Skip to content →

Reformed Libertarian Blog Posts

Mohler’s Sacralist Commentaries

The Pilgrim Path/Proto-Protestantism is an interesting blog with a lot of thought provoking content. The author was reformed, embraced a lot of Kline, now remains a paedobaptist but has an Anabaptist view of government (so far as I can discern). His posts are worth perusing because he’s well read and really helps the reader see through the fog of the sacralist hangover that America and many reformed Christians still have. It’s a main focus of his blog. (That said, he rejects systematic theology in favor of biblicism and as a result has concerns about the implications of sola fide. I haven’t had time to fully read what those concerns are, but reader beware). He defines sacralism as:

The confluence of church and state wherein one is called up to change the other. The theological impulse to create a holy society. This is a broader concept which can be applied to non-Christian societies as well. Sacralists will argue that historically all societies have been sacralist. While those opposed to it will agree, but insist it is a pagan notion of society, the foundation of the Tower of Babel system which rears its head all through history.

Israel was not a Sacral state, but a Theocracy. On the surface they may seem the same, but a Theocracy is directly chartered and ruled by God Himself. Israel was one, and The Kingdom of God is another, but the Kingdom of God is identified as a Kingdom invisible to the unregenerate man. At present, apart from the Church, there are no Theocracies on earth.

All other attempts at ‘theocracy’ are in fact pseudo-theocracies or Sacralist states. In the Christian version, an attempt is made to create a visible cultural and political establishment of the Kingdom, but this is a perversion of the true Kingdom of God, and theologically and historically very dangerous.

Anyways, here are some good quotes from Mohler’s Sacralist Commentaries, responding to Mohler’s lament over England’s decision to designate old church buildings as non-religious secular buildings for use by the community.

Mohler is a thoroughgoing sacralist. While he proclaims to be committed to Biblical Christianity, he actually has more in common with Medieval Catholicism...

Mohler assumes these buildings [old churches in England] were valid expressions of Christian faith and celebrates the sacral symbolism of the steeple, the Tower of Babel-like proclamation that every society makes in its architecture. He doesn’t view it that way of course but celebrates the symbolism of Christendom. Like most sacralists he simply assumes the validity of calling buildings ‘churches’ and then without hesitation accepts all the subsequent theology generated by this basic doctrinal error…On the one hand I lament the decay of these buildings and their history. On the other hand when I view it from a theologically objective viewpoint, as opposed to Mohler’s reactionary romanticism, I say ‘tear them down’. Remove the false witness so that the antithesis between the world and Biblical Christianity can be made more manifest…

As far as weddings go, Mohler once again displays his theological ignorance and shallowness as well as his sacralist assumptions. The whole idea of a ‘church wedding’ is also a holdover from medievalism and is thoroughly sacralist in orientation.

Waldensians and others were viewed as fornicators and their children as bastards because they refused to be wed in Roman Catholic buildings by the extra-scriptural sacramental arrangement created by Rome…

They were wed privately and among themselves, but this was not recognized by the sacral society in which they lived. Despite the erroneous claims of some, the Waldensians were almost exclusively paedobaptist but they like the later Anabaptists had a problem with baptism being tied to the sacral society. They had a problem with Christian identity being confused and conflated with citizenship, the very thing Mohler celebrates and even demands. But as a Baptist his theology on this point is rather muddled and exposes the shortcomings of his own system rather than provide any clarity for his audience. At the core of sacralist thought is the idea that at least outwardly society represents a monistic structure, everyone is (in some sense) a participant in the civil-religious fusion. Pluralism, the teaching and demand of the New Testament is the great enemy. The composite society in which we live as strangers, pilgrims, exiles and aliens is the status sacralism seeks to eliminate. Interestingly when doing so, many of the ethical foundations of New Testament are eliminated.

Sacralism’s consequence is a new foundation for ethics and a host of newly formed necessary consequences and imperatives result. It can look like Christianity but results in something very different. Mohler’s ethics applied to the world all too often bear this out. The values of the world and the Kingdom become muddied and distorted. War, greed and pride are recast. Serving the greater good they can become tools and fruits of virtue…

Once again, even if we assume his position, why should we expect nonbelievers to view the wedding ceremony in the same way Christians should? It is always baffling to me that sacralists seem to find some kind of great satisfaction in forcing infidels to hypocritically ‘go through the motions’ and be forced to participate in some kind of made up social ritual or exercise in civil religion.

Despite Mohler’s claims, it’s not Biblical. There’s nothing in the New Testament that tells us to compel the pagan through the threat of law. There’s nothing that suggests that we take over society and impose Christian (and hence spiritual) realities on people who cannot apprehend let alone comprehend them.

