27 posts tagged “paleoconservative”
Mr. Sobran is of course brilliant. Read his latest piece available online, "The Nixon I Didn't Know," by clicking here.
"Hey, Neocon": Paleos are winning on the web.
(Plus see A Few More Thoughts)
Paul Gottfired talks about his new book, Conservatism in America: Making Sense of the American Right . . .
--- The Neoconning of the American Right at LRC.
--- Buy Making Sense Of The American Right! at VDARE.
--- My Book at TakiMag.
Lew Rockwell on War Without End.
Justin Raimondo: Vietnam, Again.
War With Iran? It has already started, says Raimondo.
An Acid Trip Gone Bad by Fred Reed.
A Political Theory of Geeks and Wonks by Jeffrey Tucker (Which are you? Geek or Wonk?)
(I did take the time to watch this, despite a slow connection. Great interview! And a very nice look inside the wonderful Mises Institute and its, from all I have seen, delightful atmosphere and, dare I say, culture.)
Download The Bastiat Collection [PDFs]
A Reply to Local Neocon Talk Radio Show: Topics include the Libertarian Party in Arizona, Trade, Globalism, Sweatshops, and Immigration...
The Libertarian Party in Arizona
Every time libertarianism is mentioned on this particular show, the producer, who you could consider a co-host of this show because she is so much involved in the on-air discussions, says that no one wants to be associated with the Libertarian Party in Arizona because it is filled with kooks and crazies (or something of that effect). She probably has some kind of grudge or something or another with Ernest Hancock, who by all accounts, from what I can tell, seems like a fine gentlemen. He is very dedicated to the libertarian cause, smart, and honest. He might be “eccentric,” that is all.
I am not an “insider” or follower of the workings of the Libertarian Party in Arizona (far from), but I do know it is stronger in Arizona than most (if not all) other states. During the 2004 election, Hancock running for the senate got the highest percentage any Libertarian running for that office has gotten anywhere else or any other time. He broke the record, it appears and if I remember correctly. Obviously then, she does not know what she is talking about. How are the Libertarians in Arizona “a joke” (her words) by those that help run it and organize it, if they do better and poll higher than the majority of other Libertarians? They must be doing something right!
To clarify, she was not attacking the Libertarian Party for being so small relative to that of the major political parties, but was attacking it for being run so poorly as to being weaker than what it otherwise could be. She was attacking the “jokes” of the party. Of course, no one can prove that support would be higher or lower if the major players changed. But she proves herself wrong if we compare the Libertarian Party in Arizona to other states.
Mission of Libertarianism
And, also, if the Libertarian Party does anything, it should be to spread ideas. It should be a tool for education. I am aware that many in that party want to turn it into a much more moderate version to become electable, but that misses the point of why it was created. By doing that (and the national Libertarian Party has done that), you also throw out principles. Libertarianism does not win and cannot win by throwing out values. Say, for example, the Libertarian Party tried to assimilate to the now mainstream position on healthcare. And say by doing this, the Libertarian Party started to (somehow) grow and those running for office in this party started to win. The question then would be: So what? Libertarianism did not win: statist ideas won. That is not a victory-----not at all.
So if this talk radio show producer believes that the idea is to win elections by undercutting the philosophy of liberty, she is dead wrong. Someone like Mr. Hancock is a no compromise libertarian and Arizona is lucky to have someone like that.
I know there was some brew-ha-ha in the Libertarian Party about changing its platforms. They did and trimmed it down to a more “acceptable” level. Mr. Hancock tried to stop that. I remember him reporting into Charles Goyette’s show. Mr. Goyette replied that “anytime you try to collectivize something, it is doomed” or something like that. He’s right.
Sweatshops and Trade
Another topic came up in response to libertarianism on the radio show. This was from the guest host who was filling in, not the producer. He said, paraphrasing: “Doesn’t the free market build factories in foreign nations for slave labor? Doesn’t it bring in all of this immigration?”
The protectionist right meets the anti-capitalist left in their slogans and propaganda. What is “slave labor”? When I think of slavery, I think of it meaning that someone is coerced into working for another. If the person refuses to work, then that person will be put into chains and forced to work. Slavery is the condition of being subject to the chain and whip. Factories that open up in Third Worlds are not slave workshops. To the contrary, they are beneficial to both us here in America and those that choose, by free choice, to work for them.
Those that decide to work for such factories do so because they believe that it is more beneficial to work there than to work at some other place. If this were not the case, then they would make a decision to work some place else. Hence, the opening up of the factory is beneficial to them. The alternative, in many cases, is starvation or even prostitution. Activists that try to stop the building of these factories condemn these people of the Third World to go into worse conditions. It is they who produce misery and poverty and not the capitalists. When the capitalists open up this new line of work it also adds to the future development of the people that live in such Third Worlds. More wealth and production is created. It frees up the market place into new areas of production. This will remain true as long as the market is relatively free (the freer the better) and will grow as much as the people in question are capable of growing. The more evil capitalist pigs who try to squeeze every penny, the better. See Thomas J. DiLorenzo's article "How 'Sweatshops' Help the Poor".
We benefit too in such a process. A more wealthy and prosperous neighbor does not make us get poorer. Opposite is the case! Just as, when Bill Gates makes his fortunes, he does not do so at the expense of our pocketbooks. There is a two-way “action” or relation. Mutual benefit occurs.
Questions that arise concerning the loss of jobs is fruitless then, as long as there is a free competitive market. I am not saying that an individual in question does not hurt if he no longer has a job or anything of that nature. But there is more than meets the eye. When production is increased or when costs shrink, the market place is freed up into more areas in the lines of production. It is a twist on the broken window fallacy of economics.
The long-run and net benefit is positive. If the calls for protectionism were true, then it would be exactly like saying that any new areas of development in the progress of technology should be discouraged and halted. Reasoning that says that new technology kills jobs is the same logic that calls for protectionism. But new technology, while it may kill some jobs, frees the market place up in new areas. The pyramid of production capabilities to fulfill different wants and desires is expanded. And the list of new wants is endless.
