xelent’s Neighborhood

It seems appropriate, in light of what I say in the beginning of the previous blog entry, to recommend that you all print out and read Murray Rothbard's illuminating 1986 monograph "Protectionism and the Destruction of Prosperity." [PDF]

This period of economic hardship will energize a lot of harmful anti-market ideas. We can be sure that protectionist policy recommendations will be among them. Although there are exceptions, many paleoconservatives are steadfast supporters of trade protectionism. This, in my humble view, is a weak spot they have.

In this short monograph Rothbard, as usual, addresses the issue with great clarity and straightforwardness. He explains what trade protectionism really amounts to and what the effects of it are. Rothbard uses various "protectionist devises" to show the illogic of protectionism. He addresses the heart of the confusion between the price as opposed to the cost of labor: Why are wage rates high in the U.S. versus many other places? Rothbard also addresses the question of trade "dumping," the effect trade has on "infant" industries, and the problem of the "balance of payments."

(Let me please note here that Murray Rothbard was not for the various so-called "free" trade agreements that we have today. It was because Rothbard was a real supporter of free trade that he opposed them. As he explains in this RRR article: "Nafta would not bring us 'half a loaf' of free trade; if we can continue the analogy, it would bring us a 'negative loaf.' Nafta is worse than no agreement at all.")

Murray N. Rothbard once wrote: “It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”

With current economic conditions, this particular Rothbard quote seems especially relevant.

Almost everyone has an opinion. Unfortunately, many men don't think through their opinions and policy recommendations vis-à-vis economic law. Often times these opinions are completely oblivious to such law in a way which pretends that there is no such thing at all. Too many men ignore the fact that there is a structure of reality that cannot bend to all of their desires and dreams. In a cultural sense, their distorted belief and view of the world turns man into a pseudo god. It makes man the center of all things and makes all things genuflect to him. In a way it is not all surprising that such a world view is so widespread. This kind of view of man and reality is a central part of what we call today's "culture."

A prominent example of this is healthcare.

It might be worth writing a bit about, now that Dictator-elect President-elect Barack Obama will be the head of the U.S. Empire.

On the Internet I have read numerous articles that try to "prove" that socialism works in the medical industry by statistical analysis. What's more, these findings are said to "prove" that socialism is more efficient than free market healthcare. To say the least, there are many holes in these arguments and "proofs." This includes the impossibility to measure value or opportunity costs as an exact mathematical-statistical science.

Their argumentation and data is further defective because it is based on a fallacy. That fallacy says that the U.S. has a free market system in healthcare. In fact, the truth is quite the opposite. Socialism already exists in this industry to a great extent; so much so that you can call it a socialist----or fascist----industry already. (Over two-thirds of the spending in the healthcare industry is from the government. Socialism is not coming in the future, it is here now.)

On top of this, the debate is filled with Orwellian language. It surrounds and shields the socialists. On am emotional level, it tries to put them in a position that makes them look like they are filled with compassion and those who oppose them as heartless and uncaring people. An example of Orwellian language is seen with the use of the word "free." However, if such services and goods were free, then they would not be considered economic goods at all and no one would be talking about this issue whatsoever. As the popular acronym TANSTAAFL says: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. The debate is additionally surrounded with terms such as "rights," "justice," "fairness," etc. An easy way to see how untrue this is is by asking the following question: What of those who do not want to be a part of their system, should they be forced in? If they really cared about said things, then they would not want to force everyone into bondage with their (by necessity non-voluntary) system.

In regards to statistical proofs, one quote comes to my mind right away: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Here is a quick illustration. It has been said that laws against private gun ownership decreases crime rates. The "proof"? Canada has strict anti-gun laws (relative to the U.S.) and there are fewer crimes (relative to the U.S.). Therefore, if you want less crime, you must support anti-gun laws.

The absurdity of this "proof" should be clear.

First off, note that these types of "social experiments" bear zero resemblance to the experiments of the hard sciences, e.g., physics. Man cannot possibly hold down all of the other variables constant to have ceteris paribus conditions. Second, when considering this case, it is easy to see that other variables or factors can explain the differences between Canada and the U.S. The demographics of the two nations are different. Breaking down these demographics shows that different groups statistically commit more crimes than other groups. The U.S. has a greater number of those minority groups (e.g., Blacks and Hispanics) which, on average, commit more crimes. Thus the social experiment is ceteris non paribus. It is a worthless social experiment.

