18 posts from January 2008

The "Reactionary Utopian," Mr. Joseph Sobran, writes that the idea of "a world without taxation" is no more "utopian" than the idea to abolish private slavery:

The advocates of the status quo will snort at the “impracticality” of a world without taxes, just as the sensible Athenian would have derided a world without slaves.

The modern world considers it one step from insanity to make proposals that you can’t reasonably expect to see enacted in your lifetime. Of course the modern world very recently considered it “idealistic” to advocate communism, which was indeed enacted within many people’s lifetimes —and very short lifetimes at that.

But a voluntary society? Perish the thought! It could never work!

The previous chapter deduced the necessary consequences of the implementation of socialism in a Garden of Eden. The results were straightforward: a decline in the living standard by less investment in human capital and a change in the character development of society away from personal production and enhancement to an increase in politics and non-production.

In this chapter Dr. Hoppe deduces the economic and social effects of Soviet Union-style or Karl Marx-style socialism in the "real world" of all-around scarcity.

Socialism: This term is defined by Hoppe as the redistribution of property titles away from homesteaders, producers, and contractors (i.e., men who have actually put effort in producing and maintaining such property) to non-homesteaders, non-producers, and non-contractors (i.e., men who have done nothing with such property). It simply follows from this institutionalization and systematic enforcement of such redistribution that there will be a relative disincentive on production and a relative incentive on nonproduction and political looting.

The Promises of Socialists
The full (or partial) nationalization or socialization of the production factors of consumer goods it is claimed will produce

1. equality and equal ownership between all men, i.e., it will result in pure egalitarianism
2. unheard of material prosperity.
   

The first promise will be shown to be false in the next section.*
Economics will follow.

General Observations on False, Superficial Socialist Claims

• *Choice between egalitarianism and non-egalitarianism does not exist: Given that natural differences in opinion between men exist, socialism will impose one grand plan and exclude others. There will still be a hierarchy of decision making in the use of the production factors in society. Instead of private property rights determining the use of such factors, it will be political factors. Hence it is a system that does not make everyone "equal" at all!
• Socialists say that the "anarchy of production" or complex web of production will be gone and it is a choice between a societal plan-design and one without: This too is not accurate. A complex web will still exist. The coordination of resources, resources which must be used by millions of different people, will still exist. The difference being that capitalism allows men to pursue their desires through respect of private property. Socialism gives one group of people the ability to impose by force their own desires on those who disagree, disregarding property rights.
  

The question then is of HOW: How will decision making be run? How will the coordination of production be run?
And under which system is it better? I.e., which system produces more material prosperity?

Reviewing Action in the Real World
[Not all of the following notes are actually from the book. Hoppe assumes the reader is familiar with certain terms. These terms are defined here to fill in the gap for laymen.]

• Every action has an objective. An objective that an actor believes is achievable through some means.
• Man acts because he believes he will be in a better state once he obtains his objective.
• Goods exist in scarcity. Not everything can be gotten that a man might want. He must make choices-----choices that often end up in the curtailment of the number of desires that he can fulfill and/or the curtailment of the obtainment of certain objectives temporally in the more or less distant future.
  
• Man's actions will reflect this: they will be reflected on how he acts, showing that he has his own rank (in ordinal, not cardinal, terms) of what he values more highly versus what he values less.
  
• Implicit, then, in man's actions is the law of diminishing marginal utility. It simply follows from the fact that man satisfies his most highly-valued ends first and his less and less-valued ends after that. (See below.)
• "Opportunity costs" are the costs involved in man giving up one thing for another thing. (Everything costs something----at least time.)
  
• The term "marginal unit" refers to the last unit of a given group. It can be put into use for the satisfaction of the lowest (available) ranked objective to satisfy.
• The term "marginal utility" refers to the value of the marginal unit or the value of a unit if one unit were to be given up.
  
• "Law of diminishing marginal utility": The acquisition of more and more units of the same homogeneous good are put into use for less and less valuable uses.
• In acting, man often uses capital goods to obtain consumer goods: "capital goods" are used to produce consumer goods---they are considered a "higher end" good---and "consumer goods"---a "lower end" good---are the finished product that the acting man wants. In other words, capital goods are used as means to obtain the objective of consumer goods.
  

