Bodies Juxtaposed In Space-Do Radical Acts Of Performance Art Overlap With Anarchy And The Slide Into Ever More State?

***I’m working full-time, so this is the intellectual bandwidth I’ve got (it’s never been stellar).

Via David Thompson, this is the good stuff:

Via the artiste:

‘Since his travel in Greece, one of Claude’s main questioning is about the states of insurrection that exist in people and can be revealed through performance art. In 2016, Claude started Pressio, a serial of performances that plays with riot’s imaginary. It was a way to confront the body of the performer to elements from road traffic that must protect their users ; then the question was more about how security and protection finally restrict liberties.’

There is some mimesis going on, and frankly, Admiral Benson had something to say about ‘accordion factories and mime schools.’

On that note, Jesus Christ already, the Catholic Church is no less immune to radical and performative protest, which doesn’t take much in the way of talent:

A profound libertarian position remains skeptical of granting authority to any institution that isn’t freely chosen by the individual, but this position also requires a lot of high abstractions and top-down re-design (seasteads are pretty utopian).  There’s anarchy embedded within, though, that said, I think it’s also fair to say this anarchy doesn’t necessarily overlap with the nihilist position (the denial of objective reality and the artistocratically radical Nietzschean re-design).

Personally, I believe good art, good citizenship and good science all require functioning institutions and individual moral responsibility, beyond private enterprise, but obviously this is a matter of deep debate.

Meanwhile, both major American political parties have broken apart along populist lines, with as much infighting within as [with]out.

I’m pretty sure I haven’t responded to the argument of privatizing functions of the state (legislatures, courts, police): Repost-Youtube Via Libertarianism.Org-David Friedman: ‘The Machinery Of Freedom’…CATO also has a post.

Speaking of anarchy and institutional authority, Buckley and Chomsky had it out:

Also, CATO has a post on the late Ken Minogue:

The titles of his first and last book are not accidental. Over time, Mr Minogue came to believe that the modern, progressive version of liberalism led to a corruption of our language and moral sensibilities. Instead of assuming individual responsibility for addressing moral and social problems, liberalism invites individuals to delegate that responsibility to the state. The result is the “politico-moral posturing” on causes ranging from global warming, to securing peace or gender equality.

Making the ‘correct’ noises and showing the ‘correct’ opinions has become, according to Mr Minogue, a substitute for moral action. The results are twofold: the growth of government and proliferation of bad policies, and an atrophy of genuine moral sensibilities. And that is destructive of free societies, which Mr Minogue saw as sustainable only with free, responsible, self-governing citizenry.

Mr Minogue’s intellectual project was more humble than the grand theories advanced by John Rawls or Robert Nozick, who thought that political life needed to be based on an abstract set of principles. In contrast, for Mr Minogue, the life in a free society was based on a set of skills that needed to be cultivated and nourished. Wisdom embodied in cultural norms and traditions was central to freedom, even if the rationale for specific norms could not be articulated explicitly. And therein lied the danger of modern liberal tinkering with the West’s institutions for the purpose of addressing existing social ills.’

On this site see: Catholic libertarianism? Youtube Via Reason TV-Judge Napolitano ‘Why Taxation is Theft, Abortion is Murder, & Government is Dangerous’

A Few Thoughts On Robert Nozick’s “Anarchy, State and Utopia”

Anarcho-syndicalist, libertarian socialist and sometime blind supporter of lefty causes:  Via Youtube: (1 of 3) Kant, Chomsky and the Problem of KnowledgeTwo Sunday Quotations By Albert Jay Nock in ‘Anarchist’s Progress’

Via A Reader: ‘Glorifying Graffiti’

Via The NY Post:

American cities have seen steadily lowering homicide rates, but predictions that NYC is headed back to 70’s and early 80’s style crime rates under de Blasio are blossoming, and the institutionalization of graffiti as art may represent an undermining of the rule of law.

Is this something museums should be showcasing?

Is it art?

What about the criminality and the harm to property owners and citizens caught in tag and turf wars?

‘A visit to the Museum of the City of New York’s graffiti exhibit is a reminder that New York was once far less livable — and that nostalgia for a more colorful past can be most dangerous for the kids who don’t remember.’