And there’s nothing in the New Testament to suggest that the wedding is some kind of quasi-worship service. The modern ‘Church Wedding’ is the child of medieval Roman sacralism, a philosophical consequent of sacral theology. It is not derived from New Testament exegesis and its retention by Protestants claiming Sola Scriptura is in fact a denial of the principle. Mohler undercuts his own ability to argue against other Catholic innovations. By embracing the building and the wedding ceremony he’s already admitted the Scripture alone is not his source of doctrinal and ecclesiological authority…

The confusion grows because to many the marriage is legitimated by the state issued license. This has led not a few to balk at the state sanction and for some to reject it altogether. If, the certificate was specifically ‘sacral’ as it was in the Middle Ages or more recently in Rick Santorum’s dream state of Spain under Franco, then we too would have to reject the certificate, and be married ‘underground’ as it were. Again, this is what many a Biblically minded non-conformist opted for during the totalitarian regimes of Roman and in some cases Protestant Christendom.

But contrary to Mohler we can be thankful that we live in a secular society. Marriage in terms of the civil order has no religious meaning. Therefore I can go and get the certificate… it wouldn’t matter if it was done on the exact same day as the wedding vows and consecration…. for simple legal purposes. The state issued certificate has nothing to do with sanctioning the marriage in terms of Christian doctrine or ethics. It’s simply a legal formality and social convenience. It’s not a holy stamp of approval from a sacral society nor does Babylon’s necessarily wrong interpretation of marriage have any bearing on my understanding as a Christian.

We register with Rome/Babylon because it makes life easier in terms of taxes, medical decisions, inheritance and so forth. If Rome gets out of the ‘marriage’ business altogether and allows us to legally establish our tax, medical and inheritance connections through other means and under a different nomenclature, then so be it. It might even aid in lessening the confusion.

To suggest that marriage will be understood in Christian terms by unbelievers is to reject the testimony of the Holy Spirit. It is to assume the unregenerate can take hold of the holy and understand Union with Christ. This is folly as is the whole of Mohler’s thought and commentary.

There is much to criticise about modern wedding culture and its obscenities. Failing to get married in a ‘Church Building’ is insignificant. Actually it is Mohler’s position that is far more disturbing and exposes the distorted thinking at work in the Sacralist worldview and its theological and social hermeneutics.

 

2 Comments

Rutherford on Romans 13 and the Logic of Resistance

I’m reading through Lex Rex and plan to interact with it fully when I’m done. One of the best strengths of the book is the rigorous logic by which he refutes the “royalists” (those who affirm the divine right of kings to absolute power). By the same rigorous logic his own position also falls, as I’ll demonstrate in the future. Rutherford, representing the Scottish reformed view, is important for people to understand as a stepping stone. Most people have this limbo view where they deny any absolute divine right to rulers, but they simultaneously deny any right to resistance. Rutherford shows you have to pick one or the other.

Summarizing:

  • Resistance to God-ordained authority is opposition to God.
  • God does not ordain anyone to tyranny.
  • Therefore resistance to tyranny is not opposition to God.

2. All power is God’s, (1 Chron. xxix. 11; Matt. vi. 13; Psal. lxii. 11; lxviii. 35; Dan. ii. 37,) and that absolute power to tyrannise, is not from God. 1. Because, if this moral power to sin be from God, it being formally wickedness, God must be the author of sin. 2. Whatever moral power is from God, the exercises of that power, and the acts thereof, must be from God, and so these acts must be morally good and just; for if the moral power be of God, as the author, so must the acts be. Now, the acts of a tyrannical power are acts of sinful injustice and oppression, and cannot be from God…

It is no power which is not lawful power. The royalists say, power of tyranny, in so far as it may be resisted, and is punishable by men, is not from God. But what is the other part of the distinction? It must be, that tyrannical power is simpliciter from God, or in itself it is from God; but as it is punishable or restrainable by subjects, it is not from God…

When the magistrate doth anything by violence, and without law, in so far doing against his office, he is not a magistrate. Then, say I, that power by which he doth, is not of God. None doth, then, resist the ordinance of God who resist the king in tyrannous acts. If the power, as it cannot be punished by the subject nor restrained, be from God, therefore the tyrannical power itself, and without this accident — that it can be punished by men — it must be from God also. But the conclusion is absurd, and denied by royalists. I prove the connection: If the king have such a power above all restraint, the power itself, to wit, king David’s power to kill innocent Uriah, and deflower Bathsheba, without the accident of being restrained or punished by men, it is either from God or not from God. If it be from God, it must be a power against the sixth and seventh commandments, which God gave to David, and not to any subject; and so David lied when he confessed this sin, and this sin cannot be pardoned because it was no sin: and kings, because kings, are under no tie of duties of mercy, and truth, and justice to their subjects, contrary to that which God’s law requireth of all judges (Deut. i. 15-17; xvii. 15-20; 2 Chron. xix. 6, 7; Rom. xiii. 3, 4): if this power be from God, as it is unrestrainable and unpunishable by the subject, it is not from God at all; for how can God give a power to do ill, that is unpunishable by men, and not give that power to do ill? It is inconceivable; for in this very thing that God giveth to David — a power to murder the innocent — with this respect, that it shall be punishable by God only, and not by men, God must give it as a sinful power to do ill, which must be a power of dispensation, to sin, and so not to be punished by either God or man, which is contrary to his revealed will in his word.