The Production Factors of Society Under Socialism

• Under socialism there will be a shift away from property-capitalism and into caretaker-socialism resulting in the redistribution of property titles.
  
• No one person (or group of people) is allowed to own such property under socialism.
• This implies they cannot profit off it: such property cannot be sold, purchased; new factors of production cannot be privately created, etc.
• Decision making is done through a "community of caretakers."
  

The Economic Effect of this Shift:

1. Former private owners, losing their private property, can no longer profit by the operation or profit by selling it. The value that they will attach to this now socialized property will fall. Non-producers and non-contractors (previous non-owners) would be promoted (to caretaker) and thus for them it will relatively rise.
2. Given that these laws prohibit the development of new capital, socialism will favor non-savers over savers. The latter will be punished and lose control and the former will now have collective ownership of the resources.

Three Basic Economic Consequences of a Socialist Society

1. Reduced investment.
2. Misallocation of resources.
3. Overutilization at the expense of capital.
   

----All resulting in relative impoverishment, i.e., the deterioration of the standards of living.----

(A pure socialism, in fact, is so deadly that it would very quickly collapse. That is, when a nation-state has implemented a system where all factors of production are socially owned. This is the reason why it took the time it did for the former Soviet Union to collapse. The government officials knew that there needed to be some private market activity.)

1. Reduced Investment in Socialism

As shown above, socialism will favor non-producers and non-contractors and punish producers and contractors. The latter group and their productive efforts will be rendered more costly; whereas other activities----leisure and consumption----will be relatively less costly (and hence more attractive). There will therefore be less of the latter group and less of their kind of activity: there will be less original appropriation, production, maintenance of the factors of production, and less contracting.

Private savings can no longer be used for private investments: This too will add to more consumption (and less work) at the expense of savings. This is the role capitalists play in a free market economy, a role no longer encouraged under socialism.

("After all," writes Hoppe, "you can not become a capitalist any longer, or your possibility of becoming one has been restricted, and so there is at least one reason less to save!")

A Consequence:
Black markets will tend to develop as a result. Since socialism, by definition, is being forced on individuals and is not by voluntary choice, you will likely see the development of a black market and an increasing number of people that go into it.

2. Misallocation of Resources

Change and uncertainty are facts of life: Man's desires and demands change; man's knowledge of nature, physics, biology, technology, medicine, etc. changes; earth's natural resources (supply) and environment changes; and so on.

The allocation or coordination of scarce resources in any society therefore needs the ability to be flexible enough to meet the changing and uncertain world. Resources and investments have to move into and out-of different areas of the economy.

Socialism restricts this movement. More fundamentally: it destroys price accounting: Caretakers cannot evaluate the costs (input) versus the profits (output) to see if the given resource is being used efficiently (or if they are draining away capital!). They cannot compare these costs to other possible uses of the resource. Meaning that there is no way to see if holding onto their resources instead of selling them is the way to go.

Actual monetary costs cannot be evaluated. They cannot be evaluated with the current use of the resources or a change in them.

There is no way to "discover whether his way of using them" is more or less costly versus other ways. They cannot see if there are alternatives that are better and more efficient: Producing the result of an overall drop in production and wealth. Wealth maximization is just not possible.

And there is no way to find out for the caretaker if he is fulfilling the higher or lower demands of consumers.

The result of this must be relatively lower valued goods, all-around inefficiency and waste, and the hinderer of any progress.

Furthermore, a larger society with differing people of tastes, abilities, and knowledge will produce more profound negative results. This is because knowledge, abilities, and tastes will not be concentrated within one mind or group of people but will be spread out. I.e., information will be spread out in society. Without the markets being free, the more disaster-prone the caretaker management will be because of this, and the likelihood of misallocation will be greater.

(To clarify: Instead of natural private property rights be assigned individually containing cost-accounting abilities there will be large lumps of socially owned property with no cost-accounting abilities. It is not so much a "knowledge" problem but a calculation problem. If it were a purely knowledge-information problem, then all organizations, even non-socialist [e.g., business firms and family households], would fall apart into disorder. A knowledge problem suggests that decentralization and not private property is the answer. On the contrary, price information can be centralized to the public [and to a manager of a large firm]. The flaw of socialism is its lack of private property. See pages 255-62 of The Economics and Ethics of Private Property.)