There are similar problems in regards to healthcare social experiments. They are just as worthless and muddled. To note one of the most ridiculous pronouncements, think of those who labeled Walter Reed Army Medical Center as an empirical example of the "free market" in action. There is no dispute in terms of its conditions. However, man labeling a government-run (i.e., socialist) operation as an example of the free market is talking nonsense. One might as well label the former Soviet Union as a paradigm of "capitalism." On the other hand, maybe these individuals should look into the historical record of that nation's "free" and socialized healthcare system. It is the direction in which these individuals want to move to. Likewise, Walter Reed should be looked at as what it really is, i.e., an example of socialism.

To bring our minds to an analogous example, think of food. It is of greater importance to life. But anyone with any sense would realize that to give the State a monopoly over food production and distribution would be a nightmare. Thinking why this would be is the same reason why one should oppose giving the State a monopoly (or semi-"monopoly") over healthcare.

Llewellyn Rockwell has said, it is no surprise that politicians including "Emperor Francis Joseph of Austria-Hungary, William II of Germany, Nicholas II of Russia, Lenin, Stalin, Salazar of Portugal, Mussolini of Italy, Franco in Spain, Yoshihito and Hirohito of Japan, Joseph Vargas of Brazil, Juan Peron of Argentina, Hitler, and FDR" have all been on the same page when it comes to socializing or nationalizing the medical industry. "To control people's access to medical care," Mr. Rockwell rightfully says, "is to control their very lives, so it is no wonder that this is the goal of every state."

In a nutshell: Today in the U.S. we have government created and sponsored cartel rip-offs. In effect, the industry has been monopolized with the AMA. (This, I suppose, is another example of the "free market.") Parallel to this, the Health Care Financing Administration has cartelized and subsidized the industry with HMOs. Then there is the FDA centrally regulating and managing the industry to "protect" us. We have the entire health insurance industry forced to behave in a way that is exactly opposite (see link) of how it would behave in a free market. In addition to all of this, we have welfare subsidization programs, e.g., Medicare and Medicaid. (I'm sure those, too, are examples of how we have a "free market.")

Recently my mother was watching a PBS program on how there are shortages in providing medical education. Despite demand being so high for these people, education cannot keep up. The thing this television program did not mention was that it is essentially illegal for new schools to be constructed. This is the result from the government making the AMA (American Medical Association) a cartel. As Rockwell explains in the linked-to essay, the AMA "openly discussed" its goal "to secure a government-enforced medical monopoly and high incomes for mainstream doctors." And as Rothbard explained, it "put out of business all medical schools that were proprietary and profit-making, that admitted blacks and women, and that did not specialize in orthodox." Half of the schools consequently closed down, the industry cartelized, competition was killed, the prices drove up, quality fell, and consumers lost choices and control.

It can hardly be said that following this model even more intensely will lead to opposite results. The industry must be able to respond to consumer demand, not to government decree (as it is now). Restricting competition even more, artificially limiting the supply or whatnot will further drive up prices and drive down quality. Liberating the market is what needs to be done. There is a reason why the technology industry does not behave the way the medical industry does. (Moreover, relatively free sub-medical industries, like plastic surgery, have gone down in price.) Opening up the entry into the medical profession will thereby intensify competition. Supply would be able to meet demand. It would allow a greater diversity of medical treatments to compete with each other. Private licensing would develop. What statist licensing does is the restricting of innovation. It thus systematically hurts the innovators (makes it more expensive than otherwise) and relatively encourages non-innovation. Hence, these regulations curtail advancement and consumers suffer.

The same is true with the FDA (Food and Drug Administration). Hans Hoppe notes [pdf] that there is no such thing as a "national standard" in regards to quality or safety. No objective test exists. It can only be arbitrarily determined from the authorities and in replace of the different standards of different consumers. A top-down and one-size-fits-all standard is simplistic and unrealistic. It is filled with the problems that all central plans have. And it does not have to work within the constraints of the underlying reality of the market. Dr. Hoppe writes that in a free market: "Consumers would be allowed to act in accordance with their own --- rather than the central government's --- risk assessment; and competing drug manufactures and sellers, in order to safeguard against product liability suits as much as to attract consumers, would provide increasingly better and accurate product descriptions and warranties."

