Je Suis Donald

There has been a global outpouring of support for free speech (more precisely, speech without consequence) in the wake of a recent tragedy…well let’s have Time Magazine tell the tale:

People protesting the Paris killings unauthorized recording met in Trafalgar Square LA Live as British Prime Minister David Cameron Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and German Chancellor Angela Merkel NBA Commissioner Adam Silver discussed the attack in Downing Street on Donald Sterling.

You see, Donald Sterling was recorded – unbeknownst to him – saying a few things that the NBA found politically incorrect.  Adam Silver, and many of the other NBA team owners, wanted to strip Sterling of his team – the Los Angeles Clippers.  Let’s see what happened next:

Out of the horror came something beautiful. Not all of the people who traveled to London’s Trafalgar Square Los Angeles, or attended similar vigils in other cities and countries states throughout Europe the country, could explain why they felt impelled to come.

The people came out in droves.  Social media played a major role in drawing together the supporters:

As the news of the attack spread, the hashtag #JeSuisCharlie — “I Am Charlie Donald” — became a declaration of solidarity…

They were in solidarity for Donald Sterling’s right to free speech – no matter how hateful or derogatory toward any racial group, he had a right to say it without fear of reprisal or consequence.

It was a solemn occasion:

They stood in near silence in a crowd of several hundreds under Nelson’s Column near the Los Angeles River…

Yes, there really is one.  I don’t make this stuff up.

With this, Donald Sterling – due to significant public pressure – was allowed to keep his basketball franchise.  Never again would comments deemed to be racist, recorded in secret, be used to foment anger toward another.

------------------------------------

My view at the time of the Donald Sterling incident was simple: face the consequences of what you say; if you happen to be a public figure, that can sometimes be painful.  It doesn’t matter what I think about what Sterling said – but losing an NBA franchise seemed a rather major punishment for something said in private.  Well, no one said life was fair.

What about Charlie Hebdo?  Like all writers on this topic, I will state the obligatory – nothing justifies the killing of another except for physical self-defense (or defense of another), in proportion to the perceived risk.  I think the murders were a horrendous act.

Having said that, how dumb do you have to be?  I don’t go walking around the seedier parts of town at 3 AM with hundred dollar bills falling out of my pockets. What might I expect if I did?  What about MY freedom?

I believe in free speech.  I also believe that there are stupid people with mouths…or pens.  People by the thousands are protesting for the right to protect such speech (have you seen any of the pictures from Charlie, which I won’t even link to because of my disgust?).  Of course, they protest only in selective cases (for those who haven’t figured out my post, there were no similar protests on behalf of Sterling).

They are protesting for protection from stupidity, from playing with fire, from walking around with hundreds of dollars falling out of their pockets.  Good luck with that.  All you are going to get is a more advanced police state, all because you are asking for it. 

And you are going to stick me with it.

Enough said.

Optimistic Imagination Minus Reality Equals Severe Trauma

Wartime: Understanding and Behavior in the Second World War, by Paul Fussell

This book is about the psychological and emotional culture of Americans and Britons during the Second World War.  It is about the rationalizations and euphemisms people needed to deal with an unacceptable actuality from 1939 to 1945.

So begins Fussell in the preface.  After touching on the physical damage, he continues:

Less obvious is the damage it did to intellect, discrimination, honesty, individuality, complexity, ambiguity, and irony.

In chapter 8 of Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, edited By Harry Elmer Barnes, William Henry Chamberlin addresses this topic.  Chamberlin cites the hypocrisy of Roosevelt and his Atlantic Charter, the hypocrisy of the war crimes trials, the use of torture by the Allies, the lies of Roosevelt to the American people leading up to the war.

In chapter 9 of the same volume, George A. Lundberg cites Dr. Charles Beard, listing of twelve examples of the lies and manipulations by Roosevelt before and during the war.  There is no possibility of a properly functioning democracy or republic when lying is the means to secure support.

It is the damage done to the psyche of the American and British people that Fussell examines in this book.

Severe trauma was often the result of the initial optimistic imagination encountering actuality.

Obviously the line from which I drew the title of this post.  When reading this line in Fussell’s book, it struck me that besides having application to both those fighting and those at home regarding the war effort, it also might apply to the reason why so many worship those who fight.  But I will leave it to Fussell to tell the story.

At first everyone hoped, and many believed, that the war would be fast-moving, mechanized, remote controlled, and perhaps even rather easy.

Two things strike me about this: first, it seems a strange thought given the then-recent experience of the Great War, certainly for the British.  Second, nothing changes.  In every war, the lie is told that it will be quick and easy.  The first Gulf War is still being fought; it has merely had a few name changes – to include the latest chapter of Iraq, more than a decade old.  Its sibling in Afghanistan is even older.  I guess in this regard things are getting better – the mouthpieces now tell us that America will be at war for decades.