3. Overutilization at the Expense of Capital

A private owner owns both the products produced and the resources to produce them. His incentive will be to maximize both. He will avoid producing a product at the expense (loss) of his capital.

A caretaker does not own the production factors and cannot sell them. The capital stock (the long-term) is of no direct meaning to him. While, as covered above, the overall capital input and consumable output will be less, there is still a need to consume and governmental laws which dictate to do such. The caretaker, however, still will have a personal interest; even if it is not one of increasing private capital (which will do nothing under socialism). That interest will be to increase personal consumption despite of capital. Insofar as he derives any income his interests will be to increase production at the expense of capital.

The development of any black market will further this process, if a caretaker enters/creates it.

Socialist Effects on Labor

The same basic effects will hurt labor:

• No one can be self-employed: Thus, less investment.
• One's labor cannot be sold to the highest bidder: Thus, misallocation.
• Men can only own part of their labor----the fruits of which can only be used for consumption. The rest is in fact owned by the caretakers: Thus, an incentive to increase their caretaker income in spite of the capital value produced out of their (workers') labor and therefore the trend of labor overutilization.
  

(On this third bullet point: Hoppe reasons that this shows that labor under socialism would be less productive and exist in lower standards of living than a privately owned slave labor. Private slave owners would have a relatively greater incentive, who could sell and buy these slaves, not to destroy the capital value of what they own unlike the public or socialist slavery of the above. Empirically the data corresponds. See pages 24-5 in Democracy - The God That Failed.)

There will be a change in the character development:

• Again, there will be a shift from producers to non-producers.
• The qualities of being a producer will decline. This will have an impact on the development of technology and hinder the ability of the population to deal with any, for example, environmental changes/disasters. Qualities such as entrepreneurship, creativity, independence, and resourcefulness will decline.
  
• Instead of decision making being based on private property and the resulting hierarchy which results from those who adequately provide the wants of the public, meet the changing demands, conditions and supplies of the market, the hierarchy under socialism of who is a caretaker or controller of the production factors will depend less and less on these factors (i.e., on good management and efficiency) and more and more on man developing his political character.

To quote Hoppe, on bullet three: "It becomes irrelevant, or is at least of reduced importance, to be a more efficient producer or contractor in order to rise in the hierarchy of income recipients. Instead, it is increasingly important to have the peculiar skills of a politician, i.e., a person who through persuasion, demagoguery and intrigue, through promises, bribes, and threats, manages to assemble public support for his own position. ... It is no hindrance in a caretaker's career for him to be dumb, indolent, inefficient, and uncaring, as long as he commands superior political skills..." (Now you know why George W. Bush is president. Haha.)

West Germany vs. East Germany: In brief, Hoppe says that the best social economic experiment to see empirical data would have to be comparing and contrasting when West and East Germany existed with different economic systems. The population characteristics were the same. They were of one language, history, race, culture, work ethic, and so on. But the living standards were drastically different. They were exactly what would have to be expected, given the above analysis.

-------------------

There is no timetable...

Chapter four and five will come next.

The fourth is on "socialism social-democratic style" and the fifth is on "the socialism of conservatism."

Can't get enough reading about the Old Right? Well, I can't. So I am happy to see that the Intercollegiate Studies Institute is bringing back into print Mr. Justin Raimondo's Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement. It will be out sometime in May.

Description:

Reclaiming the American Right by Justin Raimondo

In recent years a number of conservatives have wondered where the Right went wrong. One persuasive answer is provided by Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement. Justin Raimondo's captivating narrative is the story of how the non-interventionist Old Right—which included half-forgotten giants and prophets such as Sen. Robert A. Taft, Garet Garrett, and Col. Robert McCormick—was supplanted in influence by a Right that made its peace with bigger government at home and "perpetual war for perpetual peace" abroad. First published in 1993, Reclaiming the American Right is today as timely as ever.