———————–

5:38 video at the link.

Mick Victor walks down the streets and alleyways of L.A. with camera in tow, his focus eventually drawn to some forms, shapes, colors or configuration.

Some of those abstract photos here.

———————–

Would you be willing to undermine property-rights and the rule-of-law in order to celebrate ‘graffiti-art’?

NY Curbed had 5Pointz coverage here.

A NY Times beat reporter shared in the pathos and suffering of those graffiti artists whose 5pointz canvas was whitewashed in preparation for demolition by owner Jerry Wolkoff.

One street artist, who would give his name only as Just, had at least two works painted over. He spent hours early Tuesday gazing at the whitewashed buildings, leaning against a red-brick wall across the street. Then he bought himself a tall glass of beer, which he sipped slowly from a brown paper bag.

“Heartbreaking,” he said. “This is not just about graffiti — it’s about the unity of people who met here from all over the world.” He paused and took a drink. “That’s what really hurts.”

Three photos and some backstory here.  5pointz had become something of a graffiti mecca, arguably more than the sum of its parts:

Heather MacDonald At The City Journal: ‘Radical Graffiti Chic’

So, You’re Telling Me What’s Cool?-Theodore Dalrymple At The City Journal: ‘Banksy In Neverland’ What are these people doing with art?:  Often combining them with a Left-of-Center political philosophy as they are at NPR for popular consumption. 

On this site, see: From ReasonTV Via Youtube: ‘Ken Burns on PBS Funding, Being a “Yellow-Dog Democrat,” & Missing Walter Cronkite’Repost-From NPR: Grants To The NEA To Stimulate The Economy?

From Grist.Org Via The New Republic Via The A & L Daily: ‘Getting Past “Ruin Porn” In Detroit’…Marketplace aesthetics in service of “women”: Dove’s Campaign For Real Beauty: Pascal Dangin And Aesthetics… Roger Scruton In The City Journal: Cities For Living–Is Modernism Dead?Brasilia: A Planned City

Sheldon Richman At Reason: ‘Classical Liberalism Vs. Modern Liberalism’

Full piece here.

The liberal/libertarian divide is a popular theme these days:

‘In The Future of Liberalism (2009), Alan Wolfe writes that the true heirs to the liberalism of John Locke, Adam Smith, and Thomas Jefferson are not today’s classical liberals (libertarians), but rather the other kind of liberals, those who would use government power to assure autonomy and equality for all’

On Richman’s view, it is necessary for some ‘modern liberals’, and people who might want to intellectually lead modern liberalism and/or provide a map for the democratic party is to steer it away from the Austrians, the Chicago School, the Randians, and other assorted ‘classical liberals’ and free marketeers who tend to rise in political influence during liberal administrations in the U.S:

‘I also agree with Wolfe that equality is a core value of classical liberalism, but not as he means it. True liberal equality is not income equality; nor is it merely equality of liberty or equality under the law. The first would require continuous violent state interference with voluntary exchange, while the other two are inadequate in themselves. By equality, I mean what Roderick Long calls, per Locke, “equality of authority.” For Locke a state of equality is one in which “all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another, there being nothing more evident than that creatures of the same species and rank . . . should also be equal one amongst another, without subordination or subjection . . . .”

Many modern libertarians see themselves as one of the last lines of defense against really having imported the worst portions of the European-style State and its more radical definitions and excesses of liberty, its collectivist political philosophies, as well as its underlying authoritarian impulses across the Atlantic to our shores.  One way or another, such liberalism leads to a big-State and abridges personal liberty.  On Richman’s view, libertarians are the true classical liberals.  They gaze out upon modern liberalism in the U.S. and see a mishmash of competing interests, almost none of which hold aloft a social contract that really has any faith in inviduals to lead their own lives and pursue their own self-interest, especially economically.  Therefore thinkers like Milton Friedman, (who offered a mix of the Austrians, Jeffersonian separation of powers and definitions of liberty with Adam Smith’s fundamental insights) are quite necessary, as they had to deal with much the same problems, only much worse, on the Continent.

