All of the Topics I Have NOT Covered

I have a confession to make.  There are many topics related to libertarian theory, application of theory, and state aggressions that I have written little, if anything, about.  It seems to be a grave shortcoming on my part.

Let’s run through a list; consider these as potential titles for these non-existent posts:

·        Drug Laws: This One Should be Easy

·        The Age of Majority: Drinking Alcohol

·        Is Second-Hand Cigarette Smoke a Violation of the Non-Aggression Principle?

·        Filing for a Tax refund?  Is This Theft?

·        Can a Deed Restriction Exist in a Libertarian World?

·        Is Torture Ever Justified?

·        To Spank or Not to Spank; That is the Question

·        If Ayn Rand is Wrong, Do I Want to be Right?

·        Privatized roads: a Path to Extortion?

·        Minimum Wage: a Living Wage or a Dying Wage?

·        “Anything Peaceful.”  Is That Really all the NAP has to Offer?

·        Without Free Will, is Man Truly Free?

·        How Far Below the Surface and in the Sky Do my Property Rights Extend?

·        Is Homesteading the Only Legitimate way to Claim Property?

·        Corporations and the NAP?  Discuss

·        The Benefits of Free Trade: DUH.

·        Getting Groped by State Actors, Pros and Cons

·        Environmental Regulation: a Detailed Examination

·        If I Blast My Outdoor Stereo Really Loud only for REALLY GOOD MUSIC, is it an NAP Violation?

·        All I Need to Know About the NAP: “Get Off My Lawn!”

·        Does the NAP Extend to Non-human Mammals?

·        “Papers, Please.” 

·        My Neighbor has a Smoker.  Can I Hate Him for an NAP Violation, or only Because He Never Invites Me Over to his Parties?

·        Can one Hate the State and Still Walk on Sidewalks?

·        School Choice?  I Thought Everything with the Word “Choice” was Libertarian!

·        “Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal” – the Slogan of Every American Politician since…well, Forever.

·        If I Prevent Someone from Committing Suicide, Am I Now Obligated to Care for Him for the Rest of His Life?

·        What is the Proper Way for a Libertarian to Punish His Child?

·        24601 (aka Jean Valjean) Stole a Little Bread for his dying Nephew; Was Nineteen Years in Prison Enough?  A Libertarian Speaks Out

·        He Said Mean Things to Me; Can I Put Him in the Libertopia Hoosegow?

·        A Private Market for Organs: Is this Off-Key?

Well, that’s enough for now.  I am sure even this list is only scratching the surface. 

You see, it isn’t that I don’t have a view on many of these things.  In some cases, I find these topics rather trivial – how-many-libertarian-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-mosquito kind of thing.  In other cases, there are people far more qualified than I am to write on these; the topic is already fully covered. 

Mostly, the reason I don’t write about such things is because I choose to write only about things that interest me – I am not writing for an audience although I am tremendously and truly grateful that others find value in my work.  Some may view my choices as not very important, or might view that I ignore the truly important.  You are free to hold that view; I am free to ignore you.  Because I really don’t care what you think about my choice of topics.

Anyway, I hope this addresses the issue.

Kulturkampf!

The title of an essay written by Murray Rothbard in October 1992, captured in the compilation “The Irrepressible Rothbard.” 

Yes, yes, you rotten hypocritical liberals, it's a culture war!  And high time, too!  It is, of course, typical of our liberal "intellectual" and media elite: after having ridden through and captured our culture, after twenty-odd years (at least!) of their cultural conquest of America proceeding almost unopposed, after completing their successful Gramscian (note: much revered Italian Stalinist of the 1920s) "long march through our institutions," liberals were just about ready to sit down and treat us as their conquered province.  When suddenly, some of us beleaguered provincials began to fight back – rallied, of course, by Pat Buchanan's speech at the Republican National Convention.

I have written of Gramsci, of the love for him by left-libertarians – whether knowingly or unknowingly.  But what of this speech by Buchanan? 

Like many of you last month, I watched that giant masquerade ball at Madison Square Garden–where 20,000 radicals and liberals came dressed up as moderates and centrists–in the greatest single exhibition of cross-dressing in American political history.

I read this thinking…did Rothbard write Buchanan’s speech?

…a militant leader of the homosexual rights movement could rise at that convention and exult: “Bill Clinton and Al Gore represent the most pro-lesbian and pro-gay ticket in history.” And so they do.

Regarding Mrs. Clinton:

Well, Hillary believes that 12-year-olds should have a right to sue their parents, and she has compared marriage as an institution to slavery–and life on an Indian reservation.  Well, speak for yourself, Hillary.

Regarding the vice-presidential candidate, Al Gore:

In New York, Mr Gore made a startling declaration. Henceforth, he said, the “central organizing principle” of all governments must be: the environment.  Wrong, Albert!  The central organizing principle of this republic is freedom.

And of the Republican nominee, George H.W. Bush:

…we stand with him against the amoral idea that gay and lesbian couples should have the same standing in law as married men and women.

At its root, Buchanan understood the reality:

There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself.

The Cold War was Marx; the cultural war is Gramsci.  Both had the same objective.  Gramsci’s model has sustained and has proven more successful in destroying western civilization.

Returning to Rothbard and the complaint that Buchanan is “dividing us,” Rothbard cites Joe Sobran:

Naturally; Joe adds, "they and their media allies hold 'divisiveness' to be a cardinal sin.  The parasitical organism doesn't want the host to think of itself as a distinct entity; with interests of its own.  So it tries rhetorically to 'unify' the two organisms in the undifferentiated pronoun 'we'."  Exactly!

