When Libertarians Went Off the Rails

I have written about the Libertarians before, relating some of the ways I agree and disagree with them but this political season I have had to burn some bridges with the Libertarians or, at least, the “official” established Libertarian powerhouses of this country such as the Libertarian Party and Reason Magazine. However, while some of my previous problems with libertarianism remain, this time something has changed and that is that the mainstream American Libertarians seem to have gone so far into the weeds of “principle” that they have largely abandoned what they were supposed to be all about. So, this time, some of my biggest problems are not with “libertarianism” but with the Libertarians who are currently in charge, at least in this country. Gone are the days of Congressman Ron Paul who wanted to stop using American troops to guard foreign borders and use them to guard the American border, now the Libertarian Party seems to be all about globalism, big government, nanny states and open borders. All of which goes against what they are supposed to be about!

First of all, I still have my long-standing problem with Libertarian priorities. They claim to want to dismantle the welfare state, not a bad idea in my view, but after never making it a priority, this time around, in several discussions I’ve had with Libertarian Party supporters, it has absolutely been thrown so far down the road as to drop off the cliff of reality. They don’t care about it and they’re not going to do it because calling for that would make them very unpopular. Legalize drugs? That’s popular, just like gay “marriage” and open borders. However, so many things that I would not really oppose so much if the welfare state didn’t exist, like the laws against gambling or drug abuse, depend entirely on getting rid of the welfare state first so that I don’t have to carry people who ruin their lives even more than I already do. So, the priorities issue is still there but leads into a big problem for me which is either new or at least new to me and that is the Libertarian devotion to having one, big, borderless world.

Milton Friedman, usually beloved by Libertarians, didn’t like borders but even he said it would be disastrous to have open borders AND a welfare state, nothing could bankrupt a country faster than that. However, Libertarians want open borders and, yeah, maybe, some day, at some point, in the far off vague future time, they might dismantle the welfare state. This is insane policy *for Libertarians* and seems to go against what Libertarians are supposed to believe in, or at least what I thought they did. For one thing, whether it is rational or not, history has shown us electoral patterns of behavior and one of those is that immigrants vote for the left-wing party, the party of bigger government, the party of more social welfare for people like themselves. That means that the Libertarians are cheering on the importation of a new population that will NEVER vote for them and ensure they never achieve national office. At least with the Democrats and Republicans, their positions on immigration are rational. Democrats want more because immigrants vote for Democrats and Republicans want less for the same reason. Libertarians, however, are so focused on their principles that every individual, every where in the world should be able to go wherever and whenever he/she/it wants, that they are acting against their own political self-interest. What would Ayn Rand think of you?

This also reveals something that surprised me about Libertarians which is that they just went from the party of small government to the party of global government. They seem to think, rather like the mandarins of ancient, Imperial China, that the whole world is governed by the United States and those places beyond are borders are just in denial about it. They think our rights and laws apply to everyone, citizens or non-citizens. It also shows that they think we owe our success to the government rather than “we the people”, which is what I thought Libertarians used to believe. After all, if you can replace the original population of this country with a new one, expecting everything to carry on the same as before, then what you are saying is that it is the system, the machine, that we owe everything to and not the unique history and culture of our own people. I must disagree, I do not think that you can take someone from a culture of theocracy, shariah law and tribalism or even large amounts of people from a culture of absolutism, dictatorship, revolutions and religious persecution and then plug them into a system founded by people from a culture of Magna Carta, 1688, Thomas Jefferson and frontiersmen and expect nothing at all to change. This is what some have called the “magic soil” argument. That all people are interchangeable but, for some reason, North America has magic soil that makes like better here no matter who the people are or what sort of history and culture has formed them prior to their arrival.

Open borders really seem to be a big deal to Libertarians this political season. It has even overpowered their supposed opposition to big government, over regulation and the “nanny state” which I thought was their worst enemy. I was really shocked when Katherine Mangu-Ward, editor-in-chief of “Reason” magazine announced that she favored the U.K. remaining in the European Union. Yes, the anti-democratic, unaccountable, massively top heavy, tax & spend, cradle to grave welfare state and government so big we will regulate absolutely everything even the shape of your cucumbers European Union! What on earth was it that could prompt the big cheese at America’s foremost libertarian periodical to support such a thing? You probably guessed it: open borders and free trade. A government bureaucracy that is so overreaching that it regulates everything from fishing to playground equipment to bananas and hair dryers, that the so-called libertarians at “Reason” can accept so long as the important principle of more non-British people being able to move to Britain is upheld. Whatever happened to smaller government guys?! Guys? Hello…?

Annoyed yet? Bear with me, there’s just a bit more. You will notice that Katherine also mentioned “free trade” along with open borders as part of the reason she supports the Westminster Parliament being shackled to a bunch of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. That’s another point by itself. The European Union does not have “free trade” even among its members. Trade between member states is not really “free” at all, it is very, very heavily regulated just like your electric tea kettles, it is only that they all have the same regulations set by a central authority rather than in the past when every country did their own thing. Libertarians really seem to have gone full-blown ignorant on this subject and there is no better example than the parade of Libertarians who have come out to blast Donald Trump for being critical of our trade deals with China. The Libertarians denounce the bombastic billionaire and assure us that “free trade” is good for everyone!

Do they even know what they are saying? How can we have truly “free” trade with China when this trade comes with trade “deals” and is overseen by a “trade commission” with lots of rules and regulations governing it? Donald Trump says these trade deals are bad, which you can agree or disagree with but the Libertarians seem to be in total denial about the deals even existing! Well, I’m sorry delusional Libertarians but we do have trade deals with China, you cannot just buy and sell however you please between the two countries and what is also true, though not talked about because “they took our jobs” is easier for the masses to understand, is that China has repeatedly violated the terms of these deals and faced no consequences because of it. What do I mean? Well, here is an example that I would think Libertarians, if they believed in what they claim to believe in, would understand: private property. Libertarians are supposed to believe that private property rights are absolutely sacrosanct. Well, the Chinese do not believe that and they have stolen the intellectual private property of a great many people. Now, I would think that the free market, Libertarian answer to that would be to stop doing business with someone who rips you off like that, but, NO! They want us to go on getting ripped off because apparently their respect for private property is not as great as their devotion to globalism and having trade just for the sake of having trade I guess.

But, you may be thinking, “you’re just getting carried away Mad Monarchist, this is because the Libertarians support big business, they have always supported big, international corporations and have never made a secret of that”, well, I have news for you unnamed, anonymous, imaginary reader of this blog! As well as giving up on the welfare state, big government and private property, they are also giving up on small business in favor of big business it seems. The Libertarian Party candidate for President of the United States, Gary Johnson, (yes, again) has said that a Jewish baker should be forced by the government to bake a cake for Hitler’s birthday party covered in swastikas just as a Christian baker should be forced by the government to bake a cake for the homosexuals who are getting married. Individual rights? Freedom for small business owners to run their own businesses? Screw that idea! What do we look like, Libertarians?! No, sorry, this year the Libertarians have gone, way, way too far. From the conversations I have had and what I have heard from the leadership of the Libertarian Party and “Reason” magazine, the libertarian movement is not about private property rights, ending the welfare state, free markets and individual rights any more. They are for globalism, open borders, big government, regulatory regimes and allowing every heroin-addict to buy a machine gun. Good job guys.