Richman finishes with:

‘If the alternative we face is between grappling with market forces and trusting a ruling elite to orchestrate just social outcomes, anyone concerned with autonomy and equality should choose the market. A benevolent, peaceful state is not on the menu.’

Feel free to highlight my ignorance.   Any thoughts and comments are welcome.

Related On This Site:  Yes, religion requires the submission of will in faith to God, and to the earthly Church, and ultimately sacrifices much individual freedom, but do its traditions need to be thrown overboard…what is taking their place?   Leo Strauss may not have been a believer, but he did want the individual to be free from certain structures that developed in Europe these past centuries.  He has influenced conservatism  From Darwinian Conservatism By Larry Arnhart: “Surfing Strauss’s Third Wave of Modernity”

A Few Quotations From F.A. Hayek’s: ‘Why I Am Not A Conservative’

From Bloggingheads: “Michael Lind Discusses His New Book ‘Land Of Promise’”…Snyder is perhaps not a fan of libertarianism Timothy Snyder Responds To Steven Pinker’s New Book At Foreign Policy: ‘War No More: Why The World Has Become More Peaceful’From Slate: ‘The Liberty Scam-Why Even Robert Nozick, The Philosophical Father Of Libertarianism, Gave Up On The Movement He Inspired.’

The classical liberal tradition…looking for classical liberals in the postmodern wilderness: Isaiah Berlin’s negative liberty: A Few Thoughts On Isaiah Berlin’s “Two Concepts Of Liberty”… From George Monbiot: ‘How Freedom Became Tyranny’…Looking to supplant religion as moral source for the laws: From The Reason Archives: ‘Discussing Disgust’ Julian Sanchez Interviews Martha Nussbaum.New liberty away from Hobbes?: From Public Reason: A Discussion Of Gerald Gaus’s Book ‘The Order of Public Reason: A Theory of Freedom And Morality In A Diverse And Bounded World’…Richard Rorty tried to tie postmodernism and leftist solidarity to liberalism, but wasn’t exactly classically liberal:  Repost: Another Take On J.S. Mill From “Liberal England”

From PolicyMic: ‘This is What Budget Cuts Have Done to Detroit … And It’s Freaking Awesome’

Full piece here.

More on the failures of Detroit, and the impending bankruptcy of other municipalities across the country.

That title is a nod to Kevin Williamson, at the National Review, and his new book:  ‘The End Is Near, And It’s Going to Be Awesome: How Going Broke Will Leave American Richer, Happier, and More Secure.’

The old Nozickian “night-watchman” State argument resurfaces, or so minimal a State that even law courts and law enforcement are handled privately:

‘The heroic Brown and TMC are a great example of how the market and civil society can and do provide services traditionally associated with the state far better, cheaper and more in tune to people’s wants and needs. I have always believed policing, protection and security are far too important to be run by the state — especially in age of militarized Stormtroopers — and Brown is helping show why.’

A kind of land-based seasteading experiment?  Libertarian utopia, or a voluntarily-chosen, bottom-up type of cooperation in the wake of Detroit’s failure?  A mini-New Hampshire?

As an economist, David Friedman has explored the idea of what transferring functions of the State to private agencies might look like.  In the video he presents an outline of his thinking about what would happen if the legislature, the courts, and the police (drafting, legislating, passing and enforcing laws) would all be handled by private agencies instead of government.  You would become a customer of a private enforcement agency amongst other agencies competing for your patronage in areas now covered by the criminal and civil law.  There would be no more State, or perhaps just minimal State overseeing the National Defense.

——————————————

Often times, this is too anarchic for most people.  I’m not sure I’m on board, but there are some deep arguments made.

One typical liberal argument runs that, contra Hayek, not all State involvement is coercive, but has the consent of the governed.  Libertarian principles aren’t first principles, and can be so contested (or why don’t you libertarians see that it’s not all coercion vs. liberty, and individuals vs. the State?).  There are other traditions.

Some libertarians and Enlightenment-reason libertarians see themselves in a bitter fight with progressives, who from the libertarian perspective, commit the fatal sin of basing Enlightenment reason in virtue and are wittingly or unwittingly rounding up individuals into collectivist municipal Ponzi schemes and unsustainable deficit spending with the force of the law and power of the State behind them.  Even if it is creative destruction that led to Detroit’s decline, it didn’t have to be this bad.  Eventually you run out of other people’s money and you force people to vote with their feet, the last option available.