If such a power as not restrainable by man be from God by way of permission, as a power to sin in devils and men is, then it is no royal power, nor any ordinance of God; and to resist this power, is not to resist the ordinance of God.

Lex Rex, Question 22

One Comment

There is no “Christian Culture,” though Christianity can Affect Culture

It’s important not to confuse the effects that Christian ethics may have on a society with either an expansion of the kingdom of heaven or widespread believe in the gospel itself.

Christianity, being a philosophical system which, among other things, has a theory of ethics, can affect culture in such a way that the moral habits of individuals in society reflect the same principles that are discovered in the Bible. Western Civilization has been very clearly impacted by the Christian religion and this can be recognized in almost all eras since Constantine.

But as our present and loathsome western culture shakes off the last remains of centuries of Old World customs and social norms, it is important to not see this as per se a shaking off of the gospel or a rejection of the true church. Of course, these things are constantly rejected and mocked. But they have been rejected and mocked since Constantine. There have been eras of reformation. Both in Calvin’s time and later in England with the opposition to the state church. And even later with the efforts of Old Princeton and then with Machen and the battle against Progressivism.

But in general historically, an actual gospel-believing and church-embracing group of people within society is a rare event.

The dismissal of the cultural effects of Christian ethics in our time does not mean that true Christianity is just now being opposed. Christianity was rejected in our era long before the cultural remains of its impact were led to the slaughter.

The cultural effects of Christianity can exist- and have existed in the United States– without there actually being a majority of Christians, defined as one who adheres to the gospel and is therefore saved.

As Brandon Adams wrote a couple years ago: “The myth of a Christian nation was the residue of sacralism that is only now being washed off 17 centuries after Constantine hijacked Christianity.”

Just because a nation of people culturally appreciate religious traditions and adhere to social norms and habits that have resulted from a heavy Christian presence, does not mean that the nation is “Christian.” A Christian can only be an individual.

And believe me, I’m a huge fan of Old World customs and social habits. As well, I believe Christianity had something to do with these mannerisms in the Western World. I constantly criticize the state, media, education, and entertainment avenues of cultural destruction. I long for the days of the Old Culture and freedom from leftist claptrap in all its forms.

But the gospel is a set of propositions relating to the work of Christ and the church is the collection of God’s elect. Christianity as a worldview can be related to and have an affect on, but not to be confused with, the culture around us.

2 Comments

Blood Feud and State Control: Differing Legal Institutions for the Remedy of Homicide During the Second and First Millennia B.C.E.

Scripture does not teach that the use of the sword to justly administer vengeance is reserved for “rulers.” Rome claimed it was (John 18:31)

Some notable excerpts from Blood Feud and State Control: Differing Legal Institutions for the Remedy of Homicide During the Second and First Millennia B.C.E.

Since the discovery of the Laws of Hammurapi in December 1901–January 1902 the dependence of biblical law upon Mesopotamian law has been hotly debated. Among the most contentious issues is the adjudication of homicide, and the discussion has focused on particular odd cases in biblical law, such as an ox that gored or assault on a preg-nant woman, that appear to have been borrowed from Mesopotamian law.

The more common occurrences of fatal assault and the procedures to remedy them, however, have been largely ignored. What institutions insured that homicide was punished in biblical law,and what relationship did they have to Mesopotamian legal process? I will argue that the institutions that insured that a homicide would be investigated and remedied in biblical law were vastly different from those in Mesopotamian law and that the difference originates in disparate conceptions of the organization of society. Mesopotamian texts reflect the extensive involvement of the state in the process of remedying homicide. The members of the victim’s family participated in the process insofar as they had the right to make a claim on the slayer, but there does not seem to be any apprehension generated by the possibility of a blood avenger waiting to strike down the killer. By contrast, blood feud operated in biblical law, and places of sanctuary were needed to protect the killer…

According to the Hebrew Bible, the victim’s family bore primary responsibility for initiating the remedy of a homicide.6 The “blood avenger,” μdh lag, a close male relative of the victim,7 had the right to effect a remedy by killing the slayer on sight. There were no specialized or official personnel charged by a central government with the duty to investigate offenses or to arrest and prosecute a suspect.8

[8 Even in the case when a victim’s family could not come forward because the victim could not be identified (and presumably his family had not come searching for him), a local body representing the local community, the elders of a town, not a state mechanism, came forward on an ad hoc basis to address the problem (Deut. 21:1–9).]