Now, I will add that I cannot believe all libertarians are like these. As far as I know, Hans Hermann Hoppe has not gone off the rails and is still someone I have a lot of time for. Hopefully, it is just the American libertarian leadership that has lost its mind but I cannot be too optimistic. I know some great libertarians who have had more than one ‘face-palm’ moment this political season and I am sure many are just as appalled as I am, perhaps even more so as I am just on the outside looking in. Why do I even care? Well, I care because even though I have never agreed with them on everything, I have agreed with them on some things in the past and because the libertarians have represented at least a hope for what I would consider beneficial changes. They were one group of people who at least rated notice on the political radar who had a plan for a society that would have ultimately made democracy rather unnecessary and had people who were open about saying so. They were one of the few groups who, in the old days anyway, were not afraid to say that “equality” is a delusion, that an individual can be right when the majority is wrong, that democracy should not decide everything and that the successful should be applauded and emulated, not shamed and hated. It pains me to see what they have come to but, as long as they continue on their present course, they can expect no support from me. A line has been crossed.

Libertarian Monarchy

Yes, it is true that libertarian monarchists exists and, in the past, I was surprised at how often I encountered them. In the past, I have touched on how the very monarchial Middle Ages was perhaps the closest the world has ever come to the totally privatized society that many libertarians dream of. What is prompting this second look at the subject is the number of times since then that I have seen libertarians express amazement at the very notion of a libertarian monarchist. Whether libertarianism is your cup of tea or not is besides the point here, there should be nothing all that shocking about the idea of a libertarian being a monarchist. It is a school of thought that is not inherently contradictory to monarchy in the way that communism or socialism is (socialism being communism for slow learners). After all, socialism is about making everyone equal, treating everyone the same and using the power of the state to eliminate any sort of discrimination. Granting that there are monarchies today which are highly socialistic, at its core this is obviously something that is contradictory to the very nature of monarchy which, let us face facts, is based on a certain amount of discrimination, that everyone is not the same and will not be treated exactly the same.

Libertarians, on the other hand, who support pure capitalism, accept as well that total equality is impossible and not even desirable. They accept that, in a free market, some will do better than others, some will have more, others less, and as a result of competition, ‘the cream will rise to the top’ as they used to say. Some may choose to be dishonest about it or try to cover it up with republican sounding language, but the fact is that it is inherent in any capitalistic system that there will be a natural elite that emerges. That is true for anything, and even the most socialistic, communistic governments that ever failed all still had an elite but they always deny it or try to explain it away as being only temporary. Libertarians accept that some will succeed, some will do better and so there will be inequality in any free society. In fact, I am rather surprised that any libertarian would look disdainfully on monarchy at all. Not every monarchist is a libertarian certainly (many would shudder at the notion) but every libertarian should be a monarchist if they were to take their own ideas to their ultimate, logical conclusion. Given that most libertarians accept and understand the inherent inequality their ideal system would create, that they have no problem with this and even celebrate it as a positive thing, it should be more surprising that any would still express egalitarian sentiments when it comes to the idea of monarchy.

Based on what I have seen, this usually comes down to the idea that, since libertarians think anyone should have the freedom to do whatever they want, it is absurd to say they do not have the right to choose their head of state. I must confess, that sort of “logic” never made sense to me. I thought libertarianism was about having the right to make decisions for yourself, not for other people. That is what democracy is all about; 51% of the herd making decisions for the other 49%. Voting on the head of state is making a choice that will affect not only you but others as well. At the very least, you are telling two men what they will be doing with the next four years of their life (or however long the term of office may be). I thought libertarianism was about the freedom to make choices that affect you and not making choices that will affect others. In fact, the “logic” of making the top job determined by democracy always seemed to me to go against the core principles of libertarianism. If anything, it seems the exact opposite of what libertarianism should be all about. If one of the core, fundamental principles of libertarianism is that an individual is superior to a collective, I fail to see how there is anything libertarian about letting individuals decide everything and yet when it comes to deciding who should hold the position of head of state still insisting that that decision must be left up to the collective.

After all, no libertarian worth his salt would say that decisions in a company should be made by the democratic will of the workers at that company. Libertarians would agree that property controlled by an individual will fare better than it would under the control of a collective, therefore it only stands to reason, according to libertarian principles, that a country should be governed by an individual rather than a collective as well. One libertarian who has pointed this out, quite admirably, is the economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe in his work, “Democracy: The God that Failed”. He has, for some time now, made the case that traditional monarchies were governed far better than democracies because a monarch is, or at least sees himself as, the “owner” of his country and takes care of it as diligently as one would one’s own property whereas the democratically elected politician is only a temporary caretaker of a country and works only to loot as much from it as he can, while he can, before his term in office is over. As Hoppe explains it, monarchy is a private form of government while democracy is a collective form of government and, as a libertarian, he finds monarchy superior for that reason. He also has history and economic patterns to support him, particularly if one looks at the traditional monarchies of the Middle Ages when “government” was miniscule, taxes were intermittent to non-existent, spending was low, war debt was about the only kind of debt there was and even wars themselves were fought in a limited fashion by monarchs who had specific objectives and who did not wish to waste their armies which were expensive to train, equip and maintain.

Libertarians also heavily emphasize the right to private property and certainly there should be no room for debate that democracy is more detrimental to private property than monarchy. Since the days of ancient Greece it has been known that democracies fail once people discover that they can vote themselves the property of others. The takers drain the producers dry and society collapses as a result and this always happens because, whether it is a direct democracy or a representative democracy, politicians learn just as quickly that the way to attain and hold on to power is to take from the minority and give to the majority. No one ever voted against a politician who promised them more free stuff. On the other hand, while nothing is absolute, a monarch is in an inherently superior position to safeguard private property even if only for his own sake. As King Charles I said in his final statement at his trial, in defending his own rights, he was defending the right of every subject to that which was legitimately his own. If the majority is allowed to take from the minority, what would stop them from taking from the monarch as well? He is, after all, the ultimate minority as there is only one monarch. Nothing, so the monarch would wish to prevent that from ever happening.

In fact, one could argue that a traditional monarchy is the only way a libertarian country could be ruled because every other system involves the rule of a collective of various sizes whereas individual leadership on a national level can only be exercised by a monarch or a dictator. For those inclined to think a dictator might be better, think again. A dictator is driven by political ideology and usually does not pass on his leadership to his own blood. Some have, such as in Syria and North Korea, but they are still tied to deeply flawed political ideologies. Now, if your imaginary dictator is without a political ideology and has a dictatorship that is hereditary, one would be forced to ask exactly how that is different from an old fashioned absolute monarchy. Certainly, it would require some extremely precise splitting of hairs and, in that case, can be consigned to the bin of those things which have no substance to them at all and are only introduced to a conversation to cause difficulties and disputes over terminology.

Today, there is no country that could be considered a libertarian paradise. Many countries are moving or have moved in a more libertarian direction on social issues (legalizing prostitution, drug use, homosexuality, gambling and abortion) but very few have moved consistently in a libertarian direction on the economic front but have, on the contrary, clung to the ideas of mixed economies or socialist economies with central planning, state redistribution of wealth, high taxes and large amounts of regulation. Yet, on the economic front, none can dispute the success of such monarchial micro-states as Monaco and Liechtenstein or autonomous dependencies of monarchies such as the Cayman Islands or the Isle of Man. These countries have very low taxation, very low regulation and all the ensuing economic freedom has made them fabulously wealthy places. They also have a monarch who rules them directly or a representative of a monarch to treat them with benign neglect (and don’t knock it, Hong Kong became the envy of Eternal Asia through benign neglect). In the case of Liechtenstein and (possibly more so) Monaco, being the Sovereign Prince has often been compared with being the owner of a large company. Such companies must be well administered as they are both very prosperous and have populations that certainly do not feel oppressed, who are pleased to be able to keep the fruit of their labors and who overwhelmingly support their monarchies and are not dissatisfied with the amount of power held by their prince.

