Libertarianism / Anarcho-Capitalism – Page 6

Crimea & Self-Determination: The First Principle of the Law of Nations

March 17, 2014 by Monica

We Did Not Consent to this Government

While living in Los Angeles in 2008, I had an epiphany. I saw in a neighbor’s window a Soviet-style poster of Barack Obama’s face and wondered what red-blooded American would be attracted to such ominous imagery. The face wasn’t bad, it was the Andy-Warhol-meets-Vladimir-Lenin color-blocking that freaked me out. Around the same time, George W. Bush had signed a law that would, incrementally of course, ban the warm glow of the Edison lightbulb. For me, this convergence of events was the tipping point. I realized the American Experiment had failed. Limited government was a utopian fantasy. No piece of paper, no matter how brilliantly conceived or masterfully written, could defend itself against a central monopoly on the use of force. No matter how limited at its inception, the power would be nurtured and abused until it converted all useful social power into state power.

Once I had this revelation, I gave up hope. I concluded that man was destined for serfdom, perhaps camouflaged as a combination of taxes and regulations, but unjust limits on personal and economic freedom and the theft of the fruits of one’s labor were inevitable in any organized society.

Crimea & Self-Determination: The First Principle of the Law of Nations

March 17, 2014 by Monica

We Did Not Consent to this Government

Our Enemy the State by Albert Jay Nock

February 6, 2014 by Monica

I recently found Our Enemy the State, by Albert Jay Nock, under a chair in my kids’ playroom–I must have bought it long ago and misplaced it. I flipped the book open to a chapter: “Politics and Other Fetiches,” and despite the unpromising chapter heading I was immediately riveted. Although written in 1935, Our Enemy … Read more

Philip Seymour Hoffman vs William Stewart Halsted

February 4, 2014 by Monica

Two of my brothers were hardcore heroin addicts. One quit, the other died. As a matter of fact, off the top of my head, I could name a half a dozen people in my family circle who died from drug abuse. Even short of risk of death, I think getting high every day, whether from illegal drugs, prescription meds or alcohol, is way more trouble than it’s worth, and I have seen people I loved degenerate into something less than fully human after transmogrifying into junkies.

For these reasons, it is understandable why I don’t take lightly my adherence to the libertarian principle that people are inherently free to abuse themselves, but I do believe neither the state nor the citizenry have the right to forcibly prevent an individual from using drugs for recreational purposes.

2014, A Libertarian Look Ahead: Podcast of January 5, 2014 Show

January 7, 2014 by Monica

Hour 1 Hour 2

Duck Dynasty Dust-Up

December 28, 2013 by Monica

Unless I really can’t avoid it, I do avoid discussing divisive “wedge” issues on the air, and I did not make an exception for the Duck Dynasty dust-up, but I do want to take this opportunity to express one heartfelt view I have. I feel strongly that the American people, gay or straight, black or … Read more

It's Not Right vs. Right, It's Us vs. Them

August 6, 2013 by Monica

Much is being made in the news right now about a GOP that is pulling itself apart. The common representation of the struggle is that it is a battle between the far right and the far, far right, or as Mother Jones framed it in describing the Karl Rove PAC dedicated to supporting hand-picked Republicans … Read more

The Moral Hazard of Socialism

March 18, 2013 by Monica

When I first heard that the new pope took the name Francis in an effort to focus the Church on the poor, I thought it could go either way. St. Francis gave up his wealth and lived in poverty, and Franciscan priests take a vow of poverty to this day. Dedicating oneself to the poor is noble, of course, but I have grown skeptical when the poor are invoked as a call to action. I have found that too often the poor are used as an excuse to expand the size and scope of government, while decade after decade we are told we must redouble our efforts in the War on Poverty.

Rand Paul Is "One of the Most Dangerous" Politicians of His Generation

March 12, 2013 by Monica

I stumbled upon an article in The New York Post last week titled “Rand Paul’s Triumph” and was surprised to see something positive about the libertarian senator from Kentucky in a neo-conservative newspaper. The headline gave me hope that perhaps after the last election, the Republican establishment might give up on its egregious trade-your-rights-for-security “core principle.”
I should have known better than to hope when the name of the article’s author, John Podhoretz, rang a bell.
Neo-conservatism was the brainchild of Norman Podhoretz and his protégé Irving Kristol decades ago, and Irving Kristol’s son Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard continues his father’s tradition today. So I suspected that John Podhoretz might be Norman’s son, similarly carrying on his father’s tradition and indeed he is. As a matter of fact, I quickly discovered that Podhoretz is part of the neo-conservative inner sanctum and was actually a co-founder of The Weekly Standard.
Hope does spring eternal, however, so I read on. After gushing with praise over Senator Paul’s intelligence, courage and determination (I was really hooked by then!), Podhoretz delivers his punch:

The logic of Paul’s view is that the United States is the aggressor in the war on Islamist terror rather than a bystander unwillingly drawn into a battle that has not yet been won.
Rand Paul, who turned 50 this year, is one of the most talented politicians of his generation. And one of the most dangerous.

While in my mind nothing justifies a massive attack on civilians like 9/11,

Confessions of a Neo-Conservative: An Exposé (Part 2)

March 2, 2013 by Monica

This is a two-part post. For part one, click here.
Irving Kristol is probably the most well known of the founders of the neo-conservative movement. What is less well known, however, is what that movement really stands for. While the name includes the word conservative, the movement transforms conservatism into a form of prudish socialism that would please no one but its leaders, which is why, in my opinion, they don’t advertize their true goals.
In this two-part blogpost, I cite and comment on a small selection of quotes from Kristol’s definitive book, Neo-Conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea. In part one, I quote Kristol’s strategic call for a “conservative welfare state;” here in part two, I offer some of his more specific ideas.
SOCIAL REFORM: GAINS AND LOSSES (1973)
Although this shocking essay, Social Reform: Gains and Losses, was written decades ago, Kristol chose to include it in this definitive anthology without revision or apology.

One wonders what would happen if all the money spent on Great Society programs had been used to institute, in however modest a way, just two universal reforms: (1) children’s allowance, as already described, and (2) some form of national health insurance? My own surmise is that the country would be in much better shape today. We would all –including the poor among us—feel that we were making progress, and making progress together, rather than at the expense of one another.
Yes such reforms are expensive and technically “wasteful,” in that they distribute benefits to all, needy or not. But to stress this aspect of the matter is to miss the point: Social reform is an inherently political activity, and is to be judged by political, not economic or sociological, criteria. When I say social reform is “political,“ I mean that its purpose is to sustain the polity, to encourage a sense of political community, even of fraternity. To the degree that it succeeds in achieving these ends, a successful social reform—however liberal or radical its original impulse –is conservative in its ultimate effects. Indeed, to take the liberal or radical impulse, which is always with us, and slowly to translate that impulse into enduring institutions which engender larger loyalties is precisely what the art of government, properly understood, is all about.

Is that what you understand government to be about? Is government an institution whose primary purpose is to be an institution? Are radical socialist policies inherently conservative because they engender loyalty to the government? Kristol is not just redefining conservatism here, he is abolishing it! Maybe if we did understand Kristol’s version of “properly understood” government, we would abolish it!