Comments (4)

• Sam

  The sad contradiction of a democracy (or any deemed 'free' society) at times needing to have an army even if only for defense, is indeed perhaps the greatest loophole going against any free society. After all, in war-time there is no time for debating, discussion, elections, referenda, especially as examining the other's side position is referred to as 'treason'.

  Worst of all is the virtual unlimited power given to the leader who is excepted to have the moral fortitude to relinquish all powers afterwards. Perhaps the best fictional example of this danger is well presented in the last two prequel Star Wars movies, 'Attack of the Clones' and 'Revenge of the Sith'.

  In the storyline, Senator Palpatine creates a war (or did he take advantage of an existing war? I'm not sure), sets himself up the only one who handle the grave task required to deal with the Separatists (since he knows what's going on with both sides of the war), keep the war going slowly enough that he gets even more powers and become the Chancellor (with unlimited terms and a great many 'emergency powers') and once he finds his powers are full and unlimited, he has the Separatists leaders killed and crowns himself Emperor. But for the final touch for any resistance he has the Death Star built, and in the original Star Wars movie, when the Death Star is complete the Emperor dissolves the Senate . . .

  Published: December 15, 2006 9:09 PM

• adi

  Spanish colonial rule at least proves that state can survive long by war and plunder. Other European kingdoms were eager to accept Spanish silver and gold mined in New World for exchange for their products which Spain had to import. USofA can same way produce wealth just by printing money without cost and foreigners are eager to take these paper notes because they trust their own government's monetary regimes even less...

  There are those libertarians who advocate that monarchy would be the best rule since rulers of republic are just temporary caretakers and not owners. Then they have incentives to consume capital and not invest. But monarch could have a high rate of time preference and so he tries to consume all capital in the country just for his private enjoyment. Spanish aristocracy and royalty at least tried to do this as far as possible. This proves that Hoppe and certain other libertarians have delusion about theory of government and society.

  Published: December 16, 2006 4:34 AM

• Kenneth R. Gregg

  The role of the classical liberals was mixed, and it is not quite so simple as describing them all in one camp throughout their respective careers. I'm presently at work on Newton D. Baker. Originally a Gold Democrat and involved in the Cleveland administration, he would follow, like many others strongly influenced by Henry George, another Gold Democrat and then-President of Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson, into his administration to become Wilson's Secretary of War. Up until this time, Baker was known nationally for his anti-war activities and was an example, to the general public, that Wilson's intent was to avoid actions leading to any involvement in war-like activities.

  Of course, as we know now, this the reverse of the evolving situation at that time. Baker lived on constant fear during the entire period, if his later statements are to be believed. Fear of war, fear soldiers dying on his watch, fear that he was a traitor to his former friends in the anti-war movement. Emma Goldman wrote of the treachery of the great classical liberal, Louis F. Post, and that of Baker in a very honest manner. As Goldman said:

  "To my amazement I learned that the official who had signed the order for our deportation was Louis F. Post, Assistant Secretary of Labor. It seemed incredible. Louis F. Post, ardent single-taxer, champion of free speech and press, former editor of the Public, a fearless liberal weekly, the man who had flayed the authorities for their brutal methods during the McKinley panic, who had defended me, and who had insisted that even Leon Czolgosz should be safeguarded in his constitutional rights -- he now a champion of deportation? The radical who had offered to preside at a meeting arranged after my release in connexion with the McKinley tragedy, now favouring such methods? I had been a guest at his home and entertained by him and Mrs. Post. We had discussed anarchism and he had admitted its idealist values, though he had doubted the practicability of their application. He had assisted us in various free-speech fights and he had vigorously protested by pen and voice against John Turner's deportation. And he, Louis F. Post, had now signed the first order for deporting radicals!

  "Some of my friends suggested that Louis F. Post, being an official of the Federal Government, could not go back on his oath to support the mandates of the law. They failed to consider that in accepting office and taking the oath he had gone back on the ideals he had professed and worked for during all his previous years. If he were a man of integrity, Louis F. Post should have remained true to himself and should have resigned when Wilson forced the country into war. He should have resigned at least when he found himself compelled to order the deportation of people for the opinions they entertained. I felt that Post had covered himself with ignominy.

  "The lack of stamina and backbone on the part of such American radicals was tragic. But why expect a braver stand from Louis F. Post than from his teacher Henry George, the father of single-tax, who had failed my Chicago comrades at the eleventh hour? His voice carried great weight at the time and he could have helped to save the men in whose innocence he had believed. But political ambition proved stronger than his sense of justice. Louis F. Post was now following in the footsteps of his admired single-tax apostle.

  "I sought comfort in the thought that there still were some single-taxers of integrity and moral strength. Bolton Hall, Harry Weinberger, Frank Stephens (my comrades in many free-speech fights), Daniel Kiefer, and scores of others had stood their ground -- against war and the new despotism.

  "Frank Stephens, arrested as a conscientious objector, had in protest even declined to accept bail. Daniel Kiefer was another libertarian of true metal. Liberty was a living force in his private life as in his public activities. He was one of the first single-taxers to take an active part against America's entry into the war and against the "selective" draft. He heartily abhorred renegades of the type of Mitchell Palmer, Newton D. Baker, and other weak-kneed Quakers and pacifists. Nor did he spare his friend Louis F. Post for his betrayal."

  Following WWI, Baker would continue as an important figure in the Democratic Party and one of the leading Cleveland Democrats, but the rift between the moderate classical liberals and the more radical libertarians had become permanent. What the classical liberal assault on the state should have been under Wilson was a continuation of the frugal, noninterventionist ideals crushed by the mistaken foreign policy that Wilson believed would end war for all time.

  Just a thought.
  Just Ken
  kgregglv@cox.net
  http://classicalliberalism.blogspot.com/

  Published: December 17, 2006 7:33 PM

• Kenneth R. Gregg

  Oops! This was intended to be posted on Woods' Anti-Imperialism post. Am copying it there.
  Cheers!
  Just Ken

  Published: December 17, 2006 7:57 PM