The problem, it seems, is that many people, even many libertarians, have it ingrained in their minds that democracy=liberty and thus a libertarian should oppose monarchy and support democracy. In fact, democracy is no guarantee of personal liberty nor is it an effective check on state power. The President of the United States today has more power over the lives of his “fellow citizens” than King Louis XIV of France ever had over his subjects. Democracy is only a method of choice and contrary to what so many seem to think, personal freedom can quite easily be voted away in a democracy. In The Federalist Papers No.25, American “Founding Father” Alexander Hamilton wrote, “For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.” This is true and it is exactly why democracy has brought about far greater tyranny than traditional monarchies ever did or ever could. The closest the world ever came to a privatized society was in the monarchial Middle Ages and while it is, in theory, at least possible that a more libertarian society could come about in a monarchy, it is impossible to believe that a democracy could ever be libertarian when everyone is always just one vote away from having it all come crashing down. Again, not every monarchist must be a libertarian (I am not one and am not trying to convert anyone to it) but, given the facts, every libertarian should certainly be a monarchist.

Mad Analysis: My Problems with the Libertarians

Ever since the Presidential election in the United States, everyone, particularly on the “right” has been trying to explain it and diagnose the reason behind the defeat of the hapless Mitt Romney. And, if one is expecting to find people behaving with reason and common sense, it certainly calls for a thorough investigation. After all, never in the lifetime of most voters has a President been reelected when unemployment, the debt, the deficit, gas prices, food prices and general cost of living have been so high. Looking at the numbers, one would think that the Republicans could have nominated anyone and still coasted to an easy and overwhelming victory. Since Obama has been President, more people are unemployed and more people are having a harder time making a living if they do have work. So why did he win? More people voted for him than Romney. Simple. But why? Blacks voted almost uniformly for the President, Latinos voted overwhelmingly for him as did single women in spite of the fact that these groups have suffered the most during his first term. If one expects to find a rational reason for that, you are going to be searching for quite a while. The reason, it seems, was because Romney seemed worse. True, unemployment is worse among these groups but because of that they still voted for more of the same because more of these people are receiving government assistance and were told that Romney was going to cut off the government gravy train (which of course he could not do so long as the Democrats hold the Senate but, again, common sense has nothing to do with this). Some have blamed the Republican message while others have blamed the ability of Republicans to “sell” their message. Balderdash!

Some eminent Republicans have said that Hispanics are the key and that the GOP should embrace the idea of amnesty (with border security) to win over Latino voters. They are wasting their time. In the first place, this has been tried before and the left will never go along with increasing border security. However, if Latinos were most concerned with this they would have been more reluctant in voting for Obama considering that he has deported far more illegal aliens in one term in office than George W. Bush did in two. And why are these Republicans talking about attracting Latino voters rather than Blacks? Probably because (aside from considering them a lost cause due to the overwhelming loyalty Blacks have for the Democrat Party) this would reveal the stupidity of their position. If they think amnesty will win them long-term Latino support they should look to Black Americans and remember that it was the Republican Party that abolished slavery in this country and yet Blacks still do not support Republicans and so we have the ironic picture of the first African-American President of the United States belonging to the same political party as the late President of the Confederacy. Did Blacks defect to the right when Herman Cain was running for the top job? Did they get behind George W. Bush for appointing the first Black Secretary of State or did they embrace the Republican Party for George H. W. Bush appointing only the second Black Supreme Court Justice? Every time, “no” and if they think they will no longer be seen as the “racist” party by embracing amnesty they have another thing coming.

The left, of course, says what they say after every Republican defeat which is that the conservatives could win if they just dropped all that conservatism. What I find most entertaining though is the extent to which the Libertarians are saying the exact same thing. Since the election I have seen a parade of people from the Cato Institute and Reason magazine blaming the GOP defeat on their clinging to traditional moral values, immigration control and the “war” on drugs. Meanwhile, they are cheering the fact that Colorado voted to legalize marijuana and that several states voted to legalize gay “marriage”. Further, they bemoan the fact that conservatives will not drop their opposition to abortion and gay “marriage” in order to join with the libertarian throngs in saving the country from economic ruin brought about by the big-spending left. So, in other words, give up your deeply held beliefs to help foster our agenda. Again, much like the Democrats. Aside from the condescending nature of such an argument, one problem with that is the priorities of these libertarians. The argument also betrays the extent to which even the good ideas of libertarianism are often overtaken in their own minds by their most ridiculous arguments.

Can't you leave me alone BEFORE you take over?

Gay “marriage” is a good example. If the libertarians really believed in what they claim, they would not be championing so-called “marriage equality” but rather for an end to all government involvement in marriage at all and an end to all benefits for married people be they gay, straight, polygamists or any other perverse combination. This really pains me because, as the national debt becomes higher and higher (and it is already to the point that I doubt it could ever be reasonably expected to be paid off) the libertarian argument is increasingly more likely to be the only possible solution. Yet, they want conservatives to abandon their values and come to them in order to unite on fiscal issues rather than themselves giving ground on narcotics and homosexuality to save the national economy. It seems ridiculous to the point of hilarity to me that it is the traditional right that must make concessions rather than the libertarians on the social issues because each side agrees that the current economic trend leads to disaster but by libertarians refusing to compromise on their moral positions they act as though they think these are somehow as important as the fiscal crisis. Can they be serious? Countries will certainly go to ruin if they spend more than they earn but I have never heard of a country going to ruin because there was not enough sodomy, abortions or drug use going on.

Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson

Demographics do matter, partly because demographic change is permanent change. Laws, policies and regulations can all be repealed (though they seldom are) but once a population has changed it can never be changed back. This matters to the political race because the left has, for some time, controlled the culture, the media and the education system and have successfully branded the Republican Party as the party of racism and there is nothing the GOP can do at this point to “prove” they are not racists -and God knows they have tried. Take a look at the Bush cabinet or the last GOP convention which was essentially a parade of minorities, and women minorities better still. Because of the success of the left on this branding campaign, and because immigrants are more likely to depend on government benefits (as are single women -yes there is a pattern here) they tend to vote Democrat. Go down the list of ethnic groups; African-American, Hispanic-American, Jewish-American, Arab-American, Asian-American, Native-American: they all tend to vote Democrat. The Democrats realize this, which is why they oppose any effort to enforce immigration laws or secure the border. Rest assured, if Mexican-Americans voted the way Cuban-Americans have in the past, the Democrats would have built a border fence on our southern frontier to dwarf the Great Wall of China.

The left, the party of government dependency, therefore has always embraced the ideal of open borders because they know it means more and more people who will loyally vote Democrat no matter the circumstances. Here again though, I marvel at the libertarians of the Cato Institute and Reason and so on for making the same argument. Their belief in absolute individual liberty is such that they too want open borders even though this has resulted in more and more popular support for the very government programs these same libertarians claim to most oppose! But, unlike the conservatives of the GOP, they will never change because it is a matter of principle to them and they see no distinctions when it comes to their principles of the “self” above all. That is why, apparently, they see the fact that some states refuse to condone homosexuality as just as big a problem as the fact that the USA is $16 trillion in debt and almost half the population depends on the government to some degree. I will repeat, there is a great deal I agree with libertarians on even though I could never be a total one, mostly because, like most political groups, they would not have me even if I wanted to join them.

