Comments on Pro Libertate: Why Would Anyone Want a President?

Reconciliation (or even mere lessening of hostilit...

2016-11-19T13:04:33.698-07:00

Reconciliation (or even mere lessening of hostility) with Russia coupled with renewed or increased hostility with Iran are oxymoron but that doesn't seem to enter into the Trump 'national security' equation as put to the public. One wonders whether this is because those 'experts' surrounding Trump believe such distinction is too much for Trump to grasp or too much for the dumbed down American public to absorb, or perhaps cynically do not wish the distinction to be examined in the larger public forum because it might cause people to actually think or it is because they cannot competently make the distinction themselves. In any case, this does not bode well. Another Trump groupie deserving mention in relation the Iran animus is none other than Rudy Giuliani.

If Hillary would slowly but inexorably (alone the lines of enjoy inflicting as much suffering as possible along the way) march us to a larger conflict with Russia, this new cast of clowns could 'cut to the bone' much more quickly. Was Hillary's inevitable slowly tortured death preferable to a 'more merciful' quick death by Trump? Borrowing from elsewhere, 'the good news is Hillary lost, the bad news is Trump won.'

An aside, I did, for a very long time, believe in the founders vision in ways similar to yourself but cynicism has at last overtaken that belief:

"In any democracy, ethics, self restraint, tolerance and honesty will always take a second seat to narcissism, avarice, bigotry & persecution, if only because people who play by the rules in any democracy are at a disadvantage to those who easily subvert the rules to their own advantage" (Ronald’s Maxim)

Good stuff per usual Mr Griggs, thank you for the excellent endeavor and your ongoing dedication. Principled people should count for something in this world but I fear are akin to a rapidly vanishing or endangered species...

In the essay above I used the expression "alt...

2016-11-18T18:00:22.467-07:00

In the essay above I used the expression "alt-right" in reference to a caricature of Donald Trump that was originally published by someone who claims that label. The Cultural Marxist Left didn't coin that expression, although they use it with the opportunistic imprecision we would expect. I've not used the term much because I've yet to develop an adequate understanding of that it means, and whether those who identify themselves using it represent a movement or a passing fad.

Steve Sailer, who is not a leftist by any definition, offered a very good survey article on this subject at The American Conservative: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/rise-of-the-alt-right/

Here is Sailer's brief treatment of the origins of that term, as explained by Richard Spencer, who claims credit for inventing it:

"At a recent press conference in DC, Spencer explained that the core of alt-right thought is race. Race is real, race matters, race is foundational to human identity. You cannot understand who you are without race. Many people would agree—at least privately or partially—with the first two assertions, but the third is the critical one, and has never been true historically or sociologically. (Not that there haven’t been groups of self-proclaimed pan-Asian or pan-African intellectuals who sought to make it true. Spencer fits into their tradition.) In any case, Spencer hopes somehow to spur whites into a kind of pan-white racial consciousness and galvanize them to become `aware of who we are,' and to prepare themselves, one day somehow, to form a white ethnostate."

I don't think that concern is shared by all, or perhaps even most, of the people who have coalesced around the alt-right. It seems undeniable that ethnic collectivism is the movement's center of gravity.

As I've said on many occasions, I have no problem in principle with the existence of more than one polity in the land mass that is presently called the continental United States. If people want to set up ethnically homogenous communities, and do so without injuring the property rights of others, I do not object to that ambition. The eagerness of alt-right figures to promote and now embrace the imperial presidency suggests to me that their ambitions involve consolidating power, not decentralizing it.

A little more than a year ago I did a podcast dealing with the leftist panic over Spencer's effort to establish a think tank in Whitefish, Montana. That furor reminded me a great deal of the moral panic exhibited by people of a different ideological bent whenever a Muslim community wants to establish a mosque.

Will, I am disappointed to see you use the term &...

2016-11-18T17:45:49.470-07:00

Will,

I am disappointed to see you use the term "alt-right" here. I see this term as nothing more than the latest label de jour used by leftists to describe anyone who falls to the right of Mao Zedong. I have yet to see anyone offer a sensible description of what the alt-right is or who occupies it. Perhaps you would be willing to enlighten me?

jk

The problem that must be considered now is the rup...