Wars are all alike in beginning complacently.

This hope was based on what, in hindsight, was naiveté: small tanks with one-inch armor, armed with nothing more than a 37-MM gun; 20,000 horses were procured for the cavalry, announced with fanfare; in Britain, lances and sabers were standard issue; rubber-tired armored cars with machine guns were a mainstay.  Such “preparation” makes the Polish defense on horseback seem not so silly.

Further silliness – and more evidence that nothing ever changes – was the belief that Yankee technology and precision bombing would win the war.  The B-17 could hit a target within 25 feet from an altitude of 20,000 feet, or so they said.

…it wasn’t long before soldiers and civilians would be killed in quantity and without scruple….

The reality of the Second World War is not so quaint, and does not need a refresher: hundreds of thousands of airplanes produced by the US alone; tanks of immense size and speed; carpet-bombing of civilian targets; the atom bomb.  Where the Great War put in knife in the idea of civilized warfare, the Second World War witnessed the obliteration of this concept – rules of warfare developed over centuries, having reached fruition in eighteenth and nineteenth century Europe.  By the end of the war, nothing mattered but heavy power and volume – fought as the North fought against the South under Lincoln. 

Outmoded now, hopelessly irrelevant, were such former military values and procedures as the alertness of the scout; the skill at topographical notice of the observer in the tethered balloon; the accurately worded message correctly written out (with carbon copy) in the nifty little book of Filed Message Forms.

Also quickly outmoded was the idea that the bombing could do the job, let alone do the job well or accurately:

As the war went on, “precision bombing” became a comical oxymoron relished by bomber crews with a sense of black humor.

In August of 1941 it was clear to the RAF that only one in ten bombers could even fly within five miles of the assigned target.  “We made a major assault on German agriculture.”

The Germans, when bombing London, dropped half of their bombs over the water.  On May 10, 1940, a Luftwaffe squadron…

…setting out to bomb Dijon, by some error dropped a load on its own civilians in Freiburg-im-Breisgau, killing fifty-seven of them.

When RAF reports indicated that bombers wholly missed the intended targets, the reports were rejected as inaccurate.  This inaccuracy (along with other, more sinister, reasons) eventually led to area bombing and ultimately Dresden and Hiroshima.

Bombs were dropped by Allied aircraft on Allied troops, resulting in Allied troops firing on Allied aircraft.  Weeks before D-Day, in an effort to soften the Germans fortifications, 480 B-27s dropped 13,000 bombs well inland, killing only French civilians and their livestock.  Naval bombardments cost thousands of Allied lives.

Even after being told beforehand that it would be Allied gliders overhead during the invasion of Sicily, the troops fired upon the aircraft, shooting down 23 planes carrying 229 men.  In 1943 it was a US PT boat – not a Japanese submarine – that sunk the Marine Corps transport McCawley.

“The loser of this war will be the side that makes the greatest blunders,” according to Hitler.

A world in which such blunders are more common than usual will require large amounts of artful narrative to confer purpose, meaning, and dignity on events actually discrete and contingent.

That this war is known to many in America as “the Good War” demonstrates the success of the narrative builders in their task.  The blind passion by which this narrative is accepted is, perhaps, proof of the severe trauma.

Terror Suspects?

According to USA Today: “French police hunt door to door for terror suspects”

Why are they considered terror suspects?  Why not just criminals?

The nation raised its terror alert system to the maximum…

I believe it to be true that there have been other murders and even shootings in France – maybe mass shootings.  In fact, here is a list of French mass murderers; here is another of French spree killers.  I didn’t check them all, but in the ones I checked there was no mention of “terror suspects.”

 

Three men reportedly killed twelve people in an office.  A horrendous event.  I know the details, but feel them unimportant to my question: why are they considered anything other than criminals?

France's Interior Ministry said 88,000 people have been deployed…

Eighty-eight thousand people deployed to find two people?  I didn’t see mention of 88,000 people deployed in any of the previous French mass killings.

…in the massive manhunt for Said Kouachi, 34, and Cherif Kouachi, 32, who are suspected of killing 12 people in the assault on the offices of the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo.

I guess we know why they are considered terrorists.  Yes, that's right: it is because they are both in their early 30s.

There is more:

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder will travel to Paris this weekend to attend a Sunday International Ministerial meeting. The meeting, called in response to the attacks, is being convened by the French Minister of Interior. The meetings will include discussions on addressing terrorist threats, foreign fighters and countering violent extremism.

Eric Holder?  To capture two criminals?  He doesn’t have enough to do with police killing unarmed civilians in the US?

A horrendous crime took place – twelve people were killed.  Isn’t it enough to find those who did it?  Isn't it enough to mourn the victims?  Does such drama need to be attached?