…Blood feud came into play in biblical law because the victim’s family had the primary responsibility to respond to the slaying of one of its members. By contrast, the members of the victim’s family did not have to assume that responsibility in Mesopotamian law. They had the right to make a claim on the slayer, but the slayer was not in mortal danger from a blood avenger waiting to strike him down.10 In some cases, the victim’s family might play a role in determining the penalty, but it must be emphasized that the members of the victim’s family were not otherwise involved in the remedy…

[In Mesopotamia] The role of the claimant from the victim’s family here is to decide on the penalty. In general, it appears, families had the right to either execution or compensation; the legal institutions of a particular society were required to preserve the rights of the family to choose. This is to be distinguished from the role of the avenger in feud, where the avenger has the right and responsibility to take the initiative and kill the murderer on sight…

[T]he role of the monarchy and central government is different in Mesopotamian texts and the Bible. In the Hebrew Bible, their role is limited. Exodus 21, Leviticus 24, Numbers 35, and Deuteronomy 19 and 21 do not portray any involvement by the monarchy. The only reference to a central government is found in Deut. 17:8–10, where a local court could appeal to the levitical priests and the judge at the central sanc- tuary for clarification of the law in a difficult case: the facts of the case were then re- manded to a lower court. As to the role of the king himself, only the narrative of 2 Sam. 14:1–17 indicates that the king could overturn the law… In contrast, the crown and central authority played a major role in the rest of the ancient Near East. Once the legal process had been launched by a private individual, a central authority or monarchy assumed oversight of the situation…

The organization of society had a profound effect upon the concept of justice and the process of law in the Bible, and the treatment of homicide in biblical Israel was directly linked to the social structure of biblical Israel. Although the most influential culture of the ancient Near East, Mesopotamia, left its mark on almost every chapter of the Bible, the Mesopotamian adjudication of homicide differed radically from that in biblical Israel be-cause of the profound differences in social organization between the two cultures. In Israel, kinship ties were strong, and the family acted as a mutual aid society, whereas in a heavily urban and centralized Mesopotamia, a bureaucracy had control. This is striking because biblical law was based upon Mesopotamian law and yet at the same time differed so greatly. The institutions that assured that a homicide would be investigated and remedied in biblical law were vastly different from those in Mesopotamian law. The difference originates in disparate conceptions of the organization of society. Blood feud operated in biblical law: a relative of the victim had the right to kill the slayer on sight with impunity, and the process by which homicide was adjudicated enabled the family to exercise its role while providing safeguards for the slayer. By contrast, in Mesopotamia, state institutions insured that homicide would be remedied. The victim’s family had the legal right to make a claim upon the killer, but the fear that a blood avenger was about to strike down the killer is simply not manifest in Mesopotamian law.

Leave a Comment

The Truth About Aleppo

The War Propaganda Machine is busy right now with the Aleppo situation. It’s very sad, of course, to hear about some of the events going on there. But the truth of the matter is that the US and its allies are using “babies and children” as a deflection against the reality of the situation. The US government’s interest in the matter is in destabilizing the region and toppling the Assad regime by funding and supporting the very extremist and radical “rebels” that it elsewhere claims as its enemy. Thus, Assad, seeking the help of its Russian allies is responding, perhaps not perfectly, to the scenario that was initiated and fueled by American interventionism.

But as usual, the US government and the NATO allies are posturing the entire mission as a humanitarian effort to save Aleppo from Big Bad Putin.

And most of the “facts” and video that you see on social media is pure “fake news,” propaganda.

Read this excellent piece by David Stockman for a quick– albeit punchy– overview. 

 Here is a great overview of what is going on:

Leave a Comment

Murray Rothbard’s Review of Star Wars

Murray Rothbard was in his Movie Reviews phase in the 1970s when the Star Wars movies came out. As with his other movie reviews, he wrote this under the name “Mr. First Nighter.” You can find many more of his movie reviews in The Irrepressible Rothbard. This particular review was first published in The Libertarian Forum vol. X no. 6, June 1977.

I’m posting this because it’s fun to get his reaction from over 35 years ago to the first Star Wars movie, in light of the recent Star Wars releases.

___________________________

First came the hype. That Star Wars is going to be the biggest popular film success since Jaws means very little. So every season is going to have its oversold smash hit, so what? But the difference, the new hype, with Star Wars was its overwhelming acclaim among the critics. Usually the masses whoop it up for a Jaws while the critics go ape over Bertolucii or Fassbinder. Yet here they were in joint huzzahs, with the critic from Time flipping his wig to such an extent as to call it the best movie of the year and making Star Wars the feature of that week’s issue.

But the oddest, the most peculiar part of it was what my fellow-critics were saying: “Hurrah, a fun movie-movie”; “good escape entertainment”; “a return to good guys vs. a happy ending again”; “movie fare for the entire family”; “like Flash Gordon” etc. Here were men and women who have spent the greater, part of their lives deriding these very virtues, attacking them as mindless, moralistic, unaesthetic, fodder for the Tired Businessman instead of the Sensitive Intellectual. And yet here were these same acidulous critics praising these mindless, reactionary verities. What in blazes was going on? Had all colleagues experienced a blinding miraculous conversion to Old Culture truths? While I do not deny the logical possibility of such a mass, instantaneous conversion from error, my experience of this wicked world has convinced me that it is empirically highly unlikely. So what gives?