Rothbard goes on to cite many of the ways government proactively acts to destroy traditional culture – not evolutionary, but revolutionary.  He concludes, therefore, that absent this government effort:

…I am convinced that removing the poison…and getting government out of the picture would spark a return to natural law and the Old Culture….

Rothbard continues, attacking the idea of the “anything goes” culture, promoting the idea of revealed or objective ethics. He favorably compares the Ozzie and Harriet culture to the Woody Allen culture.  His description of the difference of these two cultures is telling:

The corrupt, rotten New Culture, versus the glorious life-affirming Old.

There is a culture that is supportive – and I believe necessary – to achieve and maintain a reasonably libertarian society.  Rothbard has identified it; it isn’t libertine.

I can hear it now: “you are a fascist,” and if that doesn’t work, “a Nazi.”  Nothing changes, as noted by this reaction after Buchanan’s speech:

The Republicans, said Mario [Cuomo], are ''Nazis.''  Why?  Get this: because "the Nazis used the word 'culture'."

Breathtakingly imbecilic.

Breathtakingly imbecilic.

Yeah, that’s what I said.

Not content with all this, Mario also claimed that the Republican Convention was "anti-Semitic."  What?  How do you get that?  Because Newt Gingrich attacked Woody Allen…

Well, of course.  All roads lead to this.

Conclusion

In his closing paragraph, Rothbard offers what could have been written of the most recent election:

Bumbling Bush is no great bargain, but to keep undercutting the president from now until Election Day means, that whatever your intent, you are objectively pro-Clinton, and that you are helping a future Clinton administration to dig the grave of liberty, of the free market, and of what's left of traditional American culture.

What’s in the Contract?

Anyone who flies knows the drill: airlines overbook their flights.  They do this because some passengers will change plans and not take the flight.  Occasionally this practice by the airlines results in too many passengers and not enough seats.  At the gate the agent asks for volunteers, offering compensation for those willing to take a later flight.

You would do the same if you ran a business where unsold inventory could never be held for sale in a future period. 

Well, it didn’t go so well this time: after the flight was boarded, the gate agents decided that they needed four seats – four employees of United needed to take this flight to be in position to crew a flight originating elsewhere.

Then, it all went bad.

A video posted to Facebook Sunday evening showed what is becoming another public relations nightmare for United Airlines, which is owned by United Continental Holdings.

Dr. David Dao boarded a United flight at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, headed to Louisville, not knowing he was about to be forced to leave a plane that was overbooked.

A nearly 30-second video clip, posted on social media by a fellow passenger, shows three security officers approaching Dao who was already seated, asking him to give up his spot on the plane. After the doctor refuses, he was eventually dragged by his arms and screaming toward the front of the plane.

It is easy to point to United as the bad guy in this situation; video, especially, has a way of burning this verdict on the mind.  Few would look to the passenger as the party at fault.

Several libertarian sites and posts have taken this path of completely ignoring the contract.  For example, Brian Doherty at Reason:

While there may be something to be said for the ability for private businesses to summon the help of the police to remove people from their premises if they refuse to leave peacefully and their presence is unwanted, there is no excuse for the police to cooperate when the reason their presence is unwanted is not "causing a disturbance" or being violent or threatening to other customers, or stealing goods or services, or doing anything wrong at all, but rather wanting to peacefully use the service they legitimately paid for.

No mention of the contract.  Sure, we can say that the airline should provide its own private police force, but we are in this world – and the issue really isn’t about the employment capacity of those who removed the passenger.  The issue is the contract.

What if the passenger “legitimately paid for” a service that included the possibility of being asked to get off of the airplane under certain circumstances?  It is always worth asking: what’s in the contract?  What if United followed the ticket contract to the letter, and it was the passenger that was in violation of his agreement with United?

Isn’t this the question?

The Takeover of Trump – Timeline

I have decided it will be valuable to capture a timeline on the takeover of Trump.  This came to me as a result of Trump’s decision to strike Syria with about five dozen cruise missiles.  Whether you believe there has been a takeover, whether you believe he hasn’t been taken over but is playing three dimensional chess, or whether you believe we are seeing Trump for what he has always been – a politician who would say anything to win office – it seems to me that capturing this timeline is going to be of value.

This list provides daily headlines about Trump. I am trying to remain focused on the following themes:

·        Where Trump pushes against the establishment

·        Where the establishment pushes back at Trump

·        Where one side or the other has a victory

You will see below a real work in progress.  I am not satisfied with it as most of the sources are mainstream sources – the result of taking from page 1 of Google search results.  The searches were on one word: Trump.  I want to do further searches, using Trump AND each of the following: Russia, Putin, spygate, recount, Electoral College, Flynn, Mattis, McCain, Schumer, Graham, Bannon.

I will ask: if you believe I have / am neglecting any major theme or story, let me know and send a link.  I will add it to the list and follow the thread as necessary.

Also, I have started the list with the day of his election.  I do intend to go earlier, as so many of the events and statements during the campaign must be captured.

Keep in mind: I provide the list without having read every linked article or essay.  Further, the list, already very long yet with so much to add, is not intended to provide a full narrative or tell a story.  It is intended to be a reference, a starting point.

You will find the first draft of the timeline here.