2016-11-16T11:33:08.561-07:00

The problem that must be considered now is the rupture that has taken place within the libertarian community with regard to Donald Trump. Half the libertarian community is ecstatic, the other half in agony. How to account for this ? The most ecstatic of the libertarians seem to be those most solidly grounded in the Rothbardian concept of libertarianism. Now while Rothbard was the most radical in being anti-state pro market he was simultaneously the most tactical with regard to maneuvering within the existing political structure. Rothbard always underscored the great necessity of knowing both history and economics a point he makes so well in a series of lectures available on youtube about American economic history starting with the Civil War. I think Rothbard's encyclopedic knowledge of both American history and economics allowed him to view American elections in terms of their underlying movements, in terms of great historical cycles and revolutions rather than primarily in terms of individual candidates. I think for Rothbard and his present day disciples this past election represents a tactical popular rebellion against the political class and therefore against political control itself. Rothbard would interpret it as Titanic shift away from domination under the state and toward the promised land of anarcho-capitalism. On the other hand half the libertarian community reads this election primarily in terms of the personality of Donald Trump. Trump is petty. Trump is vindictive. Trump is ignorant. Trump may have derivatively profited from government bureaucracies. Trump is narcissistic. Trump is vulgar. Trump is ostentatious. Where Rothbardians are quite thrilled with what they regard as a grand historical popular libertarian revolution, the more purely ideological libertarians have recoiled at Trumps election because they interpret it largely in terms of Trumps personality failings and his failure to articulate support for or even be aware of full on pure form anarcho-capitalism.

Both of those concerns are entirely valid where Hi...

2016-11-16T06:15:15.343-07:00

Both of those concerns are entirely valid where Hillary was concerned, and given Trump's longstanding pre-campaign convictions there remains reason for concern with respect to the right to keep and bear arms: He is the first presidential candidate to win an election after making specific promises of targeted civilian disarmament (via stop-and-frisk and the "no-fly/no-buy" list).

Trump has been commendably averse to confrontation with Russia. He has been much more bellicose toward Iran, and this morning's news brings the unwelcome but not unexpected tidings that the unspeakable Frank Gaffney has joined the "national security" transition team, where he, Michael Flynn, and James Woolsey will reinforce each other's worst instincts.

It's fascinating to me that Trump saw nothing objectionable about Hillary's character, conduct, or priorities until about a year-and-a-half ago. He publicly supported the disastrous Libyan intervention, for example. His presidency will likely be much more conventional than his leftist detractors fear, and his conservative supporters hope.

I know this is perhaps tangential, but how do you ...

2016-11-16T03:35:13.036-07:00

I know this is perhaps tangential, but how do you answer a voter who says he voted for Trump because he did not want his guns confiscated or to have nuclear war with Russia? Those potentials being far from out of the question concerning Hillary's ilk.

Death is inevitable. Being subject to a US preside...

2016-11-14T23:49:04.204-07:00

Death is inevitable. Being subject to a US president is a choice.

My point is not that I don't want a president; it is that under the terms of the Constitution I don't have one.

Consult Article II, section 2 of that document. In three austere paragraphs it presents an exhaustive description of the appointment, supervisory, and enforcement powers of the office of the presidency. You will (or at least should) notice that not a syllable found therein extends presidential power over individual private citizens, or mandates a duty on their part toward that official.

Since I have not enlisted in the military (the question of belonging to the unorganized citizen militia was rendered moot by the Dick Act of 1902) nor degraded myself by seeking employment in the executive branch, I am not presided over by the official who resides in the Oval Office, something that provides me with great comfort.

Where the exercise of usurped power is concerned, it is immeasurably more patriotic to complain than to comply. And I have no interest in abandoning the country that I love to people who are destroying it through competing varieties of statist idolatry.

Why would anyone want cancer? Why would anyone wan...

2016-11-14T20:20:47.537-07:00

Why would anyone want cancer?
Why would anyone want to die?

You don't want a president, move. I'm sure the prime ministers, dictators, kings, or others will work better for you.

I rarely hear a utopian fallacy.

Buy a boat, go on to the high seas, and you will have no rulers or sovereigns. Or to Antarctica where it would be logistically difficult to rule over you.

The US President and the Federal Government replaced 13 despots in 13 tyrannies with one.

I have no idea why people think liberty is natural, or should be free of any cost in blood, sweat, time, or treasure.

The Atheists might have an excuse since they can believe man is perfectible.

Christians have no such excuse. Man is fallen. When offered the poisoned chalice of power - and I will not exempt economic power - they will corrupt themselves and others. To simply remit the price of our sins it took a Crucifixion after a scourging. If you wouldn't pay such a price personally to avoid damnation, what of the price to avoid mere temporal tyranny?

I am perfectly willing to accept and/or even fight for an alternative. But it would be a fight, not merely another whiny screen which I've heard over my entire life - a whine not unlike the liberals, black lives matter, or women regretting an encounter complaining about some oppression but unwilling to take up arms, or even go through that side of due process.

Winters here are hard, but the only answer is to move or insure you have heat, or dress warmly.

Politics are a bit different, but you can choose to vote with your feet. And I'd say please do before complaining more. Or find a way to solve the problem, not merely complain about the status quo.