And as Patrick Weinert writes: "Who has a stronger incentive to truly protect the consumer? Producers in the market whose livelihoods depend on it? Or bureaucrats in Washington who are utterly disconnected from the market process and easily manipulated by special interests?"

There is no such thing as a "perfect" system without mistakes. (Unlike most advocates of socialism, free market advocates are realists.) The free market, as opposed to statist control, provides a real and physical check. No business or income is lost when the FDA makes a mistake. Being in the position that it is in (qua monopolist), the FDA has no market pressure to do its job efficiently or well. It has no genuine checks-and-balances. And being in the position that it is in, corruption can easily develop with its relationships with various corporations. The bureaucratization of the process and the expenses thereof do not have to be justified in the market according to consumer demand. Hence, prices are skyrocketed with the FDA. There is less advancement and competition aiming towards the cutting of costs.

The above linked-to article of the late Rothbard's not only illustrates how supply has been artificially restricted across the board, it also demonstrates that demand for medical services has been artificially amplified. Surely this is not a recipe for a vigorous industry. Demand has artificially increased via statist medical insurance. Government has created a situation with massive moral hazard. Likewise, Medicare and Medicaid do the same. Just like the above, it follows that what this has done is increase costs and lower quality. Further, by collectivizing the costs of ill-health, ill-health is promoted.

The articles, I judge, that I link to in this entry demonstrate that there is nothing "free," in a free market sense, about today's system. The problems are the result from too much socialism. It is a system that both left-liberals and Republican conservatives have created. No one should want more of the same. Those who are yelling the loudest, though, are wanting just that.

Articles to Read:

• "Subsidizing Sickness" by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
• "Government Medical 'Insurance'" by Murray N. Rothbard.
• "From Welfare to Health Care" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. (The solution to today's socialism.)
• "The Dangers of Food Safety" by Patrick Weinert.
• "Uncertainty and Its Exigencies: The Critical Role of Insurance in the Free Market" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
• "Socialized Medicine in a Wealthy Country" by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
• "Real Medical Freedom" by Dale Steinreich.
• "How Medical Boards Nationalized Health Care" by Henry Jones.
• "America's Socialized Health Care" by Lawrence Wilson, M.D.
• "Drugs and the State" by Christopher Mayer.
• "Your Life Ain't Worth a Nickel: Against the FDA" by Manuel Lora and Wilton D. Alston.

Now that Election Day is (happily) behind us, it is important to cogitate over the sacrosanct worship of democracy. Unsurprisingly, Barack Obama defeated John McCain. (Not that I think it makes a huge difference either way.) One of the chilling things about this, though, is that many of the credulous believe that Obama will actually bring in a new era of peace and prosperity. Times being what they are, men are looking for a politician who, they think, will lead the way into a bright and rosy future. Thinking Obama will do this is nothing but a sick joke. Will he, as soon as possible, withdraw all American troops from Iraq? In office, will he immediately do all he can to cancel the construction of gigantic military bases in Iraq? Will he set a new course of change and stop the unnecessary antagonizing of Russia? Will Obama and his Democrat friends end the Patriot Act? Will the Department of Homeland Security, a "big government" socialist monstrosity, be extirpated? Will the U.S. government's role as world's "police man" end? Will he lead the way to bring fiscal sanity? Will he bring change versus the continuation of or intensification of the economic policies of the Bush administration? Will he stop the tide of fascism and industry nationalization? Etc.? (These are rhetorical questions, to be sure.)

(Articles to Read: "Why Obama Will Be Worse Than Bush" by William Norman Grigg, "Worse Than Bush?" by Ted Galen Carpenter, "Making Excuses for Obama" by Justin Raimondo, "Obama's First 100 Days" by Patrick J. Buchanan.)

Left-liberalism and neo-conservatism----the mainstream of political thinking----are ideologies that are symmetrically related when it comes to support of globalist, democratic tenets. Being so interweaved with such tenets, they both demand increasing foreign interventions around the world and the increasing concentration of statist power across nation-state borders. For this reason it has always been a serious mistake to view the mainstream left as a friend when it comes to fighting against empire. So often, for the left-liberal and left-neocon, is (non-defensive and interventionist) war justified in the name of spreading what they call "human rights," democratic rights, feminist rights, gay rights, and so on. Without a doubt, their ideologies are logically in support of the concept of a "universal nation" with a new "globalist man." ("Open borders" and "civil rights" are natural partners to these ideas as well. Global centralization of governmental power and the spreading of "progressive" creeds work manus in mano.) President Barack Obama, as a black man (or partly black man), is the perfect paradigm in more ways than one. (Indeed, many are calling him the new leader of the world!) The mainstream media cannot help itself in celebrating the racial aspect of Obama.