The latest volume in ISI Books' Background series, this edition includes a new introduction by Georgetown political scientist George W. Carey, Patrick J. Buchanan’s introduction to the second edition, and new critical essays on the text by Scott Richert, executive editor of Chronicles, and David Gordon, senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Here at The Paleo Blog I am going to try something a bit different. Now that I have my own copy of Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe's A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism (ATSC) I will, at least in part and time allowing, "liveblog" it with some notes. These notes will be made into a more "study guide" format. So I'll call these entries "studyblogs." Typing them up will definitely slow my reading, but it is probably better that way so I will (with any luck) absorb more of it.

Currently I have read chapters one, two, and three. The studyblog of chapter three will be posted above in a separate blog entry. I have no timetable of when the next studyblog entries will be posted. But I'll try to post something once a week.

You can "follow along" by buying the book here at the Mises Institute and/or read it on your computer screen by downloading it for free here [pdf].

(This should be implied, but any errors of mine are my own making. I am, after all, just a layman and not a professional economist.)

Chapter 1

• Without the development of a systematic theory, social or political science is nothing but a confusion of random thoughts "equally" defendable by whimsical opinion making by sheer taste.
• (This reminds me of the saying: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Someone can try to show that increasing the money supply increases wealth by statistics, but statistics cannot beat logic. Man cannot comprehend a world without the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of excluded middle. Did the increase of wealth happen because of the increased supply of money or despite it? In the same way, how can statistics prove or disprove the law of diminishing marginal utility? In a [mostly] similar manner, how can statistics beat the logic of a mathematical theory? One does not have to "test it" and one does not derive pure math from the world.)
• Starting with an absolute and undeniable axiom man can then deduce what it spells out, without the problems of the above. (The axiom of action in praxeology is incontestable. Denying it would be the engagement of action, thus leading to a denial of the original erroneous denial. Likewise, as it will be argued in the book, Hoppe will make a case that argumentation in ethics presumes certain norms in regards to property and aggression.)
  

Chapter 2

Now the fun begins...

• Terms must be defined clearly. They must be understood by all; otherwise the attempt to build a system of thought on top of them will lead to ultimate failure and confusion. This includes "simple" terms, such as property, contract, aggression, capitalism, and socialism. Being so simple man sometimes has trouble defining them in simpler terms or comprehending them accurately.
• A good conceptual analysis of these terms is through a thought experiment to the Garden of Eden.
  

Garden of Eden - An Introduction

In the Garden of Eden everything tangible, other than man's physical body, exists in superabundance.

In such a place the concept of property would not exist. If apples, diamonds, water, fish, etc. exists in superabundance, then the usage of any of these things will have no impact on my present or future supply or on someone else's present or future supply. It thus follows that property rights (i.e., ownership and exclusive control) would not exist. Conflicts cannot arise out of X, if it exists in the Garden of Eden: Man just snaps his finger for X and it appears.

Accordingly a requisite for property is that it must be scarce. This is what differentiates the Garden of Eden from the "Real World." Ours is a world of scarcity. When X is in the Real World, and if it is indeed scarce in the Real World, then it is assigned property rights to rule out potential conflicts over its usage. It is, Hoppe says, "a normative concept: a concept designed to make a conflict-free interaction possible by stipulating mutually binding rules of conduct (norms) regarding scarce resources."

[Sidebar ~ It must not only be scarce, but it must be something controllable and "physical" to the touch. It is a tangible something. If scarcity was the only requisite, then time could be considered "property" but that would obviously be ludicrous. This scarcity requisite, btw, makes intellectual property not "property" at all. Man cannot "own" ideas.]

In the Garden of Eden, however, there is at least one scarce item that must have property rights: man's physical body. There must be property norms to rule out conflicts.

Self-Ownership

• Hoppe will later argue that the "natural" position is the only rationally justifiable one (chapter seven). But until then, the natural position of property norms says that each respected person should own himself.
  
• The naturalness of this position is indicated by, for example, possessive expressions. When we talk, we talk about specific people and imply their ownership of themselves. (E.g., he, she, etc.) And when we talk about actions of specific people. (E.g., Lisa did that, he drove, she ate dinner, etc.)
• Thus, each person owns himself and has control over himself "within the boundaries of [his] surface." Men (women) consequently have every right to make use of their respected body as they see fit.
  

(Newborns and children will be gotten to below.)

