Liberty & Power: Group Blog
Friday, August 18, 2006
The Constitution Within
In recent columns I've argued that a free society depends ultimately on people having a proper sense of just conduct. This means more than the words they recite or put on paper. Most crucial is how they act and expect others to act. For this reason it is futile to put undue emphasis on written constitutions as the key to liberty. The real constitution is within -- each of us. If the freedom philosophy is not inscribed in the actions of people, no constitution will help.Read the rest of this week's TGIF column at the Foundation for Economic Education website.
Cross-posted at Free Association.
Middle East History
Here are links to two articles on the Israel-Arab/Palestine conflict that I wrote in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs in 1991. Both are relevant today:
"US Journalists Consistently Ignore Israeli State Terrorism" and
"Who Wanted Peace? Who Wanted War? History Refutes Israel's US Image"
"Libertarian" Talk-Show Host Needs "Help" (Warrantless Wiretaps)
I made the mistake of listening this morning to Neal Boortz, a self-described libertarian radio call-in host who is also a consistent defender of Bush's foreign policy. He was talking to a pro-administration lawyer (I didn't catch his name) who waxed outraged about the ruling against the NSA's warrantless wiretaps.
As expected, Boortz provided a sympathetic ear. The conversation suddenly took an unpredictable turn, however, when Boortz asked the lawyer to "help me." Boortz said he needed to come up with an "answer" to a common criticism of the wiretaps. Why, he asked, did Bush need this authority since the law gave him unchecked power to wiretap for up to 72 hours?
The lawyer seemed dumbfounded by the question, mumbling something to the effect that he was not an expert on that issue and that others knew better than he. Finally, he struggled to regain his righteous indignation. He pronounced that it was "obvious" that any restriction on NSA power was illegitimate because "the president's" motivation in such cases was always the protection of national security and could never be criminal.
Boortz, who built his ratings base by portraying President Clinton as a power-mad, raping, enemy of liberty, meekly backed off and that was that.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
The Great Fundamentalist Crack-up on Foreign Policy?
Maybe not yet but some hairline cracks can be detected. This trend deserves more attention from antiwar critics. While still a small minority among their brethren, more mainstream fundamentalists than ever are questioning the basis of American foreign policy in the Middle East. An example is Stephen Sizer, the author of Christian Zionism: Road-Map to Armageddon?
Sizer rejects the bloodcurdling, and melodramatic "end times" scenarios of premillennialists like Hal Lindsey as based on a flawed interpretation of Biblical prophecies. He subscribes to a theology that most of these prophecies either do not apply to current events or were fullfilled thousands of years ago. Sizer urges fundamentalists to build bridges to Arab Christians who he sees as potential peacemakers in the conflict between Muslim and Jew.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
The British State to Pardon (a few of) Its Victims
The Guardian carries the news that the Defence Secretary will seek a pardon for the 306 men who were shot for cowardice or desertion during the First World War. Parliamentary approval is required. For more of the story, go here.
Coincidentally, I believe that during a debate on this topic in the House of Commons, the Reverend Ian Paisley, leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, whom Lord Carrington called "the bigot of all bigots", supported a pardon.
The pardons are also likely to affect former soldiers from other Commonwealth countries—such as Canada—and their families now living there.
To date New Zealand, France and Germany have pardoned soldiers who were shot in the same way. May we expect the United States to do so in the not too distant future?
Last year the UK government said it would scrap the death penalty for military offences in the armed forces. The forces have not carried out the death penalty for more than eighty years, but it still applies to five offences: misconduct in action, assisting the enemy, obstructing operations with intent to assist the enemy, mutiny, and failure to suppress mutiny with intent to assist the enemy. It was last used in 1920 when Private James Daly of the 1st Battalion of the Connaught Rangers was found guilty of mutiny at Jullunder in the Punjab.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
What Did the Soviets Know About Auschwitz and When?
For more, see here.
Monday, August 14, 2006
Gottfried Dietze, RIP
Gottfried Dietze (1920-7/10/2006), classical liberal historian, died recently in Washington, D.C. He devoted his life to his teaching at Johns Hopkins, and his scholarship on the nature of liberty, the rule of law, and government.