(By the way, and not incidentally related to the above, I wonder what the Obama administration will do when it comes to free speech. Will they, in the name of "fairness" and "civil rights," enact "hate speech" laws? Will certain websites, like the courageously politically incorrect VDare.com, be potentially targeted?)

To go back to the very beginning of this blog entry, the masses play a Ping-Pong game in electoral democracy. This helps to furnish the obfuscatory idea that the masses rule themselves and gives the illusion that there is always an "opposition" party standing by. Democracy is dependent on having (at least) two political parties. How this is a great leap forward from monarchy, I am uncertain.

***

What follows are some notes from pages 150 to 164 of Liberty or Equality by Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. They should provide additional reasons why man should view traditional monarchy as more conductive to liberty than democracy (or a republic). Monarchy thus should be seen as more compatible with classical liberalism and traditional conservatism than the left-neoconservative "god." (If you think monarchy is bad, all the more you should see democracy as a bad.)

[I might not necessarily agree with each point 100%, but as a whole I am in agreement. And, needless to say, this is only a small section of the late Kuehnelt-Leddihn's book. It might be somewhat intimidating to read---there are about 1,000 obscure footnotes and references---, but it is worth it. The theory behind democracy does not have deep roots. Nor does it make a wrong a right.]

• Individual persons are themselves powerless under both monarchy & democracy. Man has only one vote with the latter and that will rarely make any difference at all in the outcome of a democratic election. (Neither does the distinction between those in power and those out of power disappear under democracy. There are still two 'classes.')
• The outcome of an election, with the masses of average intelligence, rarely lets in truly creative or intelligent men to have influence on the structure of government. Those in power under monarchy, in contrast, in general have had above average intelligence. This is what increases the chance of such men having an influence under monarchy.
  
• Democracy hinges on party rule. Monarchy does not: It's not in power because of special interest groups, political parities, class, etc.
• The monarch is both a political & a social leader. He can 'govern' with the latter through example, without the use of force.
• A future monarch receives lots of education & preparation. He receives this from the day he is born. In contrast, a democratic politician is not so prepared. (In fact, politicians get into office often based on good looks, good speaking abilities, etc.)
• A monarch is not only prepared intellectually, but morally & spiritually too. He is psychologically prepared for the task. In contrast, a "sudden or quick rise" is normal under democracy.
• Monarchy with an attachment to Catholicism is a strong force which limits and restricts power. Such an ethos comes with a belief in the 'universality of law,' and this binds the king as well as everyone else. Individualism and free-will exist in Catholicism.
• The families of monarchies were intermarried and thus "biologically [had] a better qualification for their profession than the average man." This is based on the laws of genetics---of heredity. "Monarchs and royal princes of extra-ordinary intelligence or genius abound in history." In contrast, the intelligence scale under democracy is able to hit bottom. E.g., Bush.
• Monarchy was an international institution. Wars, in general, were more limited and were conflicts over providences. They were not ideological (e.g., 'making the world safe for democracy'). The masses did not consider themselves a part of the king's wars. There was no conscription. (The French Revolution---"a sadistic sex orgy"---& democracy introduced that.) Wars become 'collectivistic' and 'nationalistic' under mass democracy.
  