Action in the Garden of Eden
(Action which applies just the same for the Real World)

In such a place each man has only one physical body and, let's say that, like in the Real World, it is limited in its lifetime, can be damaged, killed, and so forth. Like stated above, material wealth is not a problem at all. But in the Garden of Eden man can still adopt one lifestyle versus another. He can choose to spend the day (or a hour, minute, etc.) reading a book, drawing, swimming, etc.

• In action man chooses a goal to pursue: A goal which the man has obviously not met; this is why he is acting to get there.
  
• He acts to change his current state into a subjectively higher one of value. (If he was in bliss, he would have no reason to act! Acting would only upset that bliss.)
• Choosing involves preference to do one thing at this moment instead of another. It involves costs: i.e., if I do X it will come at the expense of doing Y.  ("You cannot have your cake and eat it too.")
• All action takes place in time, even in our Garden of Eden. Time is a scarce, limited thing.
• Man using his limited time to pursue the goal of X will cut into Y. Meaning that there will be less time for Y.
• A goal that will take a long time to get implies that there is high cost in waiting for that goal and that the end result of that wait is greater than the cost for the man who is pursuing it. (He could use this time to work for another goal that would reached in a lesser time. This is part of the costs.)
  
• Action implies "property norms" with more than one person. [Say that Adam is joined with Eve.] This is because the action of one person can overlap and cause conflict with another.

Self-Ownership and Contractualism

• Contractualism is based-on and derived from self-ownership and the acknowledgment of such ownership (of property rights). It is this ownership that infers man's right to engage in contractual exchanges with others.
• This means that a man can agree-to or invite another person to do something to his body. (And, of course, to say "no" to someone who wishes to do something to it.)
• Such relations are mutual because each party in a contractual exchange agrees to the exchange. They agree to the exchange because each party expects to benefit from it; otherwise one or both parties would not agree to it.
  
• This does not mean, though, that after an agreed exchange one or both parties might say, in hindsight, it was wrong. The point is that ex ante they thought it would be a positive.
  

Aggression

Aggression is an action done to another without the agreement of that other. (It is uninvited.) For example, raping, beating, killing, stopping someone from doing something they do not personally like, enslaving, etc.

(Note: An invasion can only be done by causing damage or taking command of another's physical integrity of their property. It cannot be an "invasion" on, to quote Hoppe, "the integrity of someone's value system." If that were the case, then no one could act because no one could figure out ex ante if this or that action would hurt someone's, subjective, "value system." Such a task would be impossible. Furthermore it completely violates the property rights system and transforms it into something else, and impossibly so, entirely.)

What Does Aggression Result In?

The attacker, or aggressor, gains in some personal fulfillment, but at the expense of another person (the aggressed----the victim). The victim's fulfillment of happiness has decreased.

(This is unlike voluntary contractualism.)

More on Life (actions) in the Garden of Eden

• Remember: in the Garden of Eden men can still choose different lifestyles. They can do different things with their bodies through time----which is finite and scarce.
• Consumption vs. Investment Decisions:
• ------Consumption Decisions: Lifestyle choices that focus on immediate consumption.
• ------Investment Decisions: Lifestyle choices that only bear fruit in the more distant future. These require "the actor to overcome disutility of waiting." Investment decisions require human capital, i.e., time, patients, effort and things of this nature.
  

Socialism in the Garden of Eden

• With the implementation of socialism, man no longer would have full control over his life. That is to say, aggression (as defined above) has been institutionalized in the Garden of Eden.
• Nonproducers (called this in due to their non-production over bodies that are not their own) would have control over producers.
• The degree and type of control would be far ranging and so, as a result, would the consequences. But we can still deduce from the above the general result.
• These results in the Garden of Eden apply just the same to the Real World of all-around scarcity. [More so, since the Real World has scarcity "outside" of the physical body.]
  

What Would Be The Consequences?

(1) The "Economic" Consequences...

The gratification----the subjective psychic income---a producer can earn from his body will be lowered because the range of choices that he can make will be fewer.  As a result the amount of investment placed in human capital will be lower, since it would "pay" (or, put in another way, bring) less. Since investment-time, which costs in waiting time, would be less valuable as an investment, henceforth man's actions will be more directed towards consumption decisions and opposed to investment decisions.