Celebrating Joyce Appleby
I recommend the current HNN "History Doyens" piece on Joyce Appleby. She influenced many libertarian-oriented historians that attended grad school in the 1980s and 1990s. Two choice selections:
"Since we toss around complex with the same abandon as nuanced, I'll define how I think of complexity in history. Complexity in human affairs arises from the fact that human beings are never single-minded in their efforts and decisions, and events never slide along a predictable cause and effect continuum. Getting across this point has always been more important to me than raising consciousness about past injustices or rallying students to the heroism of dissenters and reformers."
"A hundred and fifty years ago, historians exalted the nation's commercial values as proof of democratic vigor; since the Progressives they have focused more upon those groups that failed to benefit from a profit-driven economy. Perhaps now, as the twentieth century closes, we may be ready to explore the social complexity of our entrepreneurial system while shedding the celebratory and compensatory burdens of our predecessors."
LvMI in the WSJ
Congratulations to the Mises Institute for this great write-up in the Wall Street Journal! An excerpt:
The Mises Institute counts free-marketers from more than 30 states and at least 23 countries among its faculty. Its students' homes are equally far-flung: Poland, Peru, Argentina, Canada, France and China this summer alone. "Every one of them is an idealist in a very courageous way," Mr. Tucker said. "A lot of people think it's silly to be an idealist these days. But Mises always taught that ideas are the only weapons we have against despotism."
Armed Forces & Empire: Some Interesting Figures
1. It was said ‘the sun never set on the British Empire’. ‘Because’ -- as one wag put it -- ‘God didn’t trust the British’. Be that as it may, it is obvious that the British armed forces during the Imperial period must have been far, far larger than in the late 20th century -- correct? Since they had that far-flung, global Empire to ‘defend’. Well, have a look (the figures cover the British Army, the Royal Navy, & the Royal Marines):
1861, British armed forces, total: 281,611
As % of labour force: 2.64 %
Numbers at home (= 41.53 % of total)116,953
As % of labour force: 1.10 %
1891, British armed forces, total: 270,644
As % of labour force: 1.85 %
Numbers at home (= 50.42 % of total)
136,459
As % of labour force: 0.93 %
In sum: as the British Empire expanded to its fullest extent, & at its very peak: the total numbers in the armed forces _fell_ (fell) by some 4 %; the numbers stationed throughout the Empire _fell_ (fell) by some 18.5%; the numbers stationed _at home_ rose (rose) by about 16 %. As a proportion of the labour force, the total armed forces _fell_ (fell) from 2.64 to 1.85 %. Some ‘Empire’.
Poll of Members by Historians Against the War: My Response
I am a longtime member of Historians Against the War, a group formed in 2003 to oppose the Iraq War. Joining is extremely simple and does not cost a cent. All you have to do to do is sign this statement.
The steering committee of HAW is now polling members on whether HAW should take “positions on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, U.S. threats to Syria and Iran, the so-called 'global war on terror,' and the socio-economic impact of empire on the United States."(Go here to respond). Here is my answer.
Let's stick to a narrow gauge approach. Going beyond this on the Israel question will threaten to needlessly divide our membership and cut us off from potential allies. While individual members of HAW should be free to make such connections, the organization itself must remain focused on the unifying goal of opposition to the Iraq war. I write this as a long-time opponent of U.S. aid to Israel.For similar reasons, a narrow gauge approach makes even more sense on highly divisive domestic issues related to the "socio-economic impact of empire in the United States." No matter what "positions" HAW endorses, the effect will be to push away members and potential members.
For example, if HAW calls for more domestic spending on government programs or increased economic regulation, it will alienate antiwar conservatives and libertarians who support smaller government, freer markets, and lower taxes. Many of these conservatives and libertarians regard the Iraq war as an illustration of the dangers of an expanding "welfare/warfare state."
While we should never be afraid to express individual opinions on these questions, it would be a fatal strategic mistake for any of us to try to impose our views on the other members by forcing HAW to take a "one size fits all" organizational stand.
Please note that a change in HAW's policy will only detract from the stated goal of HAW leaders to build bridges to conservative and libertarians and show greater sensitivity to their concerns.
Saturday, August 12, 2006
TV Watchers Watch TV
From Vinay Menon of The Toronto Star, Aug. 10:
In our culture of default victimhood, those who advocate nanny-state regulations enjoy playing the blame game because it advances their own special interests. TV is a reliable scapegoat.
Read the article.