Just to be clear, libertarianism does not defend statist corporatism. Probably most huge multinational companies are one way or another in bed with the government. They are grated special (non-market) privileges, favors, and protection from competitive market conditions. Many of them owe their entire existence or their high status because of governmental regulations. So, yes, “imbalances” are created that do lower present and future production, lead to irrational economic behavior, and destroy and limit jobs. But we all should try to understand this and discriminate between the two. Anomalies like this exist because of statist interventionism in the first place. Adding a whole set of new regulations will further push these imbalances.
In addition, I have heard some protectionist-conservatives decry trade as “globalism” and as a means to spread multiculturalism. On many pages, except outside of pure libertarian ethics, I am on the same page as many of these paleoconservatives. Like paleolibertarian Thomas Woods, I am libertarian in politics and (old style) conservative in most other areas. But on this subject, these particular paleoconservatives make little sense to me. Government centralization is bad. And I reject it. This is why I am against all of these so-called “free” trade agreements. They harmonize power. It is a step backwards for liberty --- not forward.
As far as multiculturalism, this makes even smaller sense to me. Trade deals with trade: Movements of people deal with immigration. It is apart and different from trade. Movements of goods deals with the movement of goods (products). Getting good television sets, for example, from Japan is not embracing “multiculturalism.” Buying things more interconnected with culture, such as food and cuisine, happens like any other trade between people. One finds it in his advantage to get, say, a recipe and certain ingredients. He does so because he finds advantage. Good things are helped promoted, while bad ones will generally sink in the market place. It also helps promote some of “our” good values to them.
(In the essay "Weaver of Liberty," Joseph Stromberg quotes Weaver saying the following: "two rights must be respected: the right of cultural pluralism where different cultures have developed, and the right of cultural autonomy in the development of a single culture." As Dr. Stromberg replies, this is libertarianism property understood. There is not some big gap here.)
Immigration
The second objection to the free market was on immigration. This is a more complex task. In trade, there is a sender and a receiver. Governmental interventionism exists in trade, but, as far as I can right not see, does not overly stimulate free trade relationships. Hmm...This I will have to think about, I might be wrong.* What it does more of is overly stimulate anti-trade relationships instead.
However, in immigration there is not always a sender and a receiver. The movement of people is on property. He who controls a given property controls who can be on it and move on it.
*(A stimulus to trade with other people in another country would occur, for example, if the government heavily regulated X industry. X would then look relatively more attractive at places outside the U.S. But my guess is that government instead overstimulates the opposite.)
Public property is in an almost chaotic management in terms of how it handles movements of large amounts of people. Welfare and other services provided by government stimulate an influx of immigration that is unnatural to the free market. The question of how much immigration would or would not occur in a truly free market without government is unknown. There is no formula that we can use. But I can think I can safely predict that immigration would take on a whole different form.
Today’s public outrage on immigration helps to show that much of the current influx is not welcomed. Social tensions have risen. Crime has increased. And, as one would expect, movement in a given area no longer requires assimilation. As huge blocks of people move in, assimilation is no loner required. Communications breakdown, social-cultural-racial hostilities increase, and the complexity of the division of labor decreases in scope as a result. Without a communication glue to hold people together (language), participating in a complex and diversified division of labor becomes less possible.
(And the costs of providing increased welfare and other governmental functions is probably more than that of providing basic protection and enforcement near the border between Mexico and the United States.)
Liberty for people need people more-or-less unified. When people have different attachments, different faiths, different beliefs, and so forth, this does not promote a tendency for a free environment. Paleoconservative Pat Buchanan is exactly right on this.
Now with this said, government thrives on artificially making movement to all places as easy as possible. Because taxation on as many people as possible requires government to have easy access to all private property. Government also needs this easy access to control as many people as possible. Instead of internal order being provided by, for instance, heads of households and families, government needs to dismantle any natural authority and atomize individuals loose from these (voluntary --- private property law based) natural and organic institutions, authorities, and elites.
The “borders” of property are dismantled by the State. This is what gives government more power and allows it to expand its territory. It must defuse them in order to have greater control and to tax more. A North American Union logically would demand open borders.
And guess what? Neoconservatives want a North American Union. They know that open borders is part of that package. President Bush and the Republicans that support him, in typical neocon fashion, are condemning all of those who reject his amnesty as racists, bigots, nativists. I have sadly heard/read a few libertarians use those words for those that do not believe in open borders as well.
In light of all of this, one can say that immigration in a free market would take a different look. Immigration would not transform communities. The division of labor grows when there exists a social-cultural bond between people. Businesses and capitalists could not “externalize” the costs of new immigration onto other people. All immigrants would be invited under a free market. There would be no forced integration or forced exclusion.
As far as wages are concerned in the debate over immigration, this is not an argument against immigration. I believe that the reason against this influx of immigration is (partly) above in some of the previous paragraphs. It is not that they lower wages that causes problems. The same economic fallacies, I believe, are used here as they appear in the arguments that protectionists use.
Here is more on immigration on The Paleo Blog:
Conservatism in America has surely been corrupted away from who is arguably its post-World War II founding father, the great Russell A. Kirk. I do not believe it is ever coming back (because of the evil nature of politics), but it is nonetheless interesting to compare and contrast what qualifies as conservatism today as against what it was intended to mean by its father. Indeed, how many self-described "conservatives" have any solid basis in its actual foundation? Could they even be called conservative? Do they know the principles of conservatism, its different subsets, or its past intellectual champions? Have they read and studied the "essential" texts of conservative thought? Does the mention of names like Irving Babbitt, John T. Flynn, Garet Garrett, Paul Elmer More, George Santayana, Robert Taft, Peter Viereck, Eric Voegelin, and Richard Weaver just draw a blank stare?
Just as much as left-liberalism, what passes as contemporary conservatism is both bankrupt and corrupt intellectually, morally, and philosophically. This was not lost on the late Kirk. Near the end of his life he became disgusted of what became of the term conservative. From his point of view, the term in its real meaning was moribund. Just as liberalism today pretty much means a partisan devotion to the Democrat Party, the same can be said of conservatism, mutatis mutandis. It has been poisoned by the political parade, and its spokesmen reside in the "sports talk" of talk radio where Gresham's Law resides.