I’m assuming that not all liberals are progressives, nor are they Marxists, Socialists (ends with a gun and a wall to keep you in), or Communists (starts with a gun and a wall to keep you in, like the Soviets).  Many liberals I’ve known are more consent rather than coercion types of people.  ‘Be free,’ they might say, but maintain your duties and live as morally and honestly as possible.  Responsible liberals argue ‘I,’ not ‘we,’ have a moral duty to help others.  Not all moral thinking is religious.  In this line of thought, broadened definitions of the public good are in all of our own moral and rational self-interest, and so thus are broadened roles for our institutions and increasing the size and scope of our government.

It’d be a little more convincing if liberal policy-makers could address the failures of places like Detroit with regard to how policies are going to work in practice, and how incentives work regarding human nature and our institutions.  Clearly, this is part of the problem in Detroit.

*Thanks also to Kevin Williamson’s ‘Politically Incorrect Guide To Socialism

Any thoughts and comments are welcome.

Related On This Site:  Repost-Youtube Via Libertarianism.Org-David Friedman: ‘The Machinery Of Freedom’

Nussbaum argues that religion shouldn’t be a source for the moral laws From The Reason Archives: ‘Discussing Disgust’ Julian Sanchez Interviews Martha Nussbaum…Rule-following punishers Repost-From Public Reason: A Discussion Of Gerald Gaus’s Book ‘The Order of Public Reason: A Theory of Freedom And Morality In A Diverse And Bounded World’

Value-pluralism?:..A Few Thoughts On Isaiah Berlin’s “Two Concepts Of Liberty” …

People on the modern American right take issue with Rawls, but have they addressed his depth?:  From The American Conservative: Going Off The Rawls–David Gordon On John Rawls…Utilitarianism leads to problems.  Will the Rawlsian center-left hold up?:

Richard Rorty tried to tie postmodernism and leftist solidarity to liberalism, but wasn’t exactly classically liberal:  Repost: Another Take On J.S. Mill From “Liberal England”

Peter Singer discusses Hegel and Marx

Walter Russell Mead seems to be envisioning a reinvigorated liberalism 5.0, arguing that 60′s progressivism and 40-50′s conservatism (American politics more generally) are behind the times.   There’s been a fundamental shift that we must adjust to, and it involves technology and globalization for starters.

Robert Nozick merged elements of Kant and Locke in a strong, libertarian defense of the individual A Few Thoughts On Robert Nozick’s “Anarchy, State and Utopia”From Slate: ‘The Liberty Scam-Why Even Robert Nozick, The Philosophical Father Of Libertarianism, Gave Up On The Movement He Inspired.’

Anarcho-capitalism:  Pro-market, anti-state, anti-war…paleo-libertarian: Link To Lew Rockwell Via A Reader…Anarcho-syndicalist, libertarian socialist and sometime blind supporter of lefty causes:  Via Youtube: (1 of 3) Kant, Chomsky and the Problem of KnowledgeTwo Sunday Quotations By Albert Jay Nock in ‘Anarchist’s Progress’

Catholic libertarianism: Youtube Via Reason TV-Judge Napolitano ‘Why Taxation is Theft, Abortion is Murder, & Government is Dangerous’

Link To An Ayn Rand Paper: The Objectivist Attack On Kant

From Reason’s Hit And Run: What Kind Of Libertarian Are You?

Adam Garfinkle At The American Interest-‘Hey, You’re Truly Unlimited: Didn’t You Know?’

Full post here.

Garfinkle, as editor of the The American Interest, has a new book out titled” ‘Broken: American Political Dysfunction And What To Do About It.’

His post expands on ideas explored in the book, and is well worth a read:

‘What I am suggesting is that our crisis of governance, which is reflected but only partly expressed by the mess our political class has made in Washington, is ultimately anchored in a cultural shift that is both a source for and a consequence of revolutionary technological change. Increasing numbers of young and well-educated Americans love the gadgets that help isolate them from one another because they do not wish to be obligated by civilities, do not wish to be constrained by responsibilities to others, do not wish to be limited in any way.  We are witnessing the eternal temptation to self-indulgence raised to both principle and art.’