• Being international, monarchs were ethnically mixed. "Nationalistic" feelings were not possible to develop. "Democracy and nationalism, on the other hand, are closely related and interdependent." They had a greater objectivity since they had no local attachments or connections.
• Monarchs were interracial. "Racialism is possibly only with the emphasis on the 'people.'"
• St. Thomas said that monarchy is a uniting principle; democracy divides, as is seen in elections.
• "Neither is sound monarchy oligarhical, as democracy is by necessity, and aristocracy by nature."
• Monarchy fits the pattern of a Christian society. ("God-Father in Heaven, the Holy Father in Rome, the king as the Father of the Fatherland, and the father as the king in the family.")
• It is a more natural form of government "because monarchy stresses the element of continuity, affection and religion, it will more easily assume an 'organic' status than any governmental variety."
• "The calendar of saints shows that royalty has contributed more than any other lay estate to the ranks of those who have been accorded the honour of the altars..."
• "Since monarchy is 'rule from above' and thus does not have to exercise a horizontal pressure, it is by its nature more liberal than democracy." Their actions are not seen as mandated by the people. Hence there are fewer anti-liberal laws. (They get legitimization from the masses, roughly speaking, from doing what they are supposedly meant to do. That is, upholding some kind of 'natural law.')
• "Since ... the societal enforcement of the 'common framework of reference' in the ideological sphere is not necessary, the controlling forces of society can be relaxed." Thus "Freedom of opinion and self-expression [are] more likely."
  
• Security in position makes a monarch less likely to be bribed. ("Proudhon said rightly: 'Democracy is more expensive than monarchy; it is incompatible with liberty.'")
• Plutocratic rule is more likely to develop under democracy. (Think of its 'open' entry.)
• The flattering of the masses is not necessary. In democracy it "is the basic technique and art of governing parties, as well as plebiscitarian tyrannies." (The king does not have to develop the degenerate characteristics of a demagogic politician or pander to an infinite amount of special interests.)
• Monarchy can protect the minorities. "The constant counting and comparing of numbers characterizes all egalitarian-parliamentary regimes."
• The masses can be fooled. "The electees, rejecting all responsibility, can easily blame the electors of their 'mandates.' Thus we get today the immoral idea of making whole nations responsible for the deeds and misdeeds of their rulers, regardless of whether these had majority support or not." Under monarchy, the monarch can be blamed. He is held accountable to God, not to popular majority.
  
• The dynasty could not marry anyone within the nation. No class within the nation can have a direct power relationship with the monarchy.
• Patrimony limits the monarch. He wants to preserve the rule and the kingdom. He will not want to be a "gambler." (Politicians are temporary rulers. Patrimony is not a factor in their rule, they do not own the government, they cannot sell it or parts of it, etc. Thus they have no such positive incentives. It follows from this that democracy will be more likely to implement more socialistic schemes, despite long-term consequences, than monarchy.)
• Monarchy can plan for the long-term. He can act more 'historically' versus 'politically.' That is, he can worry more about the long-term and need not worry about the art of politics. Under democracy, the politician is temporary. He plans less for the long-term. His position is more unstable. (Thus he will think more about the short-term, in spite of the consequences to the long-term.)
• A monarch, being more intellectually, morally, and emotionally ready, can more easily deal with changes and complexities. This requires thinking and acting more towards the long-term. A temporary democratic politician, elected by the masses, is less ready and capable. He thinks more about the short-term and hence is less able to deal with complexities.
• Voting in and out various politicians does not guarantee 'correct' results. History's judgment is often not on the side of the masses. (The chances of a 'good guy' getting into power are less than a 'good guy' getting in power by accident of his birthplace. And, to note, government was both smaller in an absolute & a relative sense under monarchial times.)
• The international aspect of monarchy gives it a great chance to "safeguard against foreign intervention in the internal affairs of the country."
• There is an "inner antithesis between a plebiscitarian party-dictatorship and a monarchy."
  

At Taki's Magazine there is an excellent article by Dr. Gottfried titled "Causes for Hope."

Read it here.

Scott Horton Interviews Lew Rockwell:

Lew Rockwell, president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and proprietor of LewRockwell.com, discusses how voting propagates the myth of a representative participatory democracy, the virtue of not voting, the continuation of election fraud from ballot stuffing to computerized tampering, voting as sacrament to the state religion, why imposing higher thresholds of voting eligibility would be an improvement and how Ron Paul’s prescience about the economy and his widely heard public criticism of the Federal Reserve has more than compensated for the blame free markets, and by extension libertarianism, are getting for the financial crisis.

Listen Here.

(The Hoppe interview, mentioned by Horton, can be found here [mp3]. Listen to the entire interview and you'll never look at the State the same again. And read Rothbard's "Do You Hate the State?" here.)