Today's conservatives may well be described, more or less, as holding on to an ideology that believes in the unbreakable strength of statism. To them, there is not a barrier to what statism can accomplish. The use of force can transform and mold a people to whatever their heart desires. Firepower can achieve anything. Inevitably, this belief echoes into all other lines of reasoning that they have. Acceptance of big government abroad needs, ultimately, big government at home. Such cognitive dissonance that is not extirpated naturally leads to a statist and collectivist temperament all-around. If I am not mistaken, I believe Lew Rockwell, a paleolibertarian friend of Kirk, has said that faith in government's ability in war making is the ultimate faith in government power. Need there be more said about today's conservatives?
It’s from this that all too many conservatives have cheered on the creation of the Patriot Act, and other increases in the State's power. Moreover, many conservatives go far beyond this and preach an ideology of "exporting" "democracy" around the world, with force if need be. The neoconservative Max Boots, for example, says he desires "hard Wilsonianism." And William Kristol has said that the U.S. should exploit its "military supremacy and moral confidence" to achieve "benevolent global hegemony."
Such an abstract, universal, utopian (dare I say, fascistic?) idea is of course incompatible with Kirk's views. As Russell Kirk wrote, "cultural form and substance cannot be transported intact from one people to another." His (real) conservative view of militarism is equally clear: "there is no tyranny more onerous than military life." "Prudence," a key principle of Kirk's, is completely absent in today's foreign policy, and so is just war theory.
Hand-in-hand with modern day conservatism’s imperialistic outlook comes an ideology that encourages the development of international bodies of governmental agencies, e.g., NAFTA, the WTO, the UN, etc.
"We've Been Neo-Conned," correctly says Rep. Ron Paul.
Another example of cognitive dissonance that shows up in modern day conservative thinking is seen in their argumentation for a "free market economy." Often times they argue for it* on what you could call left-wing premises. For instance, some conservatives happily proclaim that cutting taxation just right will have the upshot of growing the size of government. This way it can be argued that conservative means can accomplish leftist ends. However, this, in turn, gives such ends a high value of worthiness. This therefore has the consequence of giving ideological impetus to the "worthiness" of enlarging the State. You can additionally find many egalitarian premises in their rhetoric ranging from abortion, civil rights, feminism, foreign interventionism (statist globalism), etc.
*(even if it is really a shallow, fascistic version thereof)
Accordingly, and not surprisingly, Irving Kristol has called for a "conservative welfare state" (which can only be described as a contradiction in terms). Then there have been neoconservatives that have tried to falsely portray Martin Luther King as some kind of conservative and morally upstanding man. Likewise, feminism has been increasingly portrayed as a "good" movement.
Hence one wonders if there is nothing that after time conservatives will not come to accept as good and wonderful. Gene Callahan, the author of the excellent and highly recommended Economics for Real People, on his blog "Crash Landing" comments on this topic (although, with the following we probably could even attack Kirk for his unfortunate statism):
This post over at the Lew Rockwell blog reminded me of the stupidity of modern conservatives. Time after time, modern conservatives have fought some "progressive" programme only to embrace it as their own a generation later. You now here conservatives talking as if human society would be impossible without the police, apparently unaware that professional police forces are a nineteenth century invention. The war on drugs, a stupid, costly, and civil rights crushing adventure that has made the drug problem far worse than when it was begun, is another progressive programme that conservatives now think we couldn't live without. I actually saw one conservative writing that opium "legalization" in the 19th-century was the first time drugs had ever been legal anywhere, apparently not realizing that they had almost always been legal almost everywhere. Public education is yet one more example.
Is there any programme that conservatives think is so stupid and awful that forcing them to live with it for a few years won't lead them to love it?
Thus conservatism marches through time accepting and cheering on more and more government involvement (and cultural deterioration) into our lives and into our communities. Status quo is really its goal: the status quo of the continuation of moving, "progressively," to more statism and to accepting more leftist creeds.
***
Today many organizations and think tanks give awards in memory of the late Russell Kirk. They sing his praises. But as these organizations do that, they promote so many of the very opposite values that he put forth. He must be spinning in his grave.
So what were some of Russell Kirk's other thoughts on the war topic, in
particular as it relates to the Middle East? Now, given some of the
quotes above and the more extensive quotes below, it would be a good
bet that many "conservatives" would childishly and stupidly attack the
author of The Conservative Mind as a sissy, hate America, leftist, liberal.
Kirk on Robert A. Taft [Gene Healy - "Conservatism, Old and New"]:
Thomas Woods asks: "Oh, and what kind of leftist said the following?" . . .Taft's prejudice in favor of peace was equaled in strength by his prejudice against empire. Quite as the Romans had acquired an empire in a fit of absence of mind, he feared that America might make herself an imperial power with the best of intentions – and the worst of results. He foresaw the grim possibility of American garrisons in distant corners of the world, a vast permanent military establishment, an intolerant "democratism" imposed in the name of the American way of life, neglect of America's domestic concerns in the pursuit of transoceanic power, squandering of American resources upon amorphous international designs, the decay of liberty at home in proportion as America presumed to govern the world: that is, the "garrison state," a term he employed more than once. The record of the United States as administrator of territories overseas had not been heartening, and the American constitution made no provision for a widespread and enduring imperial government. Aspiring to redeem the world from all the ills to which flesh is heir, Americans might descend, instead, into a leaden imperial domination and corruption.
Kirk on Perpetual War [Thomas Woods - "Do Conservatives Hate Their Own Founder?"]:
First Gulf War:Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace comes to pass in an era of Righteousness -- that is, national or ideological self-righteousness in which the public is persuaded that 'God is on our side,' and that those who disagree should be brought here before the bar as war criminals.
On Blowback (He must be a "blame America," "hate America" guy, right?):Now indubitably Saddam Hussein is unrighteous but so are nearly all the masters of the "emergent" African states (with the Ivory Coast as a rare exception), and so are the grim ideologues who rule China, and the hard men in the Kremlin, and a great many other public figures in various quarters of the world. Why, I fancy that there are some few unrighteous men, conceivably, in the domestic politics of the United States. Are we to saturation-bomb most of Africa and Asia into righteousness, freedom, and democracy? And, having accomplished that, however would we ensure persons yet more unrighteous might not rise up instead of the ogres we had swept away? Just that is what happened in the Congo, remember, three decades ago; and nowadays in Zaire, once called the Belgian Congo, we zealously uphold with American funds the dictator Mobutu, more blood-stained than Saddam. And have we forgotten Castro in Cuba?