Legalize and regulate -even though they oppose regulation

Again, I think the libertarian ideal of a “wall of separation” between economy and state is rapidly becoming not just a better solution but the only possible solution. However, fundamentally, I could never be a total libertarian because I do have some attachment to my own people, I do regard tradition as important and, most fundamentally, because, like Thomas Hobbes, I think that if left totally to his own devices the life of man would be, “nasty, brutish and short”. I agree with them on most of their economic ideas, I certainly agree with them when it comes to the debt and the dollar and I totally agree with them when it comes to private property and their opposition to socialism and communism. But I cannot agree with them on everything and I cannot agree with their priorities. For example, they think all narcotics should be legal. Having seen the damage drugs can do to people (and not just the people who take them), that scares me a little but I see the merit of their argument. However, I would never, ever go along with legalizing drugs until the welfare state was abolished because I don’t want to be saddled with paying for the 24/7 care of a population of drug-addled wretches. I have never understood why the libertarians do not first devote themselves to abolishing the welfare state and THEN campaign to legalize drugs. Well, maybe I do, because a great deal of their support comes from pot smoking college kids. Similarly, why fight for “marriage equality” instead of getting the government out of marriage altogether which would result in the same thing anyway?

Another problem I have with them is national security. And, again, it is not that I disagree with their position as much as I disagree with their priorities. In most cases, I agree with them that the policy of interventionism has been a disaster but I could never adopt their position while they also adhere to the open borders policy. Right now, a major concern is the nuclear program of Iran. They don’t care if Iran gets the bomb but I do. However, I do specifically because of how open our borders already are. If Iran got the bomb right now there is still no way they could directly harm the United States. They have no missiles to stick it on that could reach America and they have no bombers that could get close to America without being shot down. But if we adopt the libertarian policy of open borders it would not be terribly difficult to get a “dirty bomb” into the country and wreak havoc. In fact, the whole “War on Terror” would never have been an issue if the USA had simply taken greater care about who is coming into the country and what they are doing while on American soil. None of these terrorist groups control any ballistic missiles, tank divisions or long range bombers. They can only attack America by getting inside and hijacking a plane or setting off a bomb. If America had real border security none of these terrorists could ever touch the United States at all. I have often been eager to tell the rest of the world to fight their own battles but I cannot go along with the libertarian position so long as they refuse to stop potential enemies overseas and at the same time refuse to allow the military to guard the borders at home.

You know, if you voted in a state that mattered...

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is the issue of abortion, something I will never support nor even tolerate at all, period, no discussion. Not all libertarians support abortion (I know Judge Andrew Napolitano does not, God bless him -and I also salute him for having the courage to point out that FDR manipulated the US into World War II by provoking Japan -not a popular truth) but every major libertarian institution that I know of does and certainly the people at Reason and Cato I have seen on TV do. I understand why they do, because they believe in absolute individual rights and the absolute inviolability of the “self”. An individual woman has every right to an abortion if she wants one just as, in the libertarian view, she has every right to prostitute herself if she wants to. When it is all about “me” and a pregnancy would be detrimental to “my” happiness, abortion is perfectly acceptable. However, at the same time, this libertarian position puzzles me because they also claim to be all about individual responsibility (and I am certainly in favor of that -all the way). They say they want personal freedom and personal responsibility. However, abortion seems to me to be the total negation of that position.

Consider it like this: we live in a world where women have access to every variety of artificial birth control known to man (and the shrinking population to prove it). So, other than in the event of a rape (which are thankfully relatively rare in the United States) if a woman is impregnated it is because she made a decision and exercised her individual right to have “unprotected” sex or chose to do something that would interfere with her clear thinking (like getting drunk) and as a result made a bad decision and ended up getting pregnant. It does not seem at all ‘libertarian’ to me to then allow this woman a medical “bail out” from a situation she willingly got herself into. Of course, I also believe it is the murder of an innocent child but I’m assuming libertarians do not, otherwise they would apply their principles to the individual rights of the unborn child. But even from their own perspective, I do not see how supporting abortion is in keeping with their devotion to personal responsibility. But then, that half of the equation often seems to be neglected doesn’t it? They favor allowing drug abuse without first eliminating the welfare state that would force drug addicts to be responsible for their own actions and they support abortion even when rape is not a factor which allows people to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions. To me, that just seems crazy. But, it would, being … The Mad Monarchist.

(Note: Libertarians may not leave angry messages in the comment box below telling me what a horrible person I am but please, whatever you do, don't click on the "libertarian" label below and read any of the other articles I have posted on the subject in support of various libertarian positions or it just might cause serious damage including brain injury to you. -MM)

Monarchial Economic Success

These are hard times for economies all over the world (I detest the phrase “global economy” though I suppose it exists) and people, especially in places like Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland, are looking for solutions. Some of the actions being taken, I think, are good. Any cut backs in government spending (austerity measures) should only be common sense at this point considering how massively in debt, well almost everyone in the world, is right now. However, on the whole, it seems to me that most of what these countries are doing makes no sense to me at all. Germany loaning more money to Greece? Further economic centralization in the European Union? Wasn’t this exactly what these countries had been doing before that got everyone into this terrible mess? Seems that way to me. However, what I really have a problem with, what really scares me, is the increasing number of people around the world who are now saying that the People’s Republic of China (the most murderous regime in human history in case anyone has forgotten) is the example that others should follow. After all, they’re doing great right?

First of all -no. They are not doing great, at least not anywhere near as great as most people think. In the first place, what economic progress there has been in China has been very limited in scope. The big urban centers on the coast are thriving but most of the rural areas in the interior are just as poor as they ever have been. Secondly, what economic progress there has been in these limited areas are (not surprisingly for a socialist country trying to allow limited capitalism) sustainable because they are basically tearing down certain areas to expand in other areas (which I don’t really have time to go into more at the moment). Finally, when you hear all of these reports with all the great numbers coming out of China, you should keep in mind that these reports telling you how great the state-run economy of China is … all come from the state of course. They have a vested interest in making things look as rosy as possible and we also know for a fact that they’ve been manipulating their currency, juggling the books and doing all sorts of tricks to make people think they are this big, economic powerhouse. Which, of course, is not to say that they are not, they are obviously a huge economy, however, everything is not nearly as good as many people outside of China seem to think.

If people wanted to look for some real examples of economic success they would do better to look to countries with a monarch. Here again, people on the left at least, tend to focus on and “play up” the very socialistic economies in kingdoms like Sweden or Belgium and so on. Many pointed to the Kingdom of Spain and the huge government investment in “green jobs” until that was proven to be a huge, embarrassing failure. However, a number of small but very successful monarchies have been overlooked in all of this. At least by some people. The proponents of state-controlled economies have not overlooked them as they have been very busy in recent years trying to bully them into getting on board the big-government run economic train. However, it does say something that when the American (and very republican) Heritage Foundation ranked the top ten countries in the world in terms of economic freedom, half of them were monarchies (3-Australia, 5-New Zealand, 7-Canada, 8-Denmark, 10-United Kingdom) and the top one on the list was the former Crown Colony of Hong Kong which has maintained the economy it had as a monarchy before being officially handed over to Red China.

The trouble is that in most countries maintaining a “free economy” is a constant struggle. When they hit a rough patch there are usually immediate calls for government intervention and yet when things are going well it makes people think the good times will last forever and they go on huge spending sprees. I’ve always said that one of the problems with capitalism is that it makes countries so rich that they think they can afford socialism. However, it seems clear from the numbers that the most prosperous countries are those in which taxes are low, regulations are few and people are able to keep more (or even most -imagine that) of what they earn. It makes me wonder at least why more people do not follow their example. Two places with a great deal of economic freedom, where investment is high and the environment is pro-business (and unemployment virtually unheard of) are the British Overseas Territory of the Cayman Islands and the Crown Dependency of the Isle of Man. Why wouldn’t the British at home want to emulate the success of these areas?