The best thing about seeing Star Wars is that my curiosity was satisfied. The mystery explained! For it was indeed true that Star Wars returns to the good guy-bad guy, happy ending, and all the rest. But there is an important catch, and it is that catch that enables our critical intelligentsia to praise the movie and yet suffer no breach in their irrational and amoral critical perspective. The catch is embodied in the reference to Flash Gordon: namely, that this is such a silly, cartoony, comic-strip “movie that no one can possibly take it seriously, even within its own context. No one, that is, over the age of 8. Hence, in contrast to Death Wish or Dirty Harry, where the viewer is necessarily caught up in the picture and must take the viewer is seriously, Star Wars is such kiddie hokum that the adult critics can let their hair down and enjoy it without having their aesthetic values threatened.

To put it another way, our critics, who are bitterly opposed to a moralistic and exciting plot, are scarcely challenged by the plot of “Star Wars, which is so designedly imbecilic that the intelligentsia can relax, forget about the plot and enjoy the special effects, which the avant-garde always approves.

Even on the kiddie level, Star Wars doesn’t really work. It is peculiarly off-base. The hero, for example, is so young, wooden and callow that he doesn’t really come off as an authentic comic-strip hero. As a result, his older mercenary aide becomes a kind of co-hero, which throws off the balance of the story. The hero presumably doesn’t get the Fairy Princess in the end, either, although far worse is the casting of the Princess. For, Carrie Fisher is ugly and abrasive, and if one could care very much about the hero one would hope that nothing came of their proto-romance: Miss Fisher is the quintessence of the Anti-Princess, and this ruins whatever may have remained of interest of value in Star Wars. There are more problems; not only does wise Alec Guinness lose his mighty duel with his evil ex-disciple, but the whole duel is pointless and leads nowhere, even within the context of the plot.

“Not only is this oversold turkey not the best movie of the year, it is not very good even within the sci-fi movie genre. Some of the critics have proclaimed Star Wars as even better than “2001”, but that would be no great feat, since there have been few movies of any genre that have been worse than that pretentious, mystical, boring, plotless piece of claptrap. But Star Wars doesn’t begin to compare with the science fiction greats of the past, e.g.: “The Thing”—the first post World War it sci-fi movie; “It Came from Outer Space”; “The Night of the Living Dead”, and, best of all, the incomparable “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”; None of these movies needed the razzle-dazzle of “special effects”; they did it on plot, theme, and characters. Back to them!

Leave a Comment

Ralph Raico Has Passed

Ralph Raico was a Rothbardian original, one of the very best historians in the libertarian movement. The books mentioned, along with his “Rethinking Churchill” essay, have been incredible resources for me. Raico was one of those paleo members of the libertarian movement who never bought into the rising libertine influence on the libertarian movement. He was always fond of traditional values, social institutions, and despised PC culture in academia. It was also Raico who provided the translation for Mises’ classic work on Classical Liberalism. He was a great hero of the revival of libertarianism and a good friend to the Mises Institute from its inception.

David Gordon writes:

ralph-raico-2005I am sorry to have to report that Ralph Raico has passed away. His intellectual brilliance was evident from an early age, and while still in high school, he attended Ludwig von Mises’s seminar at New York University. There he met Murray Rothbard, who became his lifelong friend. Ralph was one of the most brilliant members of Rothbard’s Circle Bastiat. He received a PhD from the University of Chicago, working under Friedrich Hayek. Ralph became the leading historian of classical liberalism and also a renowned authority on revisionist history.  His books Classical Liberalism and the Austrian School and Great Wars and Great Leaders show penetrating analytical skills, immense learning, and devotion to liberty. He lectured at the Mises University and other conferences of the Mises Institute for many years.

Ralph was one of my closest friends for over thirty-five years, and I wish I could convey to those who didn’t know him his intellectual sharpness, wit, and kindness.  Here are a few samples of his comments, taken from emails to me: “Incidentally, in case you were stumped, that ‘nicht wahr?’ in my last email means ‘’not true?’ or, colloquially ‘right?’” “I spent New Year’s Eve finishing off a bottle of cheap Spanish champagne. My resolution is next year to make it a bottle of cheap French champagne. I hope that 2015 will be good to you.”  He loved jokes, e.g., “What’s a sight you never see? Answer: a lawyer with his hands in his own pockets.”

Ralph was a great man, and I was very fortunate to have been his friend.

Here is an interesting account of how Raico met Mises.

Leave a Comment

The Enemy is Always the State…

…and the state’s enemy is a well-grounded and life-sustaining common culture.

Notes Towards the Definition of Capitalist Culture, By Terry Hulsey

I was asked by a long-time online friend to comment on this post by Hulsey.  A worthwhile read – every time I went through it I found another gem.  I hope I do it a bit of justice with this review.

For those who want a very brief comment: I agree.  For the rest you will only have to suffer through a few hundred words.

Let’s get right to the punch line:

The humane activity formerly designated as “culture” has been emasculated with the advent of the modern state.

I would modify slightly: the advent of the modern state has only, could only, and as sure as night follows day will certainly become reality with the emasculation of a common, generally accepted culture.  For this we can thank cultural Marxists (I prefer cultural Gramsci-ists); libertine libertarians carry this water for the state as well.

What will the capitalist culture be like in general? …Common law and traditional usage will supplant the poison of revolutionary positive law.