According to Lew Rockwell, Kirk once wrote to him that he wanted to see "Bush the Elder to be hanged on the White House lawn as a war criminal." What would he say about the even more foolish president, President George W. Bush?We must expect to suffer during a very long period of widespread hostility toward the United States – even, or perhaps especially, from the people of certain states that America bribed or bullied into combining against Iraq. In Egypt, in Syria, in Pakistan, in Algeria, in Morocco, in all of the world of Islam, the masses now regard the United States as their arrogant adversary; while the Soviet Union, by virtue of its endeavors to mediate the quarrel in its later stages, may pose again as the friend of Moslem lands. Nor is this all: for now, in every continent, the United States is resented increasingly as the last and most formidable of imperial systems. [emphasis from Woods]
At the Heritage Foundation, Kirk said that "In general, Republicans throughout the twentieth century have been advocates of prudence and restraint in the conduct of foreign affairs." Whereas "Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson were enthusiasts for American domination of the world." But "Now George [H.W.] Bush appears to be emulating those eminent Democrats."
***
The traditional conservatism of Russell Kirk has long past. Instead we have the good fortune to hear screaming heads, such as Michael Savage, on talk radio. And we get to read, to quote Paul Gottfried, "wall-to-wall toxic waste" from the likes of David Frum in National Review.
Though thankfully, some remnants of a more "real" Right exist today. For example, there's Chronicles Magazine, The American Conservative, and Taki's Top Drawer. Then there's, from a more (right-) libertarian point of view, AntiWar.com and LewRockwell.com. Where else, but these places, will you hear the names of Kirk, or Richard Weaver, or references to the Old Right?
As Daniel McCarthy says, "National Review Isn't Right."
(Being that I am a "Rothbardian," I do have my own personal and ideological disagreements with a gentleman like Russell Kirk. His dislike of systematic thinking is my biggest problem with his ideas. Though, in general, I am sympathetic to his concept of a conservative culture and moral order.)
- Understanding Neoconservatism --- The Neocon Archives at LRC.
- See Daniel McCarthy's LRC archives. He's an expert in conservative thought.
- From Intellectual Conservatism to Mindless Republicanism --- "GOP and Man at Yale" in TAC.
- Paul Gottfried is interviewed at the Property and Freedom Society.
For the very, very best in anti-war (i.e., anti-liberal interventionist) opinions, nothing can beat "the magazine for thinking conservatives," The American Conservative (TAC).
The back-cover of the latest issue (June 4) has this:
We Hate to Say
We Told You So. . .
October 7, 2002
“Through U.S. forces could quickly defeat Iraq’s regular army in the field, there is a high risk of prolonged urban guerilla warfare and great numbers of civilian casualties.”
“Once in Baghdad, how do we get out? ... To destroy Saddam’s weapons, to democratize, defend, and hold Iraq together, U.S. troops will be tied down for decades.”
October 21, 2002
“... the administration really does not know whether there is a clear and imminent threat from Iraq, cannot prove that one exists, and resists proposals for finding out because the answer might undermine its plans for war.”
“As one senor Ba’ath party official said to me, ‘When the Americans say there will be dancing in streets if Saddam is toppled, they are simply reading from a book they have written themselves.’”
December 2, 2002
“Wolfowitz presents Chalabi’s raw intelligence as fact. His boss Rumsfeld accepts the same unfiltered data and presents it with equal confidence in the more powerful Principals Committee. Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff I. Lewis Libby, another Wolfowitz protégé, lap it up, and the National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice lacks the personal confidence to challenge the formidable Cheney-Rusmfeld-Wolfowitz axis.”
December 16, 2002
“There is no reason to think that fighting in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities will be a cakewalk.”
February 24, 2003
“Muslim extremists who sympathize with al-Qaeda but are not terrorist tell European journalists they are hoping the U.S. invades Iraq. ‘This will demonstrate once again that Muslims are being targeted and thus will allow them to rally Muslims to their point of view and recruit new militants,’ said leftist Algerian author and journalist Mohamed Siraoui.”
“All Western European intelligence services... now agree that an invasion of Iraq would be not only a distraction from the war on terror but a catalytic agent for would-be jihadi terrorists from all over the Muslim world and from Muslim communities in the West.”
Subscribe at www.amconmag.com or call 800-579-6148
-----
It is time for those people out there that are still deluded into neoconservative thinking to take a look at what is being said by those who correctly called this war from the very start. George W. Bush, his administration, the politicians, and the neoconservatives got basically everything wrong. They said it was going to be some quick cakewalk; that there were stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction; that the dawn of a new democratic peace would reign in the region; and so forth. They got everything wrong, but many people still listen to them. Thus perhaps it is time for people to listen to those few who got basically everything correct.
And is it not ironic that TAC has been called the most outspoken anti-Iraq War publication? Perhaps those who think of themselves as "conservative" should take a look at this magazine and take a look at what conservatism and the Right wing use to mean to many individuals.
Joe Sobran has it right when he says: "War is just one more big government program."
A Couple of Highlights of the Magazine:
- Whose War?: A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest by Pat Buchanan (2003)
- Congress Rubberstamps Martial Law by Jim Bovard (Recent - 2007)
The great Thomas E. Woods, Jr. is the author of New York Times Bestseller, The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. He is also the author of The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy, among others. Both of the two books just mentioned I have read. I highly recommend both.
According to Amazon, his new book is coming out in July. It is called 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask.
Here is a sneak peek at the table of contents:
Contents
Introduction Hoaxes and History
Chapter 1 Did the Founding Fathers support immigration?
Chapter 2 Did Martin Luther King Jr. oppose affirmative action?
Chapter 3 Were the American Indians really environmentalists?
Chapter 4 Were states' rights just code words for slavery and oppression?
Chapter 5 What was "the biggest unknown scandal of the Clinton years"?
Chapter 6 How wild was the "wild West"?
Chapter 7 How antiwar have American liberals really been over the years?
Chapter 8 Did the Iroquois Indians influence the United States Constitution?
Chapter 9 Did desegregation of schools significantly narrow the black-white educational achievement gap?
Chapter 10 Was the Civil War all about slavery, or was something else at stake as well?
Chapter 11 Can the president, on his own authority, send troops anywhere in the world he wants?