Then again, France has a good teacher.

Mises Without Rothbard

Thanks to Ryan McMaken, I was reminded that today marks the twentieth anniversary of the death of Murray Rothbard.

Murray Newton Rothbard was an American heterodox economist of the Austrian School, a revisionist historian, and a political theorist whose writings and personal influence played a seminal role in the development of modern libertarianism. Rothbard was the founder and leading theoretician of anarcho-capitalism, a staunch advocate of historical revisionism, and a central figure in the twentieth-century American libertarian movement.

I offer the biographical summary not because I think it is necessary for the audience of this blog; merely a reminder of the breadth of Rothbard’s work and the foundations he built in libertarian theory. 

While there are a few areas with which I disagree with him, there is no doubt that everything I write about libertarian theory and Austrian economics (and to some degree revisionist history) would be little more than a fluffy white cloud inside my brain without the work Rothbard had already done – I would have no language or concepts upon which to build had he not done the work for me.

And did he ever do a lot of work!  But more than his prolific and tireless writing, what stands out to me most about Rothbard is his consistency.  In all of his work, he kept as a guiding light the idea of non-aggression and the corresponding concepts of private property and free trade.  Principled is the proper word to describe his writing.

From McMaken’s post: “…look at how frequently he is attacked by his intellectual opponents, even to this day.”  I would add, not just from his intellectual opponents, but also jealous libertarian and Austrian intellectuals.

One of the things I have gathered while learning about and poking around our libertarian / Austrian corner of the world is that there are many who don’t like Rothbard, or perhaps better said who believe that he shouldn’t be so prominently displayed.  I know there are minor issues, such as Rothbard’s view of fractional reserve banking (and regular readers of my blog know where I fall on this issue).  But I think the big issue is Rothbard’s steadfast opposition to all aspects of the State.

Rothbard had no problem saying what should not be mentioned in polite society.  This seems to be embarrassing to those libertarians and Austrians who want to be accepted.

Again, from McMaken: “…one can find virtually all of his published works at Mises.org.”

So, what do I mean by “Mises without Rothbard”?  I think Rothbard is the main reason the beltway libertarian crowd shies away from, ignores, or even ridicules the Mises Institute.  The Institute certainly is not shy about Rothbard’s work.

But what would the Mises Institute look like without Rothbard?  For this, I will offer an analogy, one playing out in real-time and right in front of our eyes.

Ron Paul, having toiled away in near anonymity for 30 years, suddenly burst on the wider scene in 2007.  We all remember money bombs and standing-room-only college crowds.  But why?  What was different about Ron Paul?

I will suggest two things: first, the message.  It was a consistent one – based on non-aggression and free markets (as much as could be so within the context of the most conservative interpretation of the US Constitution).  It was a principled message. 

Second was the man himself.  It was clear that this message was not based on poll numbers, focus groups, etc.  He didn’t transform himself overnight to become something different than what he had been before.

Ron never shied away from the unpopular message; he never worried about being politically correct.

Contrast this with his son, Rand Paul.  I do not intend to get into the politics; suffice it to say that Rand is not as principled as is his father when it comes to non-aggression.  There is nothing controversial in saying so – Rand has said himself he is not a libertarian.

What is my point?  Ron’s following – never large (plus or minus ten percent) – was extremely dedicated.  Rand, who by all appearances will draw larger support (and certainly has more inside the beltway support) has not generated anywhere near the dedication that his father did.  More in numbers, but not as committed.

And 50 or 100 years from now will it be the father or the son remembered as having had more impact?  I have no doubt that it will be Ron.  Rand might even become president, but he will not do as much as Ron has done to change the thinking of more people about life and liberty.  And it is only from a change of thinking in the people that lasting change will come.

So, how do I apply this to my question about Mises without Rothbard?  The Mises Institute is dedicated to Austrian economics.  It is an easy connection to make from Austrian theories to libertarian politics – not to suggest that a good Austrian must be a libertarian (Mises was not, after all); but the two schools are quite complimentary one to the other.

Once in the libertarian tent, and within the broad swath of libertarian possibilities, it seems to me that the most intellectually consistent view to take is that of anarcho-capitalism – the view of Rothbard.  If the philosophy is non-aggression, it means non-aggression.

I think consistency in a well-grounded philosophy is mandatory if one is to generate dedicated support.  It may not result in the broadest support, but it will result in the most dedicated support.

What would the Mises Institute be without Rothbard?  I think it is possible it might generate broader appeal.  I don’t think it would generate more dedicated supporters.  And I certainly believe it would not have the impact that it has on Austrian, and therefore libertarian, acceptance.

I think it would look like any other beltway think-tank.  Bigger maybe, but with little meaningful impact.

And I think this is because of the consistency of Rothbard.