opposition never campaigned. What I am going to say about “gender” applies even better to “gay.” Continue reading →

From the Comments: Keynesian Economics and the Stimulus Bill

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

A recent brouhaha has erupted in the comments thread of Dr. Delacroix’s post on Obama’s bad economic policies. Now, to be sure, the bad economy cannot be put on Obama’s shoulders alone. All he did was sign the stimulus act into law, after all, and I doubt John McCain would have vetoed it.

Let us also not forget about the two foreign wars that George W. Bush charged to the republic’s credit card, either. With that being said, I thought another economic chart would do readers of this blog a favor. From AEI’s blog comes this:

Ta-dah! Utter economic failure.

(h/t Steve Horwitz)