The Isle of Man is an interesting case. It is not part of the United Kingdom, nor a member of the European Union but the British Crown is directly responsible for its “good government”. It has no capital gains tax, wealth tax, stamp duty or inheritance tax and a top income tax rate of only 20% and there is a tax cap. Their government has made mistakes too of course but there is no one in poverty on the Isle of Man, unemployment is practically unheard of and even without all those taxes other places consider absolutely essential (you might want to sit down for this) the government still takes in more in revenue than it spends! Over on the Cayman Islands they have the highest number of registered businesses in the world. They enjoy the highest standard of living of any people in the Caribbean and yet they have no income tax, capital gains tax or corporation tax. Their small, unobtrusive royal government pays for itself mostly through service fees and import duties. Again, there is no one living below the poverty line, unemployment is miniscule as the lack of regulations allows for new businesses to be opening constantly and they too still manage to take in more revenue than they spend and unlike most other island countries they receive no foreign aid.

Some picky people might be inclined to point out that the areas mentioned are non-sovereign states without a resident monarch. In that case, we can see much the same success on the continent in places such as the Principality of Liechtenstein. In Liechtenstein (which is in a customs union with Switzerland) taxes are extremely low, regulation is very minimal and it is one of the most prosperous countries in the world. Almost during the reign of HSH Prince Hans-Adam II alone the little valley of Liechtenstein has gone from a country of subsistence farmers to a highly developed and modern economy with a very business-friendly environment that has attracted investors from around the world. The government takes in slightly more than it spends, unemployment is miniscule (crime virtually unheard of) and poverty is nonexistent. Banking has been a major industry in Liechtenstein because of the strict policy of respecting the privacy of customers but in recent years that has been changing, thanks mostly to threats from the European Union and other international bodies. Nonetheless, it remains one of the most free economies in the world and one of the most prosperous, a free market success story that has even caused many libertarians to marvel at this Catholic monarchy with a very powerful prince.

And, speaking of successful monarchies which retain a powerful monarch at the head of small governments, we have the Principality of Monaco. The Monegasque enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world and Monaco is famous for having no income tax, extremely low business taxes and few interfering regulations. What has been the result of these policies? Monaco has the highest GDP per capita in the world, the lowest poverty rate in the world (as in “none”), no unemployment at all, the world’s highest life expectancy and more millionaires and billionaires per capita than any other country on earth. Living standards in Monaco are twice as high as comparable neighboring cities in the French Republic. Like Liechtenstein, Monaco has come under increased bullying in recent years but has, so far, been very spirited in defending their independence to do things their own way. Monaco is also a great example for refuting those who say that the arts and culture suffer where big-government spending is not around to fund these areas. The Grimaldis have long been great patrons of the visual arts and, since the days of Princess Alice particularly, also patrons of classical music, the ballet and opera. By economic policies that attract the very wealthy, Monaco has an overabundance of people with the means to support charitable and cultural activities on their own. When your people have the highest per capita income in the world, they have plenty of money to spend on causes that they think are important.

However, as we have touched on, monarchies such as Liechtenstein, Monaco, Andorra, the Cayman Islands and so on have all been attacked as “tax havens” with all sorts of unsavory business and/or banking practices being heavily implied about them. Relatively few people seem to notice how much envy probably has to do with this as such accusations are invariably made by countries which are bigger, more powerful but far, far less successful. In the case of Monaco it is a very old story with their status as a “tax haven” being used to criticize the principality just as the gaming industry once was when that was viewed as terribly distasteful and when Monaco was first given its famous description as “a sunny place for shady people”. Yet, instead of attacking these monarchial micro-states, other countries should instead be looking to their example. If they are upset that so many wealthy people and so many businesses are moving to Liechtenstein or Monaco they should perhaps try adopting some of the same policies to lure them back.

Here though is where we see the importance of the monarchy. It is not the only thing that matters of course, but it certainly is a major, major factor in the success of these countries. Why? Because in places like Liechtenstein and Monaco where the Sovereign Prince still has final say on what goes on, these countries can adopt economic policies that are stable because they are not subject to so much political meddling brought about by democratic changes in office-holders in republics (or even more limited monarchies). Starting in 1984, for example, Her Majesty’s Dominion of New Zealand turned its lackluster economy completely around by slashing regulations that were strangling existing businesses and making it almost impossible to start new businesses. In record time the economy surged back to life, the standard of living soared, the “brain drain” became the “brain gain” and unemployment plummeted. However, over the years new politicians were elected who tried to tweak this and change that and so there were some pretty rough bumps in the road though New Zealand still remains an overall success story and one of the most prosperous and economically vibrant countries in the world. Australia has, to a lesser extent, experienced the same back-and-forth as different political leaders have pursued very different policies concerning the economy.

None, however, have had such long-term success as the former British Crown Colony of Hong Kong. Today it is officially a part of the People’s Republic of China but, seeing how successful Hong Kong was, the Red Chinese were smart enough not to mess with a good thing and kill their golden goose by imposing their own policies on Hong Kong which has, instead, been left to carry on as it had been before (at least in the economic sphere) the handover. What was the secret to the success enjoyed by Hong Kong? The short answer is the long-standing policy (going back to the British colonial period) of “positive non-interventionism” which is a fancy way of saying that government was kept to a minimum and people were allowed to pursue success as they saw fit and reap the rewards of their own decisions. The record of Hong Kong has been one of unqualified success and it remains one of the most wealthy and prosperous places on earth. Milton Friedman once called Hong Kong the greatest capitalist experiment in the world. Obviously, anyone who doesn’t like capitalism will not be impressed by that but the numbers do not lie. Hong Kong has been a major success and it is because the Red Chinese have not interfered with the successful system they inherited from the days when Hong Kong was under the British monarchy.

That is my bottom-line at least. When it comes to arguing over what economic system is best, I tend to take a very practical approach. Look around, see what works, what doesn’t and do more of what works. There are those though, I know, who do not like laissez-faire capitalism no matter what their record looks like and there will also be those capitalists who would find impurities in all the examples I have talked about here. However, my only purpose in bringing these success stories to your attention is to show that, at a time when the world is still trembling over the economic crisis, there are other examples we could all be looking to rather than the People’s Republic of China. Big-government, tax-and-spend democratic socialism is not the only game in town and, it seems to me at least, is what brought Europe to the mess she currently finds herself in and, when it comes to America, to varying extents both liberal and conservative parties have followed this same model and today we are seeing the results. I think it at least worth considering that we take a more serious look at these micro-monarchies with small governments and big economies as perhaps being on to something.

The Tea Party in Italy

So, not long ago it was brought to my attention that there is a (small but fervent) “Tea Party” in, of all places, the Republic of Italy. This caught my interest immediately, both because Italy would be one of the last places I would have expected such a group to exist and because I have a (many would say unhealthy) fascination with the libertarian crowd who are probably, I would say, the real backbone of any coherent message the Tea Party might have. I know, many people are scared of libertarianism (many readers here are I know) but, as I have talked about before, libertarianism always seemed to me to have something rather medieval about it and, all in all, I find the high middle ages pretty tough to beat. Anyway, who would have expected to see a Tea Party in modern Italy of all places? I had heard, of course, of some likeminded groups in the United Kingdom which would seem to make more sense than in non-English-speaking countries. Well, that is to say, as much sense as one could expect from British people supporting a group of conservatives and libertarians who took the name of their movement from an attack on a British company but, there’s no need to go into that.

