- Modernism without industrialism Nick Nielsen, The View from Oregon
- Adam Smith’s suspicions about democracy Branko Milanovic, globalinequality
- Left-wing nostalgia Sean Cashbaugh, H-socialisms
- The importance of Richard Pipes (RIP) Jacob Heilbrunn, National Interest
Links
Nightcap
- Antarctica’s long, dark winter Sarah Laskow, Atlas Obscura
- The worst volcanic eruption in US history Rick Brownell, Historiat
- Aftershocks from the 2008 Sichuan earthquake Ian Johnson, NY Review of Books
- Put the “human” back into human capital Parag Khanna, Strait Times
Nightcap
- Leaving Saigon Peter Gordon, Asian Review of Books
- On neoliberalism Chris Dillow, Stumbling and Mumbling
- Obama’s legacy has already been destroyed Andrew Sullivan, Daily Intelligencer
- Harmless or harassment? Conor Friedersdorf, the Atlantic
Nightcap
- Siege of Acre a monstrous blot on the Crusades Sean McGlynn, Spectator
- The origins of globalization Nick Nielsen, The View from Oregon
- Racism and the pure, white elephant Ross Bullen, Public Domain Review
- Against hijacking utopia Scott Alexander, Slate Star Codex
Nixon to Moscow, slavery’s toll on the economy
My latest is up over at RealClearHistory. An excerpt:
Nixon’s anti-Communist credentials were so sound that he could spend political capital making inroads with Communist enemies. His actions were viewed as safe by the American electorate because, for better or worse, the public saw Nixon as somebody who would not betray American values at the negotiating table with the Soviets. Nixon’s hawkishness provided moral cover for America’s withdrawal from Vietnam, and its peaceful overtures to the two most powerful and aggressively anti-capitalist regimes in the world (China and the USSR).
Please, read the whole thing.
Vincent has a great review up on Robert Wright’s new book about slavery, too. It’s at EH.net, a website dedicated to economic history, and here is an excerpt:
All of these amount to the same core point, those who reap the private benefits of slavery are content with their gains even though they come at a larger social cost and they will work to find ways to drive a wider wedge between the two by shifting costs onto other parties. Hence, slavery as pollution.
More here.
Nightcap
- Delacroix and his followers? Joe Lloyd, 1843
- Cortés and his allies Álvaro Enrigue, NY Review of Books
- God and the mathematicians Josephine Livingstone, New Republic
- Comey and the libertarians Stephen Cox, Liberty Unbound
Nightcap
- The abolitionist hero ahead of his time Marcus Rediker, Aeon
- On guilt by association Chris Dillow, Stumbling and Mumbling
- The newest right-wing assault on federalism Ilya Somin, Volokh Conspiracy
- The Conquest of the World as Globe Soni Wadhwa, Asian Review of Books
Nightcap
- Responding to the challenge of modernization Branko Milanovic, globalinequality
- The Victorian Achievement Nick Nielsen, The View from Oregon
- The Warriors and Rockets win with defense Chris Herring, FiveThirtyEight
- An ignored, scary development in Israeli politics Michael Koplow, Ottomans and Zionists
Nightcap
- Gonzo philosophy Scott Bradfield, New Statesman
- Three contrarian opinions Scott Sumner, EconLog
- The dark, complicated reality of Tibetan Buddhism Mark Hay, Aeon
- AI and the limits of deep learning Robert Richbourg, War on the Rocks
Dictators who gave up power?
That’s the topic of my weekend column over at RealClearHistory, thanks to an extended email with Andrei. Here’s an excerpt:
10. King Juan Carlos I. Juan Carlos should be a household name in the West. The monarch of Spain upon dictator Francisco Franco’s death, Juan Carlos was expected to continue Franco’s legacy of authoritarian rule. After all, he received a military education in Spain under the Franco regime and had a clear claim to the throne (although the throne itself was a complicated legal matter). Furthermore, Juan Carlos was an active member of Franco’s staff, even stepping in to fill Franco’s void when the fascist began to fall ill due to old age. When Franco died, Juan Carlos began to dismantle the Franco regime and helped usher a smooth transition to democratic rule.
Please, read the rest.
Nightcap
- 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
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
Notes On Liberty 