And:

‘Why should we be concerned about this? Because if the individuating tendencies inherent in the technology are not offset by creative balances that can restock social trust, or social capital, in America, it means that we will drift ever further from a high-trust social equilibrium conducive to liberty to a kind of order that needs ever more government to make it work. We will have to face what David Brooks has called “brutality cascades”, a kind of positional arms race to the bottom that ensues when it becomes difficult to impossible for standards of behavior to form out of interpersonal relationships.’

I’m sympathetic to the theme because this blog is animated by a notion of how to conserve tradition, and maintain civic virtue enough to maintain to a smaller, more responsive government on all levels.

Also, it’s a blog, my own little digital piece of the public square and my ticket for a few hours a week of self-indulgent utopia free of social interaction.

Generally, I approach this issue from a more conservative/libertarian perspective.  I feel I’ve gone on a bit of a journey to explore both some of the anarchy of libertarianism, the problems with anarchy/hierarchy in Europe, and the possibility of classical liberalism.

In my experience, there are many reasons why libertarians and conservatives unite.  The primary one is on full display now:  Libertarians are anti-collectivist and anti-statist, drawing a ring around the individual and proceeding from there.  The progressive pursuit of virtue through collectivist principles and the big government required to do it is a call-to-arms for most libertarians (they’re no fans of legislated religious morality either).  While both groups have strong disagreements on where our rights come from, and who has the moral legitimacy to be in charge, conservatives and libertarians can usually agree on this much during a progressive administration.

Another reason for the alliance (more beneficial to conservatives, perhaps) is that libertarians tend to be much hipper to the sciences and technology, having a broad fan base in science fiction and usually more accustomed to arriving at truth and pursuing knowledge through the sciences and similar products of the Enlightenment.

We’ve already seen a huge shift in wealth and social influence to tech money in our society, and this will continue.  Many traditionalist and religious conservatives tend not to be as hip to the sciences and technology, and increasingly run the risk of being seen to be as relevant to ‘modern’ life as a group of Amish, dutifully and communally raising a barn, gazed at from passersby on the road.  Well, perhaps that’s a bit much, but some technorati no doubt see things that way.

Now, libertarianism can be accompanied by attendant utopianism and grand visions of the future (as strong as the progressive and collectivist love of technocracy).  Yet, as for predictions about the future, here’s Jerry Pournelle describing his own home computer and how publishing might look in a few decades time.

Keep in mind he was saying this in 1979:

——————

That’s pretty damned accurate and reasonable. Perhaps his chart could be useful, as he was a sci-fi writer who likely ended up closer to Burkean conservativsm.  Conservatives, take note.

The obligatory blog questions:

-How do you see technology affecting your life?

-What are your duties to the people around you, and to the common good?

-Do you ever get the urge to hit that guy talking loudly on his bluetooth, or push that prepossessed, couldn’t be bothered girl at the bus stop into oncoming traffic as she texts away with her earbuds in?

-Are you that guy or girl?

Addition:  Via Instapundit-Huxley vs. Orwell, with Huxley in the lead. Robert Heinlein built his own house.  L. Ron Hubbard is a good example of when sci-fi writers become ‘alleged,’ cult/religious figures.

Another Addition:  Are we losing volunteerism because more women are working and have less time to volunteer, and work locally, and be engaged civically?

Related On This Site:  Looking for classical liberals in the postmodern wilderness: Isaiah Berlin’s negative liberty: A Few Thoughts On Isaiah Berlin’s “Two Concepts Of Liberty”

Libertarian socialist and anarcho-syndicalist:  Via Youtube: (1 of 3) Kant, Chomsky and the Problem of Knowledge…Martha Nussbaum criticizing Chomsky’s hubris in Martha Nussbaum In Dissent–Violence On The Left: Nandigram And The Communists Of West Bengal

The market will make people better off, but always leaves them wanting more and in a state of spiritual malaise, which invites constant meddling.  Can economic freedom and free markets reconcile the moral depth of progressive big-State human freedom?:  Milton Friedman Via Youtube: ‘Responsibility To The Poor’A Few Quotations From F.A. Hayek’s: ‘Why I Am Not A Conservative’…libertarians share a definition of liberty