Pointed toward the face book page for the Italian Tea Party, I must admit I was surprised to see so many American flags on display. I was downright stunned to see a Confederate flag on display (causing me to question whether Italians are aware of the connotations it has on this side of the pond) but in all honesty I could not help but feel a slight surge of pride to see the Texas flag displayed as well. Okay, admittedly, when it comes to Texas and Texans our pride surges fairly easily but they didn’t choose the Massachusetts flag, the South Carolina flag or the Idaho flag did they? Nope, it was the Lone Star of Texas and so that may have made me a bit partial even at first glance. In all seriousness though, I was in fact a bit troubled by how lonely the Italian tricolor looked amongst this rather American-dominated vexillogical display. I was also struck by how plain and empty the solitary Italian tricolor looked without the Savoy royal crest in the center. Surely an Italian Tea Party would be supporters of the old Kingdom of Italy and their former Royal Family?

I know many people at this point will be wondering how I could ask such a question. Libertarians, by and large, are not known for their monarchist sympathies. In America of course they have led the way in the revival of bashing poor old King George III and cheering American Revolutionary republicanism. “The Founders” are sacrosanct to most of them. However, when I was first told that there was a Tea Party in Italy, or as it was put to me, that there were actually libertarians in Italy, the first thought that occurred to me was that these people must surely be ardent admirers of the House of Savoy. After all, more often than not, the one thing more than any other that the Savoy monarchy is often attacked for is exactly what most hard-core libertarians uphold as the greatest virtue: self-interest. Since this is something the House of Savoy has long been accused of, I naturally assumed libertarians would salute them on the same basis. Now, perhaps I have more of a libertarian streak than I would like to admit but I never really understood the outrage directed at the Italian monarchy on the basis of acting in their own self-interest.

Usually, in my experience, this often involves the Italian participation in World War I which was around the time that Italian political leaders first began to toss around the phrase “sacred egotism” or ‘sacred self-interest’. The self-righteous attitude adopted by many toward the Kingdom of Italy in this regard, frankly always stunk of rank hypocrisy to me. After all, how many nations involved in World War I were not motivated by self-interest? Belgium was not certainly but who else? Perhaps Russia, certainly as concerns the Russian Empire it did not turn out to be in the interests of Russia to charge into war on behalf of Serbia. But Austria-Hungary, Germany, France, Great Britain, Ottoman Turkey, Japan etc all had self-interested reasons for getting involved. And, again, I am not criticizing them for that in and of itself. Do we not expect governments to act in the best interests of their people? Perhaps the Italians were simply a little more honest about it. I never understood why the Kingdom of Italy was so often criticized for her territorial demands by countries who gained far, far more vast territorial concessions out of the conflict. It does not seem dastardly to me for a country that makes the supreme sacrifice of war to expect to have something to show for it when it is over. Great Britain and France added greatly to their colonial empires by the war and the Royal Houses of Serbia and Romania each gained far more territory from the conflict than Italy did despite the fact that each were conquered by the Central Powers during the course of it.

Whenever someone ridicules the House of Savoy for always acting only in their own best interests, surely Italian libertarians should join the monarchists in leaping to their defense. Of course, when this attack is usually made, it is divorced from the nation at large; that is to say, the Savoy kings are usually accused of acting in the interests of the monarchy and their dynasty rather than the nation as a whole. I would say that is untrue simply as it stands, however, a case could be made that many countries would have been better off if their monarchs had followed their own self-interest rather than listening to what was advocated as the “greater good”. After all, King Louis XVI of France had great reservations about intervening in the American War for Independence because he feared that it would encourage revolution against his own monarchy by aiding the enemies of another. However, his advisors convinced him that it would be in the best interests of France to see Great Britain humbled in North America. That ultimately didn’t work out well for the Bourbon monarchy or France as a whole which got the Revolution, the Reign of Terror and all the rest. German Kaiser Wilhelm II had similar reservations about helping Lenin get back to Russia, fearing that communist revolution could spread to Germany and threaten the House of Hohenzollern if it gained a foothold in Russia. For similar reasons he was prevailed upon that it would be better for Germany to get Russia out of the war no matter the method. Well, Germany lost the war anyway and the Kaiser lost his throne in the process.

There was also a time when the Savoy monarchy was criticized in the same way for being champions of free trade, something else prized by most libertarians, doing business with countries others thought should be off-limits. The first minister of the first King of Italy was well known for his acceptance of the profit motive and his pragmatic saying that, “Free institutions tend to make people richer” and that his efforts were not about destroying the old order at all. Cavour tried to reassure the class that had, over great periods of time, risen to the top by saying, “You will see gentlemen, how reforms carried out in time, instead of weakening authority, reinforce it; instead of precipitating revolution, they prevent it.” Indeed, one could look back all the way to Renaissance Italy and see in the incredible success of the city-states such as Genoa and Venice a clear example of the profit motive at work. How else could one perpetually flooded city founded by refugees rise to become the dominant economic and naval power of the eastern Mediterranean? What else made Genoa the economic center of western Europe? Italian Tea Party members of all people should recognize that profit is not a dirty word nor is acting in your own self-interest inherently wicked. They probably already do but they should apply those principles to the republic vs. monarchy debate as well.

Tea Party supporters and libertarians tend to be zealous individualists and this was precisely the argument used by HM King Victor Emmanuel III in denouncing the idea of republicanism. The Italians, he said, were too individualistic for republicanism to ever be successful in Italy. Yet, many libertarians and certainly most Tea Party people seem to think that republicanism is the only way. This, as we have pointed out before here, is quite absurd when one gives it more than a second of thought. Why should the benefits of private ownership over public ownership apply to everything except the highest office in the land? If the individual always does better than the collective, why do so many still insist on collectivism rather than individualism when it comes to the sovereign? If a parcel of land becomes worthless under public ownership but becomes profitable under private ownership, the same rule should apply for the country as a whole.

When a King does what is in his own best interests the country naturally tends to do better. When a collection of politicians, all claiming to represent the interests of the people, naturally do what is in their own best interest instead, all of their interests conflicting with each other, you get disaster. Or, you get the state of the Italian republic as it is today. Given the state Italy (and many others) is in today, I think some libertarianism, in any amount, would probably do them some good as far as their economy goes. For basically at least the last 90 years Italy has had a socialistic, state-run economy. Today we are witnessing the result of that so a little competition and respect for private property might be something they would want to at least consider.

These people are, obviously, republicans but it is just as obvious that they shouldn’t be. Keeping in mind that the first republican government in Italy since unification was the Italian Social(ist) Republic of Mussolini, what has the republic given to Italy? Looking today we see a Communist Party member as President, a Prime Minister who has totally sold-out Italian sovereignty and independence to the European Union and who is simply their tool in Rome, we have a system that squashes creativity, innovation and industry of any kind and which has delivered corruption, economic collapse, a divided populace and a state enslaved by the bonds of debt to foreign agents. I would also remind the people of the Tea Party, Italian libertarians and all Italian republicans that this, aside from the anti-democratic aspects, is exactly what their hero Giuseppe Mazzini wanted. He wanted a “United States of Europe” in which the Italian republic was simply one minor member among many. It is no exaggeration to say that the Kingdom of Italy represented the only system which proudly and strongly stood for independence, not dependence on some foreign power or international organization. Even anti-monarchy historians have considered it praiseworthy that the era of the republic has made Italy content with mediocrity and second or third-rate power status. All those who desire true freedom, real independence and the pursuit of success should embrace the monarchist alternative.

