Thomas and Alito are the worst conservative judges.
“The 5th Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in the context of removal proceedings. Procedural due process rules are meant to protect” against “the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property,” the majority said. “We have long held that no person shall be removed from the United States without opportunity, at some time, to be heard.”
Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas dissented last month, and they did the same on Friday.
The comments of my libertarian lawyer friend, F, with mine interspersed: [continue reading…]
Last week, after a trip to Nice with my wife (facebook), I joined some friends in Istanbul—Hans Hoppe, Saifedean Ammous, Greg Morin, and a few others (facebook) (some additional pix below). Had several interesting conversations, with Hans in particular. Since I sometimes act as his amanuensis—his Boswell to Johnson—1 I might as well record some of his comments I found interesting. [continue reading…]
I enjoyed James Boswell’s, The LIfe of Samuel Johnson (1791), and as a former Objectivist I always recall this savage review of Barbara Branden’s biography of Ayn Rand, Louis Torres, “Boswell’s Johnson—Branden’s Rand: ‘The Passion of Ayn Rand’ in Historical Perspective,” Aristos 3, no. 5 (May 1987): 1–6; see the obituary for Branden in Aristos, Dec. 2013. [↩]
Block argues that Rothbard and Mises are wrong that any supply of money is optimal, since if new gold is mined without violating rights, that consumers demonstrate their preference for this, thus demonstrating that the old supply was not optimal. I sensed something was wrong with this; that somehow Walter was conflating descriptive economics with normative, legal, and rights matters. The fact that rights are not violated in increasing the supply of money does not mean that the previous supply was not optimal. I sensed that this was some kind of hypersubjectivism run amok. [continue reading…]
[This post needs to be organized, it’s here in raw form for now]
As I said in another post, “I ran this idea by Hans Hoppe last night by Hans Hoppe, with whom I was having dinner in Istanbul, and he immediately saw it the same way. I don’t mind operating without a net, but it’s nice to have one.”
I’m sure all the post-libertarian/waystation libertarian/thuggocrat/”got to fight fire with fire”/you don’t bring a knife to a gun fight/”high trust”/crypto-racist/anti-Jew “libertarians” will cheer on this increase in state taxation of private institutions by trotting out some… https://t.co/3B3a2KMQYh
Many times I have noted that one criticism of libertarianism is that it is too simplistic, in that its “only value” is liberty. This is usually stated by some statist who grudgingly concedes that they value liberty, that liberty is a value, but for them it’s not the only value. 1 As I wrote previously,
Calling rights absolute is just a tactic of those who simply have no principled opposition to aggression. They believe aggression is usually wrong, or unjust—but not always. In other words, they think it is not unjust to commit aggression. This is why they do not respect property rights on principled grounds and are willing to infringe property rights if there is a more important value, like “freedom.” Or some other value, like equality or basic welfare rights, and so on. Those who favor “non-absolute” rights really favor or condone aggression (in some circumstances), and should not hide behind misleading characterizations of libertarian opponents of aggression as being “absolutists.” Liberty is not our “only value,” but it is a value, and we oppose aggression. As I wrote in my book:
Now, as a human being, I, like every other libertarian, have values other than liberty. We are not just libertarians, ever. However, we do value liberty, and we oppose aggression. For us it is a “side-constraint,” to use Nozick’s phrase: we believe aggression is simply wrong, or unjustifiable. As Nozick wrote, “Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights).”13 When the conservative, or liberal, or minarchist, or “bleeding heart” libertarian starts wagging their finger and tut-tutting that they oppose aggression but that unlike the “simpleminded” libertarian it is not their “only value,” you can be sure they are setting the stage to propose or endorse or condone some kind of invasion of liberty—some act of aggression. That is, when I hear people, even some libertarians, condescendingly denounce our focus on aggression as the primary social evil, …. I want to hold onto my wallet, because they are coming after it. Or as Ayn Rand says in “Francisco’s Money Speech,” “Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper’s bell of an approaching looter.”14 Likewise, when someone says aggression is not the only thing that matters, they are about to advocate aggression. Keep an eye on these people. 2
A recent example is by conservative James Orr in a debate with Stephen Hicks, an Objectivist if I am not mistaken, where Orr repeats this tired canard. 3 Orr says, around 1:01:34, “if you’ve got freedom as the highest value—and just and let’s just assume you can sequester it within a political domain—that’s only going to work if you’ve got, outside the political domain, a sense of what makes life meaningful that is shared at least to some degree…”
It’s like playing whack-a-mole with these aggression-condoning weasels.
Update: See also Johnny Kramer, “What Libertarianism Is Not,” LewRockwell.com (Aug. 19, 2008), section 2, “Libertarianism is not an exaltation of individual liberty above all — especially not above property rights.”
A manufactured conflict is flashing through libertarianism: self-described “humanitarians” versus insultingly-labeled “brutalists.” In a much circulated article entitled “Against Libertarian Brutalism,” the libertarian luminary Jeffrey Tucker defines the “humanitarians” (of whom he is one) as people who love liberty because it “allows peaceful human cooperation… creative service… keeps violence at bay… allows for capital formation and prosperity… leads to a world in which people are valued as ends in themselves.” In short, “humanitarian libertarians” value liberty because of the sheer beauty of the society it creates. (Note: The article was published in a March issue of FEE but the faux conflict is still active.)