Chapter 12 Is it true that during World War II "Americans never had it so good"?
Chapter 13 How does Social Security really work?
Chapter 14 Was George Washington Carver really one of America's greatest scientific geniuses?
Chapter 15 Was the U.S. Constitution meant to be a "living, breathing" document that changes with the times?
Chapter 16 Did Indian wisdom help the Pilgrims grow corn?
Chapter 17 Who is most responsible for the "imperial presidency"?
Chapter 18 Is discrimination to blame for racial differences in income and job placement?
Chapter 19 Where did Thomas Jefferson's radical states' rights ideas come from?
Chapter 20 What really happened in the Whiskey Rebellion, and why will neither your textbook nor George Washington tell you?
Chapter 21 What made American wages rise? (Hint: it wasn't unions or the government.)
Chapter 22 Did capitalism cause the Great Depression?
Chapter 23 Did Herbert Hoover sit back and do nothing during the Great Depression?
Chapter 24 Did Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal lift the United States out of the Depression?
Chapter
25 Does the Constitution's commerce clause really grant the federal
government the power to regulate all gainful activity?
Chapter
26 Does the Constitution authorize the federal government to do
whatever it thinks will provide for the "general welfare" of Americans?
Chapter
27 Does the Constitution really contain an "elastic clause" that
gives the federal government additional, unspecified powers?
Chapter 28 Did the Founding Fathers believe juries could refuse to enforce unjust laws?
Chapter 29 What do foreign-aid programs have to show for themselves?
Chapter 30 Did labor unions make Americans more free?
Chapter 31 Should Americans care about historians' rankings of the presidents?
Chapter 32 Who was S. B. Fuller?
Chapter 33 Did Bill Clinton really stop a genocide in Kosovo?
Conclusion Schools and Superstition
Notes
Acknowledgments
Index
(Via http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip079/2007001347.html)
I guess Dr. Woods likes to get in trouble. It looks like a great book. I look forward to it. I added it on my long wish list of books. When it comes out, I'll be sure to get it...
The conference held in honor of the late Samuel T. Francis (1947 – 2005) in release of the posthumous book Shots Fired: Sam Francis on America’s Culture War may at least partly appear on C-SPAN. Well...maybe. The book has a foreword by Pat Buchanan and an afterword by Joe Sobran.
It was surprising to first hear that C-SPAN was there at all. I will try to do my best to keep a look out if it does happen to appear on television. VDare.com will probably keep us up-to-date. And it seems, according to Peter Brimelow and Taki Theodoracopulos, some not exactly welcomed or expected things were said by at least one of the speakers that had little relevance to the conference and Francis.
Here is what C-SPAN says (no air-date ---- at least not yet):
Panel on Neoconservatism Panel on Culture Wars Panel on Immigration Editor Peter Gemma talked about Shots Fired: Sam Francis On America's Culture War, a collection of articles by the late Sam Francis (1947-2005). Mr. Francis was a member of what he called the real Right, those who, besides advocating limited government, states' rights, separation of powers, popular traditions, and the Bill of Rights, believe the U.S. is an organic product of Western European culture, not an artifice founded on some airy proposition (e.g., "All men are created equal"). Accordingly, he deplored massive immigration, multiculturalism, and minority special pleading. This session was part of the Sam Francis Conference.
While there are many areas, in my view from a paleolibertarian perspective, that are disagreeable with Francis, nonetheless the shackles the establishment put on him and their attempt to completely mute someone with his intelligence was uncalled for. As I stated before, there are also many areas that (especially) left-libertarians could learn from his writings.
[I just learned that Sam Francis was for a brief time an adjunct scholar at the Mises Institute. It is kind of hard to square that with him. Once Francis falsely wrote in an article how capitalism is the enemy.]
The objective of the paleolibertarian is to cut down the government and abolish it. It is my contention that libertarians that support open borders lead us to the very opposite; i.e., more statism, the deterioration of individual liberty, and social chaos. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe teaches us, “open borders” is a complete government fabrication. This fabrication would not exist in anarcho-capitalism. “Open borders“ only result from a Leviathan State.
Immigration is one of the most debated topics in libertarian circles. It is difficult to say what group has a greater number of people in it. I am inclined to say the “open border” folks. Those that are closer to the Mexican border, on the other hand, are probably more inclined, at least relatively speaking, to take the view that is more hostile to “open borders” due to their proximity to the fronts lines.
Yes, it may seem somewhat strange at first: How can those that want to demolish the State want some kind of border enforcement?
Maybe this will help. Here is another way to look at it: The state exists. This is a given. If one can only call the state police when someone trespasses on one’s property, then this is something one will have to do. There is no away around this fact, at least in the given environment. The government exists. It has a monopoly of certain things. Libertarianism would say that this should not be so. However given the current environment, what are the next best alternatives? The government outlaws competition when it comes to law and order. Because of this fact, it is better that the government provides some kind of court system, which can and does uphold some basic libertarian principles (e.g., protection from private thieves and private murders), then to have nothing at all. Understand, this does not mean that the free market could not handle these things. It is because of the fact that they are outlawed. It is also due to the fact that the public has not come to terms with the logic of anarcho-capitalism.
What is the fundamental axiom of libertarianism? It is that no one has the right to violate the property rights of others. Implied in this is that no one has the right to trespass on another’s property. Therefore, no one has the “right” to immigrate. One cannot unconditionally immigrate into my house, for instance. You can only enter my house if I allow you to do so. I may also attach conditions if you enter my house. But clearly you cannot enter it without my permission or invitation.
In an ideal world society would be fully based on private property. This includes things like roads, schools, courts, hospitals, et cetera. Borders in a libertarian world, as we now know them, would not exist. This does not mean, however, that today's semi-"anarchy" that is taking place by Mexico would continue or expand. On the contrary, today's open borders would be replaced by the law and order of the "borders" of private property.
Immigration takes on a new meaning in such a world, but all "immigrants" that you associate with would be voluntary. A multitude of individuals, communities, and other private institutions, in a sense, would “regulate” who does and does not enter. If a private (voluntary) community does not want foreign strangers to enter, they can be sure that they do not. Inherent in libertarianism is that people can dissociate themselves with anyone they want for whatever reason.