Off Topic Tuesday: Picking On Ron Paul

Lord help me, I’m going to say something nice about Ron Paul. First, let me get some preliminaries out of the way: as I have already detailed in the past, Congressman Paul cannot win the GOP primary and he could never be elected President of the United States. We don’t elect people from the House of Representatives to the presidency, the pro-war crowd would never support him, the big business lobby would never support him (he’s too capitalist for them, believe it or not), the Jewish lobby would never support him, none of the racial minorities would support him, the university liberals would never support him and the religious right would never support him -and that’s pretty much everyone aside from the Libertarians. However, I cannot help but feel for the man due to the way he is constantly singled out and picked on, by the Right more than the Left (only because the Left know he’s unelectable and he serves to divide the Right) when, agree with him or not, he has been probably the most principled and consistent politician in office in the last few decades. He does not deserve to be treated with the ridicule he often is and, as I have also said before, he is also right on quite a few things.

Right now, as it is primary season when the contest is ‘who is conservative enough’, the one issue he is picked on the most is foreign policy. His stated position on foreign policy is one of non-intervention. Frankly, I disagree with that, however, I don’t think Ron Paul is as far off the reservation as he is portrayed as in the media. I have heard people say they are afraid of Ron Paul because he would never take us to war, even if it was necessary. But, that is not exactly true. Ron Paul would say that NO president should ever take us to war because the Constitution says it is the Congress that has the power to declare war and conclude peace. So, just because Ron Paul was President of the United States does not mean that the USA would never go to war, only that it would have to be done (as in the old days) by a vote of Congress. However, let us get right down to the nub of the issue and that is Iran. The big issue at the heart of all the controversy around Ron Paul in the GOP primary is that he refuses to say he would go to war with or bomb Iran and he does not believe that Iran is a threat, he does not believe they are close to having the bomb and yet he also says he wouldn’t really blame them or be concerned if they did get the bomb.

In the name of full disclosure let me say that I am in favor of bombing the Islamic Republic of Iran just on general principle. I regard them as a criminal, horrific and illegitimate regime that the world would be better without. That is all there is to it. However, here again, I think Ron Paul is being treated unfairly. The truth is that none of the candidates are anxious to go to war with or bomb Iran. They just like to talk tough and pretend that they are. When pressed on the subject they all say that the military option should “remain on the table” but that it should always be the last resort and they get very, very evasive when a reporter tries to pin them down on exactly what circumstances would prompt them to take military action. All of them (aside from Ron Paul) basically advocate doing the same thing the US has been doing to Iran for years but all to no avail. So, I really don’t think there is such a vast gulf between what Ron Paul and the other candidates, realistically, would do regarding Iran, he’s simply honest in saying what he thinks and too principled to go against his belief in non-interventionism just because that is what the primary voters would want to hear.

Congressman Paul (and I almost hate to say this) is also correct when he says that Iran is simply not a threat to the United States. Even if they had the bomb they have no missiles they could stick it on that could possibly reach North America. The only way Iran could pose a threat to the national security of the United States is if they smuggled a weapon into the country with a person carrying it. Which, by the way, is something that hardly anyone seems concerned with guarding against. The World Trade Center was not destroyed by missiles launched from Afghanistan. If the U.S. had occupied Afghanistan in 1999 or 2000, that would not have stopped 9-11. What would have prevented it would be keeping dangerous and unauthorized people out of the country and that is something the US is still not doing and shows no real interest in ever doing. Blowing up Iran (satisfying as I would find it) would not make America safer, secure borders and ports of entry and keeping a close eye on foreign nationals inside the country actually would. Whether Paul would do that or not, I don’t know, but I do know he is technically correct when he says that Iran is not a threat to the United States of America. A threat to Israel? Certainly. A threat to Europe? Possibly. And Ron Paul would have no problem with those countries doing whatever they pleased to protect themselves. He would say it is none of our business what Iran or Israel or Europe does.

The whole issue is a fraud. I say that as someone who is not an unqualified supporter of Ron Paul. He loves to describe the United States as an “American Empire”, and I totally disagree with that. He thinks that if the U.S. were more like Switzerland we would have no enemies. I totally disagree with that, experience having proven that the U.S. is just as often criticized for not getting involved as it is for getting involved. For me, World War I is the best example of this. The Allies begged and begged and manipulated and cajoled the U.S. into coming into the war and then, once America did and the war was won, promptly blamed every ill-effect of it on America getting involved, even for the Versailles Treaty which the U.S. never signed. Where I will agree with Ron Paul is that so much, perhaps even the majority, of U.S. intervention and the U.S. military presence overseas does not serve any practical value in terms of American national security. How is America safer because of the 50,000 troops in Germany or the 30,000 troops in South Korea? After all, if North Korea ever got a wild hair and decided to invade South Korea those 30,000 American troops would not make any difference at all. Thirty thousand men between two Koreas with armies numbering in the millions is not a drop in the bucket. I don’t see how the United States itself is any safer because of our bases in Afghanistan, Thisistan or Thatistan. Enemies of the U.S. are extending their influence into Central and South America and the eyes of Washington DC are on the Middle East and Central Asia.

I do not share the foreign policy outlook of Ron Paul but I see no point in doing favors for people who don’t like the U.S. and I see no sense in offending foreign powers we have no problem with in order to smack down some petty dictator who is no threat to American security in the first place. For instance, how does it benefit the United States to have bases in Central Asia that (evidently) terrifies the Russians? Everyone knows the U.S. has no intention, will or desire to actually fight the Russians -ever. So, why maintain these bases that frighten them so? Because of Afghanistan we are told. But why do we need to be in Afghanistan? The Taliban was removed from power, Osama bin Laden is dead and now feeding the fish at the bottom of the ocean. So, what is the point of our continued presence in Afghanistan? Well, if we leave now, we are told, the Taliban will come back and take over again. By that logic we should never leave any country (though I sometimes wonder if that is not a reality as we still have thousands of troops in Germany, Italy and Japan). And, though I don’t want to sound heartless, but if we leave and the Taliban does come back … who cares? The Taliban did not attack us, they were no threat to us and they could do us no harm, again, unless we allowed them into the United States and then failed to keep track of them -a problem no one wants to address.

Ron Paul also makes a valid point that is never considered. When he gives it, interviewers usually ignore it and carry on as if he had never said it. The point Ron Paul makes with Iran is that U.S. forces are or have been established in both Iraq and Afghanistan, putting them on the eastern and western borders of Iran. How would the U.S. react to an enemy invading and occupying Canada and Mexico? Of course, the U.S. would never tolerate such a thing. Since at least the American Civil War the United States has quite frequently displayed behavior she would never tolerate on the part of any other power. This has often caused confusion and anger on the part of foreign powers. For example, the Japanese raised no fuss when the U.S. took the Philippines from Spain and so were rather annoyed that the U.S. would make such a fuss over Japan taking Manchuria from China. I’m sure, in 1914, there were some Germans who found it odd that the U.S. which had so recently sent troops into Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean was so outraged at their own soldiers being sent into Belgium.