Robert Bork called them the New Left: A Few Thoughts On Robert Bork’s “Slouching Towards Gomorrah”

Adam Garfinkle At The American Interest: ‘What Did The Arab Spring Really Change?’Adam Garfinkle At The American Interest’s Via Media: “The Rise Of Independent Kurdistan?”..Adam Garfinkle At The American Interest on Egypt: ‘Still More of the Same—and Something New’

From The American Interest: Francis Fukuyama Interviews Peter Thiel-’A Conversation With Peter Thiel’… part of Fukuyama’s platform came from Huntington, but also Hegel via Kojeve.  From The American Interest Online: Francis Fukuyama On Samuel Huntington…Can economics and politics ever be a science…Hegel’s influence can be problematic: Update And Repost- From YouTube: Leo Strauss On The Meno-More On The Fact/Value Distinction?’…Has Fukuyama turned from Hegel toward Darwin…do we need a more moral, bureaucratic class here in America and across Europe?: Adam Kirsch Reviews Francis Fukuyama’s New Book At The City Journal: ‘The Dawn Of Politics’

Richard Epstein At Defining Ideas: ‘Drone Wars’

Full piece here.

‘The potential targets of drone attacks have no intention of subjecting themselves to the authority of the United States, so the only option left is to pursue them in territories where the United States exerts no effective control. In these settings, the futility of trial forces the government to take the controversial military option.

In dealing with that calculus, the United States could take citizenship into account in making its decision. But which way should that cut? Does a citizen deserve extra rights against the government that he has betrayed? Or should he be subject to additional sanctions? There is no clear answer, which is why U.S. policy on drone use for targeted attacks will remain an open wound in the body politic. It is both frightening and necessary to have to place such extensive trust in our public officials. But, when it comes to matters of national security, there is no other choice.’

Drone strikes can be a form of militarism lite, I suspect.  For this President, they can meet the political goal of targeting the enemy without troops on the ground as in Afpak and Yemen, thus achieving this aim in a more ‘quiet’ way, appealing to the base which is conveniently quiet as well.

More broadly, do you trust our elected officials and non-elected officials to have such powers?

Drones could eventually bring up civil liberties issues, because they are so inexpensive, reduce risk of harm for the user, and can be used effectively by all sorts of people here at home, from criminals to law enforcement.  They can be used to control a lot of the public sphere with minimal effort and cost.

I recall briefly thinking of Glenn Greenwald as almost in the anarchic tradition, but when he’s not, that he leans more toward progressive and liberal ideals, so he likely has animus against the State having such power in the first place (civil libertarian…he sued the Obama administration on behalf of the ACLU) but also because of the liberal lean he may have animus against those who would define liberty further away from a more progressive/liberal point of view (blaming America first for not having the right ideals, perhaps somewhere between Noam Chomsky and Julian Assange who both flirt with anarchy as well).

He makes some interesting arguments, however.

Francis Fukuyama has been writing about surveillance drones as well.

Related On This Site:  Covering the law and economics from a libertarian perspective: Richard Epstein At The Hoover Institution Journal: ‘Three Cheers for Income Inequality’Richard Epstein At The Hoover Institution: ‘Death By Wealth Tax’Richard Epstein At The Hoover Institution: ‘The Obamacare Quaqmire’

The anarchic tradition on this site:  A Few Thoughts On Robert Nozick’s “Anarchy, State and Utopia”… …Via Youtube: (1 of 3) Kant, Chomsky and the Problem of KnowledgeLink To Lew Rockwell Via A ReaderRepost-Two Quotations By Albert Jay Nock in ‘Anarchist’s Progress’…minimal state…Repost-Youtube Via Libertarianism.Org-David Friedman: ‘The Machinery Of Freedom