Consider what this means: inherently “common law and traditional usage” suggests the thing known as “conservative” culture – whatever happens to be “conservative” in a certain locale.  This is a necessary (but I would argue insufficient) requirement to achieve a society without a state.

What do I mean by “conservative”?  A culture tomorrow that is not noticeably different than the culture today; “common law and traditional usage.”  This “conservative” approach minimizes the possibility of increasing conflict drive by radical change in the culture.  Need examples be offered?  I hope not.

This does not preclude evolution – it only precludes radical change by fiat and force; in other words, no room for positive rights; no room for culture-destroying advocacy or actions.  Call this non-libertarian if you like, yet you will never move toward a libertarian society without this requirement.

This is a “necessary” requirement, but not “sufficient.”  A common culture minimizes the possibility for conflict, but not every “culture” is sufficient to sustain life – therefore, inherently, not every culture has a future.  Given that a society without a future will eventually devolve into violence, not every culture is conducive to minimizing potential conflict; such cultures will always demand a state to provide security.  Always.

Those values are already widely and voluntarily shared among libertarians and radical capitalists.

What values do libertarians and radical capitalists share?

Needless to say, this vision of capitalist society rests on a capitalist culture – a set of shared values that are total yet voluntarily held. I say “total” without reservation, for a capitalist culture cannot succeed where any permanent member is not committed to the absolute fundamental values of the rights and sanctity of the individual, and absolutely convinced of the threat of the state to those values.

Total.  Consider clearly what this means: no one to lobby regarding favors – no business subsidies, no anti-discrimination laws.  It is my property and you have no claim to it and you have no claim as to who I allow on it.  I don’t want to bake your wedding cake – in fact I don’t even want to see you on my property!

This is again necessary, but insufficient.  Consider:

The self-educated individual – confident in his gender, his heritage, his religion, and the traditional culture that he seeks to project into the future – stands as a threat to the very existence of the state: He does not need its ministrations.

How is his “gender,” “heritage,” “religion” identified?  How was it identified yesterday?  The answer to this question will guide how the culture will be identified today.

Conclusion

Where then to begin the creation of capitalist culture?  The destruction of the moral pretenses of the state is the irreducible first step toward the realization of a capitalist culture….

Of this there is no doubt.  I will suggest that the defense of the traditional culture – and a culture designed to sustain life – is equally vital.

Leave a Comment

Is Reformed Libertarianism Different than Regular Libertarianism?

Taken from the Reformed Libertarian FAQs

The definition of libertarianism is the legal theory (which has political ramifications) which holds that no man may initiate aggression, or threat to initiate aggression, against the property of another human being, lest he engage in criminal behavior. That is to say, under the libertarian legal theory, a criminal is defined as one who breaches the above described “Non-Aggression Principle.” The logically deduced implications of this principle includes actions such as theft, murder, rape, fraud, breach of contract, trespassing, battery, kidnapping, and so on. For the libertarian, that which is illegal is determined in terms of private property ownership and therefore not all things that may be categorized as immoral, unethical, sinful, and so on are necessarily criminal.

The Reformed libertarian agrees with all of this and thus in this way, we don’t differentiate “our type” of libertarianism from a “regular one” when it comes to the meaning of libertarianism. We are purist, Rothbardian-Hoppean libertarians.

What we are trying to communicate, however, with our phrase, is that when we look at the foundation or justification of the above meaning of libertarianism, we source it within the context of a Christian worldview, the epistemology and moral theory of which is distinct from other potential foundations for libertarianism.

For instance, there are utilitarian libertarians (Mises), Natural Law libertarians (Rothbard), Kantian libertarians (Hoppe). There are others as well.  But what libertarians have in common is not their worldview, not their justification of knowledge, and not their personal lifestyle preferences.  Rather, they have in common their agreement with the first paragraph above. Libertarianism is a set of propositions. Anyone who assents to those propositions is a libertarian. Libertarianism is “thin,” which means that it is a set of statements about the use of force in society, but the doctrine itself is distinct from the defense of that doctrine. Rothbard and Hoppe are not two types of libertarians, and neither are we a distinct type. The “Reformed” in Reformed Libertarian is not a qualification of the libertarian part. What we propose is that libertarianism, since it is a political theory based on ethical positions, can be best defended from a Christian philosophical system, since Christianity best justifies ethics.

More generally, what we are communicating with the label “Reformed Libertarian,” is A) that each editing contributor to this site is Reformed; B) we are interested in investigating relationships in theory and history between the libertarian world and the Reformed world; and C) that, yes, Reformed Christians can and should be libertarian! It is a resource for those Reformed Christians who want to convince their Reformed friends that libertarianism is a wonderful system of political thought!

Leave a Comment

The Court Economists: Justification for Power

Mises:

The great economists were harbingers of new ideas. The economic policies they recommended were at variance with the policies practiced by contemporary governments and political parties. As a rule many years, even decades, passed before public opinion accepted the new ideas as propagated by the economists, and before the required corresponding changes in policies were effected.