Private individuals, unlike the government, have the smarts to have a lock on their home door. Individuals don’t have “open borders.” We have the authority to choose---to “regulate”---who enters and who does not. Only the government has the perverse foresight to be foolish enough to have the door open to “its” geographically controlled territory. But it is much worse than that: The door is not only unlocked and wide open but inside the house there are many free gifts (welfare) waiting for those who enter! This is certainly a recipe for disaster. Government subsidizes immigration. In addition, due to the fact that “our” government is democratic, and its very nature is “open” compared to a monarchy’s “closed” nature, this tendency is further promoted. (See The Paleo Blog's "Restoring Liberty Step-by-Step: Striking Down Democracy.")
A business owner will only choose a worker that will (in his mind) benefit his business. There is no “revolving door.” If that were the case for a given businessman, then he will not be in business for long. Or imagine your home. What do you think would be the result of an “open door” policy with free giveaways inside? Do you think your home’s value will increase? The answer is a clear no. On the other hand, if you allowed some good handymen, they might improve the value of the house. But that does not come about through the “revolving door.” It is something no individual property owner would do. And they don’t. This “bad” does not just turn into a “good” when we apply it to a macrocosmic level, i.e. to a large land controlled by a monopolistic government. Immigration is only good through the active and diligent enforcement of private property rights, which include the freedom to choose and discriminate.
Today we live in a society with an ever large and growing Leviathan State. So much of private property is being stipulated to government control and dictation. Instead of people having the natural freedom to discriminate in any way, government forces people to be with those that they do not wish to be with (by various non-discrimination laws). Government produces forced integration. When someone must be forced to be with someone they do not wish to be, predictably resentment and conflict will result.
Government's existence depends on being a giant mega-parasite. It cannot live any other way. Its food does not come about through voluntary transactions, but by outright (involuntary) theft. To grow it needs more hosts that it can attach itself to. In the eyes of the government, to be healthy it needs a larger number of hosts. The greater the number of hosts the better. This is exactly why the state likes open borders! Any self-respecting libertarian should pause and reflect on this. A pretty good bet is that when government likes something, whatever that may be, then it is virtually assured that it is something that people should not like! It is the reason why this issue has gone almost unnoticed until recent years. Government has stood silent.
Citizens have gotten angry. Arizona past Prop 200 in 2004. It denies illegal immigrants access to voting and welfare. The support Prop 200 was overwhelming. But practically every single politician was against Prop 200. While a vast majority of the residents of Arizona opposed illegals having the "right" to vote and receive welfare, the politicians were only too happy to have illegals both voting and receiving welfare. Should that be a surprise? No. Democracy is all to happy to expand itself to illegals. It wants more hosts. (And because the government is democratic it also needs to expand its open entry system.) The only reason now some politicians are talking about this issue is because the public has felt the effects of immigrants they do not want to be around. There is no other reason.
For government to expand it also needs to break down and isolate the individual. Government needs to own the roads and large amounts of land. In order for it to tax someone it needs access to him. This results in "government's" property in bordering all privately owned property. This lowers people's ability to keep away people they do not wish to associate with. Once people are encircled with government from all sides, anyone can walk right into your property. This includes foreigners. Instead of being able to set up barriers to prevent unwanteds, government almost completely destroys the ability for people to do this.
From this we should be able to gather how unnatural the idea of a "open border" is. As Murray Rothbard wrote:
If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed to rent, or purchase, property. A totally privatized country would be as "closed" as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors. ["Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State"]
Here is what Hans-Hermann Hoppe has to say:
Through forced integration individuals are isolated (atomized) and their power of resistance vis-à-vis the State is weakened. In the “logic” of the state, a hefty dose of foreign invasion, especially if it comes from strange and far-away places, is reckoned to further strengthen this tendency. And the present situation offers a particularly opportune time to do so, for in accordance with the inherently centralizing tendency of States and statism generally and promoted here and now in particular by the U.S. as the world’s only remaining superpower, the Western world—or more precisely the neoconservative-socialdemocratic elites controlling the state governments in the U.S. and Western Europe—is committed to the establishment of supra-national states (such as the European Union) and ultimately one world state. National, regional or communal attachments are the main stumbling blocks on the way to this goal. A good measure of uninvited foreigners and government imposed multiculturalism is calculated to further weaken and ultimately destroy national, regional, and communal identities and thus promote the goal of a One World Order, led by the U.S., and a new “universal man.” ["Natural Order, The State, and The Immigration Problem"]
This is the opposite of the libertarian goal of decentralization and ultimate privatization. Centralization leads to forced integration and open borders. Decentralization and privatization leads to the opposite. It should be expected that if libertarian values were winning what would happen is the breaking away of large states into smaller ones. It is inconceivable how this would not lead to increased community power and segregation. You cannot promote libertarianism and then promote open borders. They are incompatible.
Tax payers are forced to pay for public property. In these terms it is not government that owns them, but the taxpayers in correspondence to how much they pay in. That is to say, if person x pays z percentage of the public property he owns z percentage. Murray Rothbard said that we must reject the idea that all public property should be run like a sewer just because it is public. For example, if some bum is stinking up the public library, he should be kicked out. It is true that this public library should not exist. Only private libraries should exist. However, under the current circumstances, it should be run like a business.
Stephan Kinsella in his LRC article "A Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders,"* gives a good example. Right now the roads are owned by government. Is it un-libertarian of me or Mr. Kinsella to want some kind of rules for the roads? Both of us agree that they should be privatized. However, given that they currently are run by government, what is better: No rules on the road or Some rules? Obviously, I think most libertarians would say that there should be some rules. Most would not say that someone like me is supporting something that is un-libertarian. Kinsella writes; "I do not personally believe it can be convincingly argued that there should be no rules on public property, because this would result in significant costs to citizens who are victimized enough." Yes, things are bad enough without making the already bad system worse. Government should not be made to run worse than it is. (Unlike what some libertarians have suggested, making it worse does not necessarily mean that it will collapse. If it did, then this does not necessarily mean that people would be smart enough to embrace anarcho-capitalism ---- they could embrace something worse. And, by the way, it is also immoral to increase the power of the state to do immoral things [even if one's goal is its collapse].)
*(And here is a follow-up.)