Scott Horton Interviews Justin Raimondo:

Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com, discusses the 2008 presidential election, how transitions in government tend toward continuity instead of radical change, the competing policy influences in an Obama administration where Dennis Ross and Anthony Zinni are possible National Security Advisor appointments, how the only difference in foreign intervention between Democratic and Republican administrations is rhetorical, how the neocon parasite feeding on the Republican party will soon leave its shriveled host behind and search for greener pastures, the continuing danger of war with Iran, realist/neocon policy toward Russia, why a vote for Nader is the best medicine in the current corporate-socialist economy, and why the Constitution and Libertarian parties may be one party too many.

Listen Here.

***

Also: The Mises Institute recently held a conference on the gold standard.
You can listen to the archived audio here.

Democrats versus Republicans: I have been having a heck of a time, as you all know, trying to figure out what exactly the differences are between these two political parties. Thankfully, Clyde Wilson has created a short guide to help people like me. It might help you as well.

See "Democrats and Republicans: An Election Meditation."

A Handy Dictionary: Butler Shaffer in 1970 put together a handy dictionary for those of us who are perplexed in what the definitions and characterizations are of three very important words.

"The Shaffer Dictionary":

GOVERNMENT: an institution of war, theft, murder, rape and predation, . . . the absence of which, it is said, would lead to disorder.

TAXATION: a practice employed by governments in looting all of its citizens in order to obtain the necessary funds to chase down and punish looters.

WAR: the price men are forced to pay in order to keep peace among the politicians.

Theories of Democracy: In "Sententiae," the last chapter of A Mencken Chrestomathy, there are some brief Mencken quotes on his theories of democracy.

If x is the population of the United States and y is the degree of imbecility of the average American, then democracy is the theory that x times y is less than y.

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey-cage.

More Mencken Quotes:

A professional politician is a professionally dishonorable man. In order to get anywhere near high office he has to make so many compromises and submit to so many humiliations that he becomes indistinguishable from a streetwalker.

The kind of man who demands that government enforce his ideas is always the kind whose ideas are idiotic.

[A] good politician, under democracy, is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar. His very existence, indeed, is a standing subversion of the public good in every rational sense. He is not one who serves the common weal; he is simply one who preys upon the commonwealth.

The Man of Dictatorial "Change":

Karen DeCoster writes:

So many Americans are so simple-minded, so stupid, so easy to sway. They are emotional loose cannons, just waiting on that one great promise to lead them to the golden land of easy chairs. The word CHANGE, in spite of its objective dictionary meaning, has become the pet phrase that's repeated over and over and over and over, by a totalitarian man who has spent years trying to get to the White House. And like good little automatons they parade behind the ruthless pig, jabbing their silly signs in the air, chanting "change," while they apply God-like greatness to their new Lord and Master. People are so desperate to be led - over a cliff, into the fire, straight to the gas chamber - it doesn't matter. Lead me Dear Great One. Throw me some bread, put on a circus or two, and I shall be your true-blue worshiper.

And:

A sound bite from Obama on Bloomberg today: "We are going to change the world." Now that victory is (probably) in the bag, you will see the real Obama. Forget simple domestic policies, tax credits, free college, and free Internet. This man's ambitions are much larger than that. The dictator, totalitarian, Lord & Master Obama.

America's Half-Blood Prince: Barack Obama's Story of Race & Inheritance by Steve Sailer.

GOP-Conservatism is Bankrupt, Corrupt, & Evil: I will be joyful when this election is finally over. Obama will probably win. But this will not make GOP-conservatism "good."

James Bovard was asked for his thoughts on the presidential election. One of the questions asked: "What will you miss about the Bush administration?"

Here is his reply:

If Obama wins, a torrent of Washington conservatives will suddenly proclaim that the federal government poses a dire threat to our rights and liberties. I will miss the honest conservatism of the GWB era - when many conservatives stopped pretending to give a damn about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and denounced as traitors anyone who did not kowtow to the Commander-in-Chief.

Hear, Hear.

There are, no doubt, heroic exceptions. When it comes to the entire Republican Party, however, or mainstream conservatism, or neoconservatism or Reaganism, these groups cannot be seen as allies to liberty or groups of persons that can be redeemed. Pretensions notwithstanding, they have no principled stand for the values of the Old Republic.

The Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal commemorated the 90th birthday of Kirk by linking to a tribute issue of The Intercollegiate Review that appeared after his death in 1994.

You can see that here.

[Side-Note: If you join the ISI's readers club, you'll receive IR.]