The classical liberal tradition…looking for classical liberals in the postmodern wilderness: Isaiah Berlin’s negative liberty: A Few Thoughts On Isaiah Berlin’s “Two Concepts Of Liberty”… From George Monbiot: ‘How Freedom Became Tyranny’…Looking to supplant religion as moral source for the laws: From The Reason Archives: ‘Discussing Disgust’ Julian Sanchez Interviews Martha Nussbaum.New liberty away from Hobbes?: From Public Reason: A Discussion Of Gerald Gaus’s Book ‘The Order of Public Reason: A Theory of Freedom And Morality In A Diverse And Bounded World’…Richard Rorty tried to tie postmodernism and trendy leftist solidarity to liberalism, but wasn’t exactly classically liberal:  Repost: Another Take On J.S. Mill From “Liberal England”

Originalism vs. The living constitution: George Will Via The Jewish World Review: ‘True Self-Government’..Still fighting the battles of the 60′s…? A Few Thoughts On Robert Bork’s “Slouching Towards Gomorrah”…Catholic libertarianism: Youtube Via Reason TV-Judge Napolitano ‘Why Taxation is Theft, Abortion is Murder, & Government is Dangerous’

Add to Technorati Favorites

Repost-Two Quotations By Albert Jay Nock in ‘Anarchist’s Progress’

Full essay here.

According to my observations (for which I claim nothing by that they are all I have to go by) inaction is better than wrong action or premature right action, and effective right action can only follow right thinking. “If a great change is to take place,” said Edmund Burke, in his last words on the French Revolution, “the minds of men will be fitted to it.”

and:

‘It is a primary instinct of human nature to satisfy one’s needs and desires with the least possible exertion; everyone tends by instinctive preference to use the political means rather than the economic means, if he can do so.

Albert Jay Nock, a strange animal:  Philosophical anarchist…but one whose anti-statism (the State maintains a monopoly on crime) is such that he ends up in a fairly conservative position.

Also On This Site:  How many libertarians are fundamentally anti-theist…and would some go so far as to embrace utilitarianism, or Mill’s Harm Principle which both of which are often used by the State-Builders?

What about Kantian agnosticism…or is that part of the Enlightenment project of reason that Libertarians perhaps ought to be more careful with?:  A Few Thoughts On Isaiah Berlin’s “Two Concepts Of Liberty” …Harry Jaffa At The Claremont Institute: ‘Leo Strauss, the Bible, and Political Philosophy’Via An Emailer: Some Criticism Of Leo Strauss?

Add to Technorati Favorites

Richard Epstein At The Hoover Institution: ‘Our “Imbecilic” Constitution?’

Full piece here.

‘Today’s problems are so pervasive, some argue, that we should rethink the fundamental structure of our venerable Constitution. University of Texas law professor Sanford Levinson’s recent book, Our Undemocratic Constitution, argues for jettisoning our present constitutional structures in favor of more flexible institutional arrangements that, he thinks, will prove better adapted to our troubled times.’

Epstein finishes with:

‘No one should defend a state of anarchy to ward off the excesses of state power. But unless we once again find the middle ground between too much and too little government power, we will continue to suffer as a nation, whether or not we continue to operate under what remains of the federal Constitution. The original Constitution was not imbecilic. On many questions, it reflects a level of wisdom that has unfortunately been lost today’

Related On This Site: Covering the law and economics from a libertarian perspective: Richard Epstein At The Hoover Institution Journal: ‘Three Cheers for Income Inequality’Richard Epstein At The Hoover Institution: ‘Death By Wealth Tax’

The classical liberal tradition…looking for classical liberals in the postmodern wilderness: Isaiah Berlin’s negative liberty: A Few Thoughts On Isaiah Berlin’s “Two Concepts Of Liberty”… From George Monbiot: ‘How Freedom Became Tyranny’…Looking to supplant religion as moral source for the laws: From The Reason Archives: ‘Discussing Disgust’ Julian Sanchez Interviews Martha Nussbaum.New liberty away from Hobbes?: From Public Reason: A Discussion Of Gerald Gaus’s Book ‘The Order of Public Reason: A Theory of Freedom And Morality In A Diverse And Bounded World’…Richard Rorty tried to tie postmodernism and trendy leftist solidarity to liberalism, but wasn’t exactly classically liberal:  Repost: Another Take On J.S. Mill From “Liberal England”

Originalism vs. The living constitution: George Will Via The Jewish World Review: ‘True Self-Government’..Still fighting the battles of the 60′s…? A Few Thoughts On Robert Bork’s “Slouching Towards Gomorrah”…Catholic libertarianism: Youtube Via Reason TV-Judge Napolitano ‘Why Taxation is Theft, Abortion is Murder, & Government is Dangerous’

Add to Technorati Favorites

Link To Lew Rockwell Via A Reader

Site here.