This also implies to government controlled hospitals. Yes, get rid of government here.* But right now it would be stupid to suggest that there should not be rules to how they are run. Hospitals have been forced to close down because of illegal immigrants. This is very dangerous.
*(Did you know that in China, I heard on talk radio, that hospitals are in open competition with each other? They actually buy advertisement to tell people to come to their hospital versus another. Talk about them moving to closer to capitalism and us moving closer to socialism.)
Imagine a given territory of land. Now if this land is fully composed of privately owned property, then only those invited would be allowed to enter. No forced integration would occur. On the other hand, if government owns a significant portion of it (or controls the private sector by various non-discriminator laws), then there will most likely be immigrants who are there that would otherwise not be. Even if they got a job, this does not mean that they are welcomed. They still need to move around in this territory. They need to live somewhere. And so forth.
This is why, considering the current circumstances (i.e. we have a government), it seems fit that government should be placed into the role of only allowing immigrants who are invited to enter. I personally no not feel that this violates libertarian ethics. Just as, considering the fact we have a government, it should round up real private criminals who rape, steal, kill. To be sure, this is not ideal. By necessity the state could never preform the job as individuals could because they can directly control their own property. But in the grand picture it is difficult to believe that open borders would not lead to an increase in government power, centralization, and social problems.
Again, besides the violation of property rights by trespassing, it is also important to understand how the state grows with more hosts. In a democratic state, what we will get is more redistribution. What also will occur is the breakdown of private property rights. This will increase the number of anti-discriminator laws on the book. As Thomas Woods wrote in "Democracy vs. Civilization":
The massive Third World immigration that commenced with the liberalization of immigration laws in 1965 has translated into more crime, more wealth redistribution, more anti-Western multiculturalism, more interracial tension – and, naturally, more social-welfare bureaucrats to manage the inevitable social turmoil that such population shifts leave in their wake. This is why the Left favors it
He continues:
The concepts of community and private property are meaningless and empty if they exclude the right to discriminate. Discrimination is a pervasive and indeed absolutely necessary feature of life. We discriminate in the foods we eat, in the neighborhoods we live in, and in the friends we make. And we discriminate in whom we invite for dinner. There is no such thing as "equal access" to our homes.
In a "natural order" of a libertarian society a division of labor with community would seem to suggest more homogeneous communities. An advancing division of labor brings about market based hard money. In a cultural sense, transactions take place because people can communicate with each other. When you see places near the border where this is becoming less possible (communication), you see the division of labor breaking down. This is what forced integration does. The market needs a bond. An organic culture (cultural conservatism) is a important factor.
It is also very difficult to believe that a libertarian society would accept this flood of immigrants. Patrick Buchanan in his book State of Emergency: The Third Wold Invasion and Conquest of America, reports some startling figures. As he says not all immigrants are equal. The rate to which Mexican immigrants receive welfare is about two times as high as native-born Americans. (p 43) Compare this to Koreans, Filipinos, Japanese, Canadians, Poles, Brits, Germans, Indians, and Italians who use welfare less than native-borns. (p 44) Only five percent of them have not finished high school. This is in comparison to thirty-one percent of Mexicans.
He writes in Los Angeles that ninety-five percent "of all outstanding warrants for homicide, which total 1,200 to 1,500 target illegal aliens." That "[t]wo-thirds of the 17,000 outstanding fugitive felony warrants in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens." And that about "12,000 of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang that operates across Southern California are illegals." (p 24) One in twelve illegal aliens have a criminal record. (p 9) "Hispanics are three times more likely than white Americans to be convicted of a serious crime requiring incarceration." And that "[t]hey are nineteen times more likely to belong to a criminal street gangs." (p 24)
Buchanan's article "Does Libertarianism Lead to Statism?" Given these kinds of figures, the answer seems to be yes, if libertarianism supports "open borders." As he writes: "[T]hey are disproportionate users of social services – i.e., health care, food stamps, rent supplements, legal services and general welfare. Immigrants have become the principal propellants of the growth of the welfare state."
Karen De Coster replied in her article "Wrong, Pat, wrong." She says that paleolibertarians know better:
Buchanan's overall point about the damage done by mass immigration is correct. That is, the mass immigration to which U.S. residents have been subjected leads to a burgeoning state; props up multicultural madness; allows poor, unassimilated immigrants to garner massive amounts of welfare pork; leads to a rising class of tax consumers, as opposed to taxpayers; and has dumbed down the state-based educational system, providing even more impetus for politicians to toss additional taxpayers' money into an already-failed system.
She says that "the right to discriminate is inherent in the ownership of anything."
In Buchanan's The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization, he shows that this is part of a much bigger picture. Not only are floods of immigrants coming, but the birth rates of whites are falling. The Western civilization is dying. As he writes (this is true, be it a bit less, for America as well as Europe):
While world population had doubled to six billion in forty years, the European peoples had stopped reproducing. Their populations had begun to stagnate and, in many countries, had already begun to fall. [p 12]
Add to that a mass flood of immigrants from the Third World. Something is not right with this picture.
In 1960, people of European ancestry were one-forth of the world's population; in 2000, they were one-sixth; in 2050, they will be one-tenth. These are the statistics of a vanishing race. A growing awareness of what they portend has induced a sense of foreboding, even panic, in Europe.
In the U.S., if things continue to move in the direction that they are, America will be Mexamercia.
In 1991, the Soviet Union shattered into fifteen nations along the fault lines of race, religion, and ethnicity. Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan were Asian as well as Muslim. Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia rejected not only Communist rule but Russian rule. Russians in Latvia, descendants of those transferred there by Stalin over sixty years ago, are still regarded as intruders. The Caucasus seems about to subdivide into statelets like Chechnya, Dagestan, Abkhazia, and North and South Ossetia, based on ethnicity. [State of Emergency, p 166]
Based on these kinds of evidence Buchanan says:
It appears a truism: multicultural, multiethnic, multilingual states are held together either by an authoritarian regime or a dominant ethnocultural core, or their breakup is inevitable.
Hans Hoppe writes: "Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation, pp. 124-27, has provided some recent evidence for the thesis that no multicultural state, and especially no democratic one, has ever worked out peacefully for very long."