In a nutshell: Socialism will always, and by necessity, lower income and increase consumption.

"Put drastically," writes Hoppe, "it leads to a tendency to turn philosophers into drunks." (So that explains it! Haha. Just kidding.)

(2) The "Social" Consequences...

A system of socialism that has been institutionalized to the public [e.g., say democracy] will allow for greater numbers of people to pursue their desire by redistribution-socialism, i.e., by using the institution of aggression, at the expense of producers. This will make aggression relatively easier and production more costly. Therefore the institutionalization and acceptance of anti-natural property rights in a society will tend to push men from production to parasitism. It will change men's characters and the social system from producers to nonproducer parasitic-aggressors.

In a nutshell: Socialism will, as I have said before on this blog, turn man into a political animal.

The Real World and Non-Body Private Property

• Ownership cannot be based on just any verbal claim.  There must be an "objective, intersubjectively ascertainable link between the owner and the property owned," writes our author.
• Again, the occupant of one's body is the given man. He is the "first user." (The only direct user!) A man's body is used by him.

As far as property ownership "outside" of one's body in the Real World, this property must be "produced" in the sense that a man transforms nature or "homesteads" it into, let us say, a "product" that the given man subjectively values.

This transformation or homesteading requires the man to in someway indicate a "border" to that thing of nature. To show his ownership. Hence he does not need to transform (or "touch") every thing to make it his property (e.g., every single atom even in the "middle" of this thing, which is impossible). Also, in this transformation it need not be continuous. (I.e., a piece of property does not need to be forever transformed to be owned. It just needs to be homesteaded once sometime in the past.)

After property is developed out of the state of nature and into the hands of a man, it can then be voluntarily exchanged with another (or given as a gift).

As far as newborns: They have been "produced," but they are new "actor-producers." They are owners of their bodies and have the potential to become fully developed adults. Accordingly they have the absolute right not to be aggressed upon. The parents are trustees, but nothing more [i.e., they are not master slave owners!]. Children, in accordance with this, must have the absolute right to runaway and, as Hoppe says, have the right to say "no" when demanded to come back home.

[For more on the subject of homesteading (or children) you can turn to Murray Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty or chapter four (children: chapter seven) of Rothbard's Egalitarianism As a Revolt Against Nature.]

You know, it is ironic. It could just be that the mainstream and establishment "acceptable" form of libertarianism, sometimes referred to as left-libertarianism, understands, at least subconsciously, that its extreme atomistic individualism and extreme libertinism (e.g., high time preference lifestyles) requires a very large centralized Leviathan State. In the same regards, it might help partially explain why they are relatively friendly with empire and foreign interventionism, since they view it as acceptable for the national government to impose its will---i.e., "liberation"---on local communities here in the United States. In accepting that, it then becomes not such a big jump to support the national government to impose its "liberating" will on some distant nation of people. Moreover, such so-called "liberation" internationally requires military service. Such "services" are not only an example of a socialist and collectivist enterprise, which is as socialist as they come!, but a enterprise that requires man to disregard and move away from old taboos on morality. It allows him and encourages him to be "freed" from them.

"Scratch an egalitarian," Murray Rothbard once wrote, "and you will inevitably find a statist." This ideology, one that many of these beltway libertarians have, has been a primary excuse to defend the State's existence, expansion, centralization, and the adoption of nationalism as opposed to federalism. A power that can only be used to impose top-down authoritarian control; breaking down traditional norms, communities, institutions, and ultimately thereby isolating and detaching the individual for managerial control. A process that (d)evolves a society based on a one-on-one relationship between the individual and the State.

(This is not to say, of course, that local statism is justified. However, the fact that local statism is not justified does not justify an even larger State or collective to engage in social engineering and control on a smaller one.)

Mr. Marcus Epstein explored seven myths of Martin Luther King in this 2003 article:

1. 

   Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Towards a Secular Theocracy

   Paul Gottfried
   "King wanted only equal rights, not special privileges and would have opposed affirmative action, quotas, reparations, and the other policies pursued by today’s civil rights leadership."
2. "King was an American patriot, who tried to get Americans to live up to their founding ideals."
3. "King was a Christian activist whose struggle for civil rights is similar to the battles fought by the Christian Right today."
4. "King was an anti-communist."
5. "King supported the free market."
6. "King was a conservative."
7. "King wasn’t a plagiarist."
   