Wikipedia’s page here.

As the banner states on the front page:  “anti-state, anti-war, pro-market,”  and as a reader points out, he’s described himself as a paleolibertarian and “anarcho-capitalist.”   He is now a chairman of the Von Mises Institute.

Interestingly, on the anarchy front, another anti-statist is Noam Chomsky, who hovers between anarchy, anarcho-syndicalism, and libertarian socialism (and the heady days of the Russian revolution).  I don’t think I’ve made the case at all that his deep work on linguistics has any connection with that politics, but it’s quite interesting: Via Youtube: (1 of 3) Kant, Chomsky and the Problem of Knowledge.

Just to continue on the Statism/liberty theme going on around here and in the country right now:  We have a particularly liberal administration with Obama (very Statist, very redistributionist, green, with a Wilsonian/aggressive humanitarian foreign policy).  I think many people are a little surprised at just how far we’re having to wade into racial and gender politics and the schisms and interests of the Left. At least one poll is showing a high mistrust of government activity.

It’s interesting to note that a strong libertarian response  has developed (which usually occurs during liberal administrations…see the Ron Paul surge) and how that libertarianism could likely be subsumed into a Republican platform (and how it generates fears of a 3rd party run that would split the vote).

My two cents.  Thanks for the link.

Related On This Site:  On anarchy: Two Sunday Quotations By Albert Jay Nock in ‘Anarchist’s Progress’

I think it’s going too far, trying to apply libertarian economics onto education, but Milton Friedman on Education is thought-provoking.  The State causes all poverty?  Milton Friedman Via Youtube: ‘Responsibility To The Poor’

Catholic libertarianism: Youtube Via Reason TV-Judge Napolitano ‘Why Taxation is Theft, Abortion is Murder, & Government is Dangerous’

Richard Epstein At The Hoover Institution Journal: ‘Three Cheers for Income Inequality’A Few Quotations From F.A. Hayek’s: ‘Why I Am Not A Conservative’Repost-From Fora Via YouTube: ‘Thomas Sowell and a Conflict of Visions

Add to Technorati Favorites

Two Sunday Quotations By Albert Jay Nock in ‘Anarchist’s Progress’

Full essay here.

According to my observations (for which I claim nothing by that they are all I have to go by) inaction is better than wrong action or premature right action, and effective right action can only follow right thinking. “If a great change is to take place,” said Edmund Burke, in his last words on the French Revolution, “the minds of men will be fitted to it.

and:

‘It is a primary instinct of human nature to satisfy one’s needs and desires with the least possible exertion; everyone tends by instinctive preference to use the political means rather than the economic means, if he can do so.’

Albert Jay Nock, a strange animal:  Philosophical anarchist…but one whose anti-statism (the State maintains a monopoly on crime) is such that he ends up in a fairly conservative position.

Also On This Site:  How many libertarians are fundamentally anti-theist…and would some go so far as to embrace utilitarianism, or Mill’s Harm Principle which both of which are often used by the State-Builders?  So, where did Marx get his ideas, anyways? Peter Singer discusses Hegel and Marx

How might Darwin, and those who use him for political purposes, fit into all of this?:  PZ Myers, anti-creationsist, has more.

What about Kantian agnosticism…or is that part of the Enlightenment project of reason that Libertarians perhaps ought to be more careful with?:  A Few Thoughts On Isaiah Berlin’s “Two Concepts Of Liberty”Harry Jaffa At The Claremont Institute: ‘Leo Strauss, the Bible, and Political Philosophy’Via An Emailer: Some Criticism Of Leo Strauss?

What about Noam Chomsky’s philosophical idealism, and his anarchism?:  The Politics Of Noam Chomsky-The Dangers Of Kantian Transcendental Idealism?

Add to Technorati Favorites