Just now I was about to type up an excerpt from The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945 by George Nash, but it seems that such an excerpt is already online. I highly recommend you read it.

Kirk had developed a distaste for big business, big labor, and big government. Unions, he told a friend, were often "more restrictive and selfish than the soulless corporation." He praised the trustbuster Thurman Arnold and hoped that he would run for president. Kirk's year or so at Ford did nothing to change his attitudes; his letters during this period expressed his scorn of unions, management, and federal "parasites." Indeed, his dislike of bureaucracy was, if anything, increasing. He denounced the military draft as "slavery." He was furious at the government's removal of Japanese-Americans from their homes on the west coast shortly after Pearl Harbor.

...Although sympathetic to the Allies (he followed the Italian- Ethiopian sector closely), he had opposed American intervention in World War II and had believed that President Roosevelt was deliberately trying to maneuver America into the war. In 1944 he even voted for the Socialist Party's Norman Thomas for president to reward Thomas's anti-imperialist speeches before Pearl Harbor. Kirk's wartime letters showed the persistence of his libertarian convictions; his correspondence was replete with disgust at conscription, military inefficiency, governmental bureaucracy, "paternalism," and socialist economics. He denounced liberal "globaloney" and feared that America was doomed to live in a collectivistic economy.

On The Lew Rockwell Show, Tom Woods read a paragraph or two from an essay by Russell Kirk called "Conservative Thoughts on Foreign Policy." Click here to listen.

In this [PDF] archived article from the Journal of Libertarian Studies Hugh Murray writes on the social engineering oppression known as affirmative action.

Besides the contradictory nature of affirmative action's goal to end "discrimination" by discrimination and its muddled belief in group egalitarianism and "identitarianism," the author points out how it is not correctly applied statistically in terms of the comparative representation of gentiles and Jews in salaries, higher education, government, etc. That it has been supported by, for example, much of the big business world to hurt their smaller competitors. Moreover, Mr. Murray points out how affirmative action specifically hurts poor and middle-class whites.

See Also:

• "Marshall, Civil Rights, and the Court" by Murray Rothbard.
• "The Washington Post And The Color of Crime" by Patrick Buchanan. ("Hate Crimes" are not correctly applied, either.)
• "The Magnificent Dissenter" by Paul Gottfried. (Rep. Ron Paul.)
  

Some of the finest writing can be found in the books and essays of the Old Right. Few people can write as good as, say, Frank Chodorov or H.L. Mencken. For that reason alone it is worth reading their material. Another example would be Garet Garrett (1878 – 1954). In my modest Liberty library, I have his book Ex America: The 50th Anniversary of the People's Pottage. It contains three monographs: "The Revolution Was," "Ex-America," and "The Rise of Empire." This book is a frightening look into the fascist New Deal and the rise of Empire.

Joseph Sobran, the great conservative anarchist, one day came across this book, and made him reexamine his ties with National Review. Bruce Ramsey, in the introduction to Ex America, writes:

Sobran discovered these Garet Garrett essays "one night, long ago, at the office of National Review, where I then worked." As the flagship of modern conservatism, National Review supported the Cold War and the hot war then raging in Vietnam.

"Two questions occurred to me," Sobran writes. "One: 'Why haven't I heard of this man before?' Two: 'If he's right, what am I doing here?'"

I should note parenthetically, that Mr. Ramsey has just completed a biography of Garrett called Unsanctioned Voice. It's probably a fascinating read. For a general overview of the Old Right, you can get The Betrayal of the American Right by Murray Rothbard and Reclaiming the American Right by Justin Raimondo.

But what I really want to bring your attention to is "The Capitalist Fiction of Garet Garrett" by Bruce Ramsey. You can read the article here. The second main article, by the same gentleman, I would like to bring your attention to is "More Ways to Burst a Bubble." Read that here. (Via CharlesGoyette.com.)

See Also:

• Garrett's Available Online Literature.
• Purchase Garrett's Books.
• "Who Is Garet Garrett?" by Jeffrey A. Tucker.
• "Garet Garrett (1878-1954) On Empire" by Joseph R. Stromberg.
• "Garet Garrett: Exemplar of the Old Right" by Justin Raimondo.
• "The Great Garet Garrett" by Bill Steigerwald.
  
• Review of Ex America by Ryan McMaken.
• "Quotes From Garet Garrett" edited by Bruce Ramsey.