Mr. Tucker on Anti-Family, Pro-Union Tyranny at InsideCatholic.com.

Read Here.

Mr. Stephen Baskerville writes in a Chronicles article that it would be an error to believe that family deterioration (e.g., out-of-wedlock births) is based "solely to cultural and lifestyle decadence." Instead the

ongoing sexual revolution is now codified in government policies that do more than discourage family formation: They empower officials to dissolve families and offer generous rewards for doing so. The growth of unwed childbearing in the middle class, like the older problem in low-income communities, grows directly out of welfare.

"[T]he most direct threat to the family is not homosexuality, pornography, popular culture, euthanasia, cloning, or abortion," but the transformation of marriage contract and covenant.

Mr. Wilson, in the reply section, adds that "there is another element equally important in my opinion. Our masters have seen to it that middle and working class families need two incomes to survive, unlike any other civilised country in history."

Um. How shall I say this?

I might as well repeat: "Down with Democracy."

Mr. John Zmirak is right:

Well, then. Now we know. It’s nice to know what percentage of my fellow citizens of New Hampshire actually value peace and freedom: Around 10%.  That may be the same ratio as prevails across the nation. Not terribly encouraging. It will make me a little more careful leaving my laundry in the dryer in Nashua.

It reminds me of the utter futility of “democracy” which trumpets one’s right to “participate” in a system that confiscates 30-50% of the individual’s wealth, so that 51% (duly led by the likes of Nurse Ratched and the Manchurian Candidate) can squander it. Hans Hermann Hoppe’s title, ”Democracy: The God that Failed” sounds more apt by the day.

Thank heavens we were “freed” from systems which enshrined a hereditary monarch--however inbred, who only had claim to 2% of one’s wealth, and would never dream of imposing conscription. We are so much freer, and more virtuous now.

My grandfather left Austria-Hungary in 1917 rather than fight for the Kaiser.  Thanks a lot, Grandpa.

Never was I naïve enough to believe that Dr. Ron Paul, the great man and hero that he is, would get the nomination of the Republican Party, but, I must say, I am still disappointed that he did not do a bit better number-wise and rank-wise. I would be lying if I said otherwise.

Yes, I know it is not over. The primary still goes on. There is the chance, even if small, that he might place comparatively higher in the upcoming states.

In the overall picture of things, nonetheless, it is difficult to say that "Freedom is Popular." Make that not so popular. The mass of the public might enjoy a man with good, (somewhat) highbrow rhetoric on the virtues of individual freedom, free markets and capitalism, and some mysterious thing called "limited government." The trouble is, is this is where it ends with them. As long as it is equivalent to the fake and empty talk and promises of a Reagan-like character men like it. If it goes beyond that backed-up with actual devotion to such rhetoric, then we are speaking of something different.

Hogs on a farm come to mind. The farmer rattles the bucket a little. The hogs run to the trough for a dinner of slop. Something not fit for human consumption, but they love it and eat it like you wouldn't believe. Day after day they get their slop. All happy and fat. Rolling in the mud. Thinking they were in hog heaven. Then, one day, all happy and fat and unaware, they are to be taken to get slaughtered. To make bacon, ham, pork chops, and so forth.

Besides, let us all be honest, the Republican Party (and their supposed "opposition" party in D.C.) will never be reformed away from corruption and ideological bankruptcy. Not even Ron Paul and the Revolution movement can change this (meaning directly----more on this later). It has always been rotten to the core. Any exceptions are just anomalies. That is all. So has the federal---actually, make that national (it is not "federal," as it was designed to be)---government. It too has been rotten.

Make that from day one. Congress use to be viewed, as John Adams put it, as a "meeting place of ambassadors" for the independent, sovereign states. The so-called Federalists (actually, due to the ever changing nature of words in the political world they would be best described as anti-Federalists) wanted a centralized state. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison this was particularly true. The early stages of the Philadelphia Convention were heavily tilted in the nationalist direction. The Virginia Plan was trying to push a national government, and according to the notes of James Madison, "consisting of a supreme judicial, legislative, and executive." The meaning of "supreme" meant that the federal government would have say if a conflict arose between a state and the national government. Naturally this is something that would not sell-well with the public, thus the convention was done in secret.