It was different with the “new economics” of Lord Keynes. The policies he advocated were precisely those which almost all governments, including the British, had already adopted many years before his “General Theory” was published. Keynes was not an innovator and champion of new methods of managing economic affairs. His contribution consisted rather in providing an apparent justification for the policies which were popular with those in power in spite of the fact that all economists viewed them as disastrous. His achievement was a rationalization of the policies already practiced. He was not a “revolutionary,” as some of his adepts called him. The “Keynesian revolution” took place long before Keynes approved of it and fabricated a pseudo-scientific justification for it. What he really did was to write an apology for the prevailing policies of governments.

This explains the quick success of his book. It was greeted enthusiastically by the governments and the ruling political parties. Especially enraptured were a new type of intellectual, the “government economists.” They had had a bad conscience. They were aware of the fact that they were carrying out policies which all economists condemned as contrary to purpose and disastrous. Now they felt relieved. The “new economics” reestablished their moral equilibrium. Today they are no longer ashamed of being the handymen of bad policies. They glorify themselves. They are the prophets of the new creed.

Leave a Comment

How Reagan Set the Liberty Movement Back a Decade

Many libertarians miss the fact that one of the most damaging aspects of Ronald Reagan wasn’t just his growth of the US Federal Government; it was also because he triggered a strictly political movement which damaged the appearance of a need for a true libertarian movement. When things are particularly bad, when the state’s presence is obviously unbearable, people begin to look at liberty and away from government as the solution to their woes. Reagan, though, brought back faith in Washington– and in doing so, he set the entire liberty movement back until Ron Paul was able to make mainstream again in 2007. 

Rothbard, as usual, is particularly observant:

___________________________________

Setting the Stage: The Anti-Government Rebellion of the 1970s

I am convinced that the historic function of Ronald Reagan was to co-opt, eviscerate and ultimately destroy the substantial wave of anti-governmental, and quasi-libertarian, sentiment that erupted in the U.S. during the 1970s. Did he perform this task consciously?Surely too difficult a feat for a man barely compos. No, Reagan was wheeled into performing this task by his Establishment handlers.

The task of co-optation needed to be done because the 1970s, particularly 1973–75, were marked by an unusual and striking conjunction of crisis – crises that fed on each other to lead to a sudden and cumulative disillusionment with the federal government. It was this symbiosis of anti-government reaction that led me to develop my “case for libertarian optimism” during the mid-1970’s, in the expectation of a rapid escalation of libertarianinfluence in America.

1973–74 saw the abject failure of the Nixon wage-price control program, and the development of something Keynesians assumed could never happen: the combination of double-digit inflation and a severe recession. High unemployment and high inflation happened again, even more intensely, during the greater recession of 1979–82. Since Keynesianism rests on the idea that government should pump in spending during recessions and take out spending during inflationary booms, what happens when both occur at the same time? As Rand would say: Blankout! There is no answer. And so, there was disillusionment in the government’s handling of the macro-economy, deepening during the accelerating inflation of the 1970s and the beginnings of recession in 1979.

At the same time, people began to be fed up, increasingly and vocally, with high taxes: income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, you name it. Especially in the West, an organized tax rebel movement developed, with its own periodicals and organizations However misguided strategically, the spread of the tax rebellion signaled a growing disillusion with big government. I was privileged to be living in California during the election year of 1978, whenProposition 13 was passed. It was a genuinely inspiring sight. In the face of hysterical opposition and smears from the entire California Establishment Democratic and Republican, Big Business and labor, academia, economists, and all of the press the groundswell for Prop 13 burgeoned. Everyone was against it but the people. If the eventual triumph of Ronald Reagan is the best case against “libertarian populism,” Prop. 13 was the best case in its favor.

Also exhilarating was the smashing defeat of US imperialism in Vietnamin 1975 – exhilarating because this first loss of a war by the United States, many of us believed, was bound to get Americans to rethink the disastrous warmongering bipartisan foreign policy that had plagued us since the unlamented days of Woodrow Wilson.

On the civil liberties front, the de facto legalization of marijuana was a sign that the nonsense of drug prohibition would soon be swept away. (Ye gods! Was that only a decade ago?) Inflationary recession; high taxes; prohibition laws; defeat in foreign war; across the board, the conditions seemed admirable for a growing and triumphant libertarianism.

And to top it off, the Watergate crisis (my particular favorite) destroyed the trust of the American masses in the Presidency. For the first time in over a hundred years, the concept of impeachment of the President became, first thinkable, and then a living and glorious process. For a while, I feared that Jimmy Carter, with his lovable cardigan sweater, would restore Americans’ faith in their president, but soon that fear proved groundless.

Surely, it is no accident that it was precisely in this glorious and sudden anti-government surge that libertarian ideas and libertarian scholarship began to spread rapidly in the United States. And it was in 1971 that the tiny Libertarian Party emerged, in 1972 that its first,embryonic presidential candidacy was launched, and 1973 when its first important race was run, for mayor of New York City. The Libertarian Party continued to grow rapidly, almost exponentially, during the 1970s, reaching a climax with the Clark campaign for governor of California during the Prop 13 year of 1978, and with the Clark campaign for the Presidency in 1980. The morning my first article on libertarianism appeared in the New York Times in 1971, a very bright editor at Macmillan, Tom Mandel, called me and asked me to write a book on the subject (it was to become For a New Liberty). Not a libertarian himself, Mandel told me that he believed that libertarianism would become a very important ideology in a few years – and he turned out to be right.