I was never fond of the “Monroe Doctrine”. It seemed to me like little more than the U.S. claiming all of North, Central and South America as a “republics only” club. This was the doctrine which the U.S. invoked in pressuring France to pull out of Mexico, leaving Emperor Maximilian high and dry and ensuring his defeat at the hands of the loyal American ally Benito Juarez. Yet, how many times has the U.S. done, in other parts of the world, pretty much the same thing France did in Mexico. The U.S. would not tolerate any other power “interfering” in the Americas, what the U.S. claimed as its exclusive sphere of influence, yet the U.S. seems perplexed that other countries would be upset at all over American interference in their own sphere of influence. Many would argue that it is the character of the regimes in question that we are dealing with that makes all the difference. It sounds nice and all, but that’s really an absurd line of reasoning as the U.S. (like any other country) deals openly and sometimes in a very friendly fashion with regimes many would regard as terrible dictatorships. That is all a matter of opinion, who is “untouchable” and who is not. Paul has mentioned before the absurdity of the U.S. trading with Red China while still maintaining an embargo on Cuba. I think it is absurd as well, though I do so as one who doesn’t think we should be trading with China, but it is a double standard nonetheless.

Again, I certainly don’t agree with Ron Paul on everything, and he doesn’t have a prayer of getting elected President in this day and age or even winning a primary in either major party. However, it seems wrong to belittle or dismiss him. He has ideas worth considering, he has been proven correct in many of his economic predictions and he is presenting a challenge to the American people and the political establishment that, frankly, I love to see. Unlike many of my countrymen, including Ron Paul, I do not hold the Founding Fathers and the system of government they established as being “divinely inspired” or somehow sacrosanct (I would have been one of those horrible Tories had I been in New England in 1776). At the heart of all of his positions, Ron Paul is simply challenging people today to practice what they preach in terms of upholding the Constitution of the United States. If they really believe the Founders were so brilliant and the Constitution such a sacred document, they should have no problem in strictly adhering to it. That means no government interference in the economy, no entangling alliances, no military adventures or treating people as POW’s without a declaration of war and no cradle to grave welfare.

Additional note: one reason I cannot unequivocally support isolationism is the case of Iran itself. Ron Paul bemoans U.S. assistance in restoring the late Shah to power in Iran. I have no problem with that and one of (if not the) biggest complaints I have against Jimmy Carter was his failure to intervene and assist the Shah against the revolution that brought him down and elevated the current, horrific, regime to power.

Mad Rant: Son of God/Political Football

It is a political football game with the left invoking the name of Christ. The socialist, left-wing, George Soros funded group “American Values Network” is taking aim at the enemies of the big-government welfare state by highlighting the opposition of objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand to religion. They have called their campaign, “Ayn Rand vs. Jesus Christ” and it is deplorable. Unfortunately, conservatives opposed to the recent campaign by the left to ramp up the drive to total socialism might be a bit frustrated at the reaction of the objectivist camp. Of course, they object to the AVN mixing religion and politics but they cannot get away from the ardent atheism that has been drummed into them by their foundress and more or less agree that Jesus was a socialist and, though they do not come right out and say it, all but admit that, yes, one does have to choose between Ayn Rand or Christ and they are hoping you will choose Ayn Rand.

I am so mad at both sides of this thing I could spit. In the first place, yes, the left is being totally disingenuous and are using the Son of God as a tool to gain political points by driving a wedge between traditional conservatives (who tend to be religious) and libertarians (who tend to be non-religious) because they fear that they are gaining ground on the one big area they have in common: taking down the socialist nanny state. These so-called religious people at the AVN who endlessly repeat the verses about helping the poor and warning off the rich also embrace a plethora of positions totally opposed to traditional Christian values such as abortion and the homosexual agenda. The objectivists are at least being honest in what they believe, the AVN and George Soros certainly are not. They are no friends to organized religion and certainly no friend of real Christianity by any stretch of the imagination.

Let me also say, even though I know it annoys a lot of people when I say anything nice about the objectivists, that even at their worst the objectivists and libertarians are better for religion than the radical revolutionaries. The revolutionaries want to destroy religion, suppress it and promote what is contrary to it. Libertarians, as with most things, simply take a “hands-off” attitude toward religion, neither favoring nor opposing it. Undoubtedly, Ayn Rand was an adamant atheist who was not bashful in her opinions toward any religion including Christianity. In fact, she openly stated that she considered the very concept of “faith” to be immoral. However, though neither her friends nor foes talk about it much, she was also adamant that she was not a “militant atheist”. She stated clearly that she was not trying to fight against religion, she was fighting for pure laissez-faire capitalism. Remember that one of her fundamental principles of objectivism was a total rejection of force or coercion. She adamantly opposed denying anyone the right to be religious just as much as she adamantly opposed denying anyone the right not to be religious at all.

However, the objectivists are not saying that. If you look at what they say closely, they are, again, actually agreeing with the socialists that one must choose between Ayn Rand or Christ. The socialists are saying this because they are portraying Christ as a socialist and what Christians to reject anything Ayn Rand or her modern disciples say. The objectivists are saying it because, well, they think Christianity is basically socialist as well and are hoping you choose Ayn Rand and her philosophy instead. They are not that blatant about it but, keep them talking on the subject long enough and they will admit eventually that, yes, they think ultimately one would have to choose between the two and of course they think objectivism is the superior philosophy to Christianity. They are both, essentially, accepting the same lie: that Christ was a socialist.

Objectivists, who again I will say I agree with on a number of issues (to the great annoyance of many of my readers), often simply have a bigoted attitude toward religion because of the godlike pedestal they have placed Ayn Rand on -who was an outspoken atheist. The socialists are being dishonest and they know it, that is their intent, however, the objectivists seem to be simply sloppy or ignorant. Yes, we know about the verses in the New Testament that always come up; the one about the apostles ‘sharing things in common’ or how it was ‘easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle that for a rich man to enter heaven’ (wow, 2 verses!) but there is a huge (gargantuan) amount of context that is being ignored. In the first place, there were rich people who were favored by God, in fact there were people who became rich because God blessed them. But, sticking with the New Testament here, the important point (that I would think objectivists of all people would recognize if they were not so blinded by their idolatry toward Ayn Rand) is the total LACK of coercion regarding all of the verses that deal with the rich or helping the poor.

That is what is at the heart of socialism; using force to take what one person has to give it to someone else. That never happened in the New Testament, Christ never did it, nor did He ever advocate or command anyone to do it. Jesus did give to the poor and afflicted, and a good Christian is supposed to be “Christ-like” but we do have one serious roadblock to doing exactly “what Jesus would have done” which is that we are not God. Christ could work miracles, He healed the sick, fed the hungry and so on by performing miracles. I suppose I should not speak for everyone but I certainly cannot do that. If I could work miracles there would be crowned heads ruling over the world, I would have perfect health, be living in a villa in Costa Rica and married to Alessandra Ambrosio. In short -not going to happen. Look, instead, to the example of Christ and the rich, young nobleman who asked what he had to do to obtain salvation. Christ told him to give away all of his wealth and follow Him. ‘Aha!’ the socialists exclaim, ‘see, he was one of us!’ Uh, no, because there was no coercion. Now, if Christ had seized the young man, robbed him of all his riches and then, after pocketing a bit for Himself, gave the rest to the poor, THEN Christ would have been a socialist. He didn’t do that. He advised people to be compassionate and charitable, He never advocated using force to take from one and give to another.

As the great William Shakespeare so famously wrote, “The quality of mercy is not strain’d, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest; It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:” Compassion and charity cannot be forced. When it flows naturally, as Shakespeare said, it rewards both parties in the transaction. Socialism is, at best, coerced charity which simply replaces one possible injustice with another definite one. Besides which, at the end of the day, we all know Jesus was a monarchist. To see objectivists and socialists, two essentially atheist groups, arguing over what economic system the son of God would have preferred, neither adhering to the facts, makes me an extremely … Mad Monarchist.