Friday, August 11, 2006
"What is Left? What is Right? Does it Matter?"
The current issue of _The American Conservative_ attempts to define the modern American right. I found the essay by Kirkpatrick Sale especially interesting. See http://www.amconmag.com/
Ayn Rand at 100
A new book entitled Ayn Rand at 100, edited by Tibor Machan, makes its debut on Wednesday, August 16, 2006. And it is being published by the Liberty Institute in India!!! The book synopsis states: "Eminent authors discuss the impact [Ayn Rand] has had on their contribution to philosophy and, most importantly, Rand’s Indian connection."
A reprint of one of my Rand Centenary articles appears in the anthology, along with an essay by one of my L&P; colleagues, Roderick Long. Here's the Table of Contents:
Preface : Tibor R. Machan: Ayn Rand at 100
Chapter 1: Bibek Debroy: Ayn Rand - The Indian Connection
Chapter 2: Tibor R. Machan: Rand and Her Significant Contributions
Chapter 3: J. E. Chesher: Ayn Rand’s Contribution to Moral Philosophy
Chapter 4: George Reisman: Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises
Chapter 5: Robert White: Ayn Rand’s Contribution to Liberal Thought
Chapter 6: Roderick T. Long: Ayn Rand and Indian Philosophy
Chapter 7: Chris Matthew Sciabarra: Ayn Rand - A Centennial Appreciation
Chapter 8: Fred Seddon: Ayn Rand - An Appreciation
Chapter 9: Elaine Sternberg: Why Ayn Rand Matters: Metaphysics, Morals, and Liberty
Chapter 10: Douglas Den Uyl : Rand's First Great Hit, The Fountainhead
Cross-posted to Notablog.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Free Floyd Landis!
Here.
A Research Motherload Now Available
This is great! Ralph E. Luker reports that the public, via Worldcat, now has wide open online access to countless items in over 10,000 libraries around the world. See here to partake.
Wednesday, August 9, 2006
Jackie Mason Defends Mel Gibson
Neil Cavuto interviews Jackie Mason. Jackie Mason gets it right. Perhaps we can now move on.
New Book on World War II
Here is a link about what looks to be a fascinating new book:
The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy by Adam Tooze.
Tuesday, August 8, 2006
A Vote for Inflation?
From today's press release by the Federal Reserve:
"Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman; Timothy F. Geithner, Vice Chairman; Susan S. Bies; Jack Guynn; Donald L. Kohn; Randall S. Kroszner; Sandra Pianalto; Kevin M. Warsh; and Janet L. Yellen. Voting against was Jeffrey M. Lacker, who preferred an increase of 25 basis points in the federal funds rate target at this meeting."
Obscuring the Reasons for 9/11
From Ivan Eland of the Independent Institute:
As both the Bush administration and its client government in Israel, with their invasions of Arab states in Iraq and Lebanon respectively, make the United States ever more hated in the Islamic world, a new book by the Chairmen of the 9/11 commission admits that the commission whitewashed the root cause of the 9/11 attacks—that same interventionist U.S. foreign policy....Read the rest here.
The book usefully details the administration’s willful misrepresentation of its incompetent actions that day, but makes the shocking admission that some commission members deliberately wanted to distort an even more important issue. Apparently, unidentified commissioners wanted to cover up the fact that U.S. support for Israel was one of the motivating factors behind al Qaeda’s 9/11 attack. Although to his credit, [cochairman Lee] Hamilton argued for saying that al Qaeda committed the heinous strike because of the U.S. military presence in the Middle East and American support for Israel, the panel watered down that frank conclusion to state that U.S. policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Iraq are “dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world.”
Some [9/11] commissioners wanted to cover up the link between the 9/11 attack and U.S. support for Israel because this might imply that the United States should alter policy and lessen its support for Israeli actions. How right they were. The question is simple: If the vast bulk of Americans would be safer if U.S. politicians moderated their slavish support of Israel, designed to win the support of key pressure groups at home, wouldn’t it be a good idea to make this change in course? Average U.S. citizens might attenuate their support for Israel if the link between the 9/11 attacks and unquestioning U.S. favoritism for Israeli excesses were more widely known. Similarly, if American taxpayers knew that the expensive and unnecessary U.S. policy of intervening in the affairs of countries all over the world—including the U.S. military presence in the Middle East—made them less secure from terrorist attacks at home, pressure would likely build for an abrupt change to a more restrained U.S. foreign policy. But like the original 9/11 Commission report, President Bush regularly obscures this important reality by saying that America was attacked on 9/11 because of its freedoms, making no mention of U.S. interventionist foreign policy as the root cause.