By contrast, “brutal libertarians” are said to find “what’s impressive about liberty is that it allows people to assert their individual preferences, to form homogeneous tribes, to work out their biases in action, to ostracize people based on ‘politically incorrect’ standards, to hate to their heart’s content so long as no violence is used… to be openly racist and sexist.” In short, “brutal libertarians” value liberty because it allows them to hate and to discriminate.
Unfortunately, the article also defines “brutal libertarians” as being “rooted in the pure theory of the rights of individuals to live their values whatever they may be.” In other words, we (I am a brutalist by the preceding definition) believe in living peacefully without imposing our moral values on others; we view the non-aggression principle as the non-aggression principle. Politically-speaking, I adhere to nonviolence and for this I am considered hate-filled.
Tucker offers the example of “a town that is taken over by a fundamentalist sect that excludes all peoples not of the faith, forces women into burka-like clothing, imposes a theocratic legal code, and ostracizes gays and lesbians.” And, yet, everyone is there voluntarily. He continues, “The brutalists will… defend such a microtyranny on grounds of decentralization, rights of property, and the right to discriminate and exclude – completely dismissing the larger picture here that, after all, people’s core aspirations to live a full and free life are being denied on a daily basis.”
Ignore errors such as presuming that decentralization or property ownership are used by libertarians to defend a violation of rights. Forget how difficult (or impossible) it is to find someone who advocates and lives nonviolence because he is hate-filled. Or the strong tendency for such a person to also adopt a moral code of civil behavior toward others. I do not know any voluntaryist who does not also have a strong personal ethics that includes tolerance, if not kindness toward others. But also, they believe their moral sentiments must not be imposed; what cannot be accomplished by peaceful means should not be accomplished at all.
Consider instead how easily the article skips over the “voluntary” aspect of the town. Or how a voluntary town could “force” women into burka-like clothing. Or how the article presumes that accommodating the aspirations of others is the responsibility of strangers.
I’ve tried to extract something positive from the article’s “humanitarian” argument, and there is an interesting question raised, albeit obliquely. The question: What is the relationship between politics and morality?
I’ve pointed out before the pitfalls of trying to design law by legislation, and also the limitations of libertarian legal theorists trying to design or deduce law from their armchairs. 1 And yet there is no doubt a role for libertarian theorists, and for legal commentators and private law codes in guiding the development of law in a private-law society. 2 As an example, a fledgling libertarian society might take the existing private law as developed in the mostly decentralized Roman law, and as now embodied in European civil codes, or the English common law, as starting points and as presumptively compatible with libertarian law.
The positive Roman/European continental and Anglo-American common law would only be presumptively just, and would have to be scrutinized with respect to more fundamental or abstract or general libertarian principles, and ultimately discarded if found wanting. It would be no surprise if this were the case; lots of statist or other assumptions play into the reasoning of jurists over the centuries. It would be a surprise if mistakes never happened. Of course a sense of caution or humility in jettisoning long-established rules would be warranted. As Chesterton noted: [continue reading…]
Here’s what I’ll add: you say yours is a moral argument. You say you’re a Rothbardian. I don’t think you could defend that position, especially given that Rothbard was wrong concerning all rights are property rights, and self-ownership is their source. I believe I soundly… https://t.co/dGqcgY4BPC
“Here’s what I’ll add: you say yours is a moral argument. You say you’re a Rothbardian. I don’t think you could defend that position, especially given that Rothbard was wrong concerning all rights are property rights, and self-ownership is their source.”
Isn’t being anti war a gutless, virtue signaling position? I mean, most people would rather there not be a need for war, but sometimes it’s either war or being conquered.
Not any more than your being opposed to aggression is virtue-signaling. Your way of wording is loaded since it subtly implies an analogy or similarity between self-defense by an individual and that by a state. This is a bit disengenuous. As I pointed out previously…
I haven't weighed in much on the Walter Block/Mises Institute/Hoppe Israel stuff, since I know what areas I specialize in and this is not one of them (libertarians often want to chime in about things they know little about; I try to resist this or provide appropriate…
Completely disagree. Just like with IP. The case against IP is not anarchist and doens't rest on anarchy, only on understanding the nature and basis of property rights. Similarly even if you are a minarchist you can recognize that justifying individual self defense is different…
Earlier this month I attended and spoke at the APEE 49th Meeting in Guatemala City and had a great time. 1 The APEE Annual Meetings alternate between Las Vegas and other cities, sometimes in the US, sometimes in other countries. It’s been held in the past in Guatemala because of its connection to the Universidad Francisco Marroquín (where my old friend Bill Marina 2 used to teach), but apparently it’s been over 10 years since it was held there. Most of the meeting was held at the Westin Camino Real, just a couple miles from UFM, but the opening reception and dinner was held at UFM.
As I mentioned previously, 3 the CEES (Centro de Estudios Económico-Sociales; see UFM page), a group affiliated with Universidad Francisco Marroquín and in fact started by Manuel Ayau, who also founded UFM, 4 holds a monthly colloquium with UFM and other local students and members to discuss a book or work, normally on a Saturday night. The impression I get is that CEES was originally founded as very classical liberal and libertarian but nowadays has a lot of members interested in Rothbard, Hoppe, Austro-libertarianism, and so on. They sent me a very kind invitation to lead a discussion on the Monday night of my APEE talk (April 7), on the topic of self-ownership and natural rights, based on “How We Come To Own Ourselves,” chapter 4 of my recent book. 5[continue reading…]
Recent Comments