Short of ultimate privatization of all land, then what? Hoppe says:
Abolishing forced integration requires the de-democratization of society and ultimately the abolition of democracy. More specifically, the power to admit or exclude should be stripped from the hands of the central government and reassigned to the states, provinces, cities, towns, villages, residential districts, and ultimately to private property owners and their voluntary associations. [Democracy - The God That Failed, p 148]
Hoppe recommends a system similar to what they do in Switzerland:
In Switzerland, for instance, citizenship may require that the sale of residential property to foreigners be ratified by a majority of or even all of the directly affected local property owners. [p 168]
More specifically, it means distinguishing strictly between "citizens" (naturalized immigrants) and "resident aliens" and excluding the latter from all welfare entitlements. It means requiring, for resident alien status as well as for citizenship, the personal sponsorship by a resident citizen and his assumption of liability for all property damage caused by the immigrant. It implies requiring an existing employment contract with a resident citizen; moreover, for both categories but especially that of citizenship, it implies that all immigrants must demonstrate through tests not only English language proficiency, but all-around superior (above-average) intellectual performance and character structure as well as a complete system of values----with the predictable result of a systematic pro-European immigration bias. [pp 148-9]
Richard M. Weaver: “Undemocratic” productivity is attacked by “democratic” consumption; and, since there is no limit to appetite, there is no limit to the crippling of productive efficiency by the animal desire to consume, once it is in a position to make its force felt politically. Was there ever a more effective way to sabotage a nation’s economy than to use the prestige of government to advocate the withholding of production? ... What happens finally is that socialism, whose goal is materialism, meets the condition by turning authoritarian; that is to say, it is willing to institute control by dictation in order to raise living standards and not disappoint the consumptive soul. To the extent that socialism has done this by means of irrational appeals---and no others have been found efficacious in the long run---we have seen the establishment of fascist systems.
(Ideas Have Consequences, p 125)
Those that read this blog regularly (if there is anyone!) know that I am a self-described paleolibertarian anarcho-capitalist. Even though the "paleolibertarian" term seems to be rarely used today, nonetheless, I find the term of value to describe my political ideology. In this entry into The Paleo Blog I provide some links to the wittings of Lew Rockwell as they pertain to "paleoism." They are at the end. It should especially benefit those that are new to the ideas that are expressed on this blog. It will also go over where, in my opinion, many of the traditional conservatives go wrong.
Paleoconservatism and Paleolibertarianism
Please let me first cover the basics for the "newbies" out there. Paleolibertarianism came into being during the 1990s alliance between old-style conservatives (a.k.a. paleoconservatives) and the libertarians that circled around Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell. The major publications and institutions of this alliance included the Rockford Institute, the Mises Institute, Chronicles magazine, and the Rothbard-Rockwell Report (a.k.a. the Triple R).
It was Paul Gottfried to first use the "paleo" prefix. This Grek prefix means traditional, ancient, or old. He attached it to describe those conservatives who subscribe to a more traditional and old-style conservatism. It is an ideology of anti-interventionism akin to Sen. Robert Taft. Generally speaking, it is also against the centralization of government power. Paleoconservatism has a respect for social authority and is solidly against mass immigration.
Where Buchanan and the Paleoconservatves Go Wrong
Now I find that there are different shades of “anti-statism” between
the different paleoconservatives. Unhappily, I must say, between some
of these conservatives it is hard to find any anti-statism in their
outlook. For instance, paleoconservative Patrick Buchanan
can hardly be looked at as a guide that expresses anti-statist thought. Protectionism, in my mind, has completely clouded his judgment on all economic issues. (He is, however, generally very good on foreign policy issues these days.) This is
not to totally denounce him or anything. I personally very much like
Pat Buchanan. Always have. Buchanan is a very lively personality. ...
It is funny how some people attack him as some kind of “hate monger.”
Have they ever seen him or heard him in an interview?? He is always
laughing and enjoying life.
See the problem with traditional conservatives is that they can slip into a mode of attacking capitalism as if it was the enemy of culture. Nothing can be further from the truth. And obviously, they should be aware, you cannot freeze time. You cannot preserve the status quo in this sense. Yes, there are fundamental truths that are constant and transcending. Capitalism by itself does not alter this.
Lew Rockwell on Paleoism
It was out of this alliance that was formed that Lew Rockwell attached the prefix to libertarianism. Wikipedia quotes Rockwell on how he defines paleolibertarianism:
Paleolibertarianism holds with Lord Acton that liberty is the highest political end of man, and that all forms of government intervention — economic, cultural, social, international — amount to an attack on prosperity, morals, and bourgeois civilization itself, and thus must be opposed at all levels and without compromise. It is 'paleo' because of its genesis in the work of Murray N. Rothbard and his predecessors, including Ludwig von Mises, Albert Jay Nock, Garet Garrett, and the entire interwar Old Right that opposed the New Deal and favored the Old Republic of property rights, freedom of association, and radical political decentralization. Just as important, paleolibertarianism predates the politicization of libertarianism that began in the 1980s, when large institutions moved to Washington and began to use the language of liberty as part of a grab bag of 'policy options.' Instead of principle, the neo-libertarians give us political alliances; instead of intellectually robust ideas, they give us marketable platitudes. What's more, paleolibertarianism distinguishes itself from left-libertarianism because it has made its peace with religion as the bedrock of liberty, property, and the natural order.
Relevant Reading Material from Lew Rockwell:
- The Story of the RRR (Rothbard-Rockwell Report)
- The Paleo Question
- What I Learned From Paleoism
- Libertarianism and the Old Right (a great interview with Rockwell --- yes, it does cover paleoism)
See Also: The Paleo Pundits and Rejection of Ideology
So many books ... so little time! A few things here:
1. Daniel McCarthy reports that ISI (Intercollegiate Studies Institute) books are 60% off. You can view and buy the books here. Most of these books seem to represent a more paleo- slant in conservatism. There is a biography of Robert Nisbet. I saw at least one book by Richard Weaver. There are a few books by Russell Kirk. And more! (Darn! Could have saved money on American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia.)
2. The Ludwig von Mises Institute is bringing back many classics of the Austro-libertarian tradition. It has books from the Old Right: Albert Jay Nock to Frank Chodorov to John T. Flynn. It has works from Henry Hazlitt, who was the author of the still classic Economics in One Lesson. And more! View and buy these books here. (All of them are also available as free e-books at the Mises Institute's website.)