Hat tip: Ralph Raico.
Cross-posted at Free Association.
Recent Entries
- The Constitution Within
- Middle East History
- "Libertarian" Talk-Show Host Needs "Help" (Warrantless Wiretaps)
- The Great Fundamentalist Crack-up on Foreign Policy?
- The British State to Pardon (a few of) Its Victims
- What Did the Soviets Know About Auschwitz and When?
- Gottfried Dietze, RIP
- Celebrating Joyce Appleby
- LvMI in the WSJ
- Armed Forces & Empire: Some Interesting Figures
HNN Underwriter
Internet Shopping
News
Roundup
HNN Blogs
- Cliopatria
- Liberty & Power
- Judith Apter Klinghoffer
- Thomas C. Reeves
- Mark A. LeVine
- Daniel Pipes
- Revise & Dissent
- POTUS
Contributing Editors
- Common Sense
- Peter Boettke
- Stephen Cox
- Kenneth R. Gregg
- Grinder & Hagel
- Robert Higgs
- Jeffrey Rogers Hummel
- Karen Kwiatowski
- John Majewski
- James Otteson
- David Theroux
- Gus DiZerega
Freedom and Standards on Campus
- Alabama Scholars Association
- Grade Inflation
- Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
- National Association of Scholars
- Public Policy Research Institutes & Other Organizations
- Acton Institute
- Atlas Economic Research Foundation
- Cato Institute
- Foundation for Economic Education
- Historians Against the War
- Independent Institute
- Institute for Humane Studies
- International Center on Nonviolent Conflict
- Liberty Fund
- OnPower.org
- Trebach Institute
Blogs & Columns
- The Adam Smith Institute
- Agoraphilia
- Alina Stefanescu
- Antiwar.com Blog
- Austrian Economists
- Booker Rising
- Cafe Hayek
- Cafe Liberty
- Capital Freedom
- Catallarchy
- CLASSical Liberalism
- Chris Sciabarra
- Colby Cosh
- Cold Spring Shops
- Colossus of Rhodey
- Commons
- Crooked Timber
- David N. Mayer
- David M. Hart
- Diana Mertz Hsieh
- Discriminations
- Division of Labor
- Econlog
- Education Wonks
- Free Ouray
- Gene Healy
- Gus diZerega
- History Carnival
- Hit and Run
- Jesse Walker
- Jim Henley
- John Cole
- Journal of Ayn Rand Studies
- Juan Cole
- JustinLogan.com
- Karen De Coster
- Justin Raimondo
- Kevin Carson
- Knowledge Problem
- LRC Blog
- Liberating Our Heritage
- Liberty Belles
- Liberty and Culture
- Liberty Guys
- Liberty Magazine
- Michael Berube
- Margaret Soltan
- Mises Economics Blog
- NAS Blog
- Peter Gordon
- Positive Liberty
- Proportional Belief
- Radley Balko
- Robert A. George
- Roderick Long
- SCSUScholars
- Sheldon Richman
- Southern Appeal
- Szasz Blog
- St. Maximos' Hut
- Tom G. Palmer
- Torch
- Volokh Conspiracy
- Wendy McElroy
- Will Wilkinson
Old Archives
Recent Comments
- funny ringtones on Victor Davis Hanson: "Worst Historian Since Parson Weems"
- funny ringtones on Victor Davis Hanson: "Worst Historian Since Parson Weems"
- mp3 ringtones on Victor Davis Hanson: "Worst Historian Since Parson Weems"
- Sudha Shenoy on Armed Forces & Empire: Some Interesting Figures
- Sudha Shenoy on Armed Forces & Empire: Some Interesting Figures
- Col Steve J on Armed Forces & Empire: Some Interesting Figures
- William Marina on Armed Forces & Empire: Some Interesting Figures
- Sudha Shenoy on Armed Forces & Empire: Some Interesting Figures
- Col Steve J on Armed Forces & Empire: Some Interesting Figures
- Jason T. Kuznicki on What Did the Soviets Know About Auschwitz and When?
Archives
August 2006July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