As we know, this group failed. A national government was not implemented. Instead what was implemented was a limited, federal government with a Bill of Rights designed to protect the rights of the independent states and people. However, as we can see, the push for this centralized government was not white and pure as the snow. There were far more sinister forces at work than most people realize. In fact, most people do not even realize or know that there was a time without a Constitution. On Independence Day people act as if it is a day in celebration of a nation-state. On the contrary, the Treaty of Paris was not directed to a nation-State----it did not exist----but to the 13 separate states. You might as well say 13 nation-states.

While compromise happened, i.e., the dreams of a national government were put on hold, a coup d'état still happened. It didn't take too long for this centralization of governmental power to increase on the momentum. (And, hey, why want a Constitution when the Articles of Confederation were better?) Time travel back to today and it can be easily seen that what exists is a national government, and one that would even pass (by far) the dreams of the nationalists at the Philadelphia Convention. It would probably (hopefully) scare them. (It would scare the Jeffersonians!)

The impetus driving power for the Washington political parties and the entire national government (or state governments, for that matter) to just turn 180 degrees and move in the other direction is too strong, nor possible given the structure and incentives of statism. There is too much power and special interest groups invested in the status quo. Too much dependence on the current system to be changed internally.

Thinking that it will change in such a way is like saying that the laws of gravity will inverse tomorrow.

Voting has never made anyone free. Thinking that voting will someday make us all free is a sign of a man who is not paying attention and who is only kidding himself. I fully agree with the following statement: If voting really made a difference, then it would be illegal. As far as I am concerned, voting "rights" only show us how un-free we really all are.

But back to the Ron Paul Revolution... Am I completely disappointed, or something of this effect? No, not at all. This Paleo Blog entry should not suggest that. Overall it has been triumph! Because of the spreading of ideas.

I am still amazed and thrilled at the grassroots. God bless them all, and God bless Dr. Paul. (I am not sure how this man does it. He is a saint.) The Revolution has won in spreading some good ideas. Hopefully they have made, and will continue to make, some dent in the fabric of public opinion. That is why I support him and why everyone should. Dr. Paul is a natural (non-establishment) aristocrat.

Plus I am relatively more hopeful long-term than before because of the Revolution.

So what I mean when I said that "not even Ron Paul and the Revolution movement can change" the nature of statism and the political system, I mean that in a direct way. Indirectly it can and (I very much hope) it is. Enough people that realize the nature of statism can end it. Without public support it would just blow away. And every system----stateless, monarchical, democratic, dictatorial, etc.----depends on public support, even if it is just passive support.

All empires crumble in the long-run. As long as there are people, like Dr. Paul, out there, it is possible that the masses will realize why and what direction to take. A major economic crisis (even catastrophic ones) can result in, at least temporarily, a more despotic government emerging, as the ignorant and power-seeking erroneously fault the free market for the dilemma. Then again, if the voices of gentlemen like Dr. Paul are heard, the public might wise-up and move in a more liberty direction. Ideas are vital.

Expanding on the theme of the Old Right, the following are some essays written by Murray N. Rothbard on the subject. As to be expected with such, there is substantial overlap in these essays. The content in these essays is found, to a greater degree and with a delightful personal angle, in Rothbard's The Betrayal of the American Right.

Here they are:

A few more essays are worth adding. One is his April 1959 "For A New Isolationism." Rothbard wrote this for the National Review, in the "New Right's" own terms, to attempt to steer the Right-wing to an "isolationist" or non-interventionist stance. Unsurprisingly it was rejected by William Buckley.

"Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty" (Spring 1965) was his first article in the journal Left and Right. It explains the corruption of classical liberalism and how liberalism was transformed to pursue liberal goals (i.e., individual freedom) through "conservative" or establishment means via statism, an impossibility.

---------
Also worthy to add in here is an interview with Mr. Rockwell.  It is on "Libertarianism and the Old Right." Another one is Mr. Stromberg's "Rothbard versus Rothbard: A False Dilemma," which briefly addresses criticisms of Rothbard's shifting alliance with the left & right and explains why he was always a cultural conservative.