So libertarianism was on a roll in the 1970s. And then Something Happened.

What happened was Ronald Wilson Blithering Reagan.

The Reagan candidacy of 1980 was brilliantly designed to weld a coalition providing the public’s instinctive anti-government mood with sweeping, but wholly nonspecific, libertarian rhetoric, as a convenient cover for the diametrically opposite policies designed to satisfy the savvy and politically effective members of that coalition: the neocons, the Buckleyite cons, the Moral Majority, the Rockefellers, the military-industrial complex, and the various Establishment special interests always clustering at the political trough.

But we must not under weigh the importance of the traitorous roleperformed by quasi-libertarian intellectuals and free-market economistsduring the Reagan years. While their institutions were small and relatively weak, the power and consistency of libertarian thought had managed to bring them considerable prestige and political influence by 1980 – especially since they offered an attractive and consistent alternative to a statist system that was breaking down on all fronts.

But talk about your Knaves! In the history of ideological movements, there have always been people willing to sell their souls and their principles. But never in history have so many sold out for so pitifully little. Hordes of libertarian and free-market intellectuals and activists rushed to Washington to whore after lousy little jobs, crummy little grants, and sporadic little conferences. It is bad enough to sell out; it is far worse to be a two-bit whore. And worst of all in this sickening spectacle were those who went into the tank without so much as a clear offer: betraying the values and principles of a lifetime in order to position themselves in hopes of being propositioned. And so they wriggled around the seats of power in Washington. The intellectual corruption spread rapidly, in proportion to the height and length of jobs in the Reagan Administration. Lifelong opponents of budget deficits remarkably began to weave sophisticated and absurd apologias, now that the great Reagan was piling them up, claiming, very much like the hated left-wing Keynesians of yore, that “deficits don’t matter.”

Shorn of intellectual support, the half-formed libertarian instincts of the American masses remained content with Reaganite rhetoric, and the actual diametrically opposite policies got lost in the shuffle.

_____________________

Rothbard continues to fault Reagan for accomplishing the growth of the Federal Government– on economic policy, foreign policy, and other issues relating to private property– while at the same time appearing to give credence to limited government rhetoric. In this way, it was simply assumed throughout the 90s that the Reagan revolution was one of capitalism, constitutionalism, and freedom. 

Unfortunately, the Reagan Revolution never was. As I discuss here, it was the Reagan administration who let in, for the first time, the neocons into positions of real power.

Leave a Comment

So-called “Wage Slavery” is Better than Unemployment

In the midst of all this hoopla over Trump’s Carrier deal, I was reminded of the economic ignorance exhibited by his supporters and critics alike. I don’t want to harp too much on this topic, so suffice it to say, while the Carrier deal was a victory for freedom, it has likewise fueled protectionist rhetoric, but not in the typical sense.

There are some who argue that it is better for American companies to stay in America, not so much out of nationalistic pride, but for the sake of protecting Chinese workers (or other similar labor forces) who presumably work at slave labor rates and under harsh conditions. Whether the working conditions and wages in Chinese factories fail to meet the standards and working conditions of those in America, it is a moot point. If sheer emotion and compassion for our fellow man — the Chinese — were the basis upon which we should build our arguments, then what would matter most is the overall increase in the quality of life for Chinese workers who are given employment by American companies who seek cheaper labor than what can be found in America.

Someone smarter than I once said that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. This much is certain when one takes into account the reduction of living quality for Chinese workers once their employment is terminated. What is thought to be good for them, is actually bad; and whether or not supporters of protectionism realize this, it will either reveal their harmful ignorance or  their false humility. The same argument being made for protecting the jobs of Americans could be used for the Chinese. Under China’s command economy, it is no wonder why the quality of life of its workers is already so low. Imagine if China actually allowed capitalism to flourish within its own borders. I imagine Chinese work ethic and Chinese ingenuity would far exceed that of many Americans, and businesses would still move their. Conjecture aside, the important matter is consistent free market practices which are ethically superior because it allows choice in the market whereas the government-controlled economies of America and China alike, do not.

The Carrier deal was good in only one respect — the net decrease in taxation. And though it was only granted for one company at this moment, we should celebrate any and all instances where it is revealed that taxation stifles business and true progress. Moreover, the only people who should really be celebrating this deal relative to their own convictions, is us libertarians. Why? Because we deplore taxation. The failure to retain the majority of jobs provided by Carrier should be reason enough to draw criticism from Trump’s supporters. Over 1,300 — that’s two-thirds — of Carrier’s jobs are still moving to Mexico; a place where the same arguments can be made for their workers who would no doubt benefit from American employment. Alas, Trump’s supporters, not unlike Clinton’s, still refuse to face the reality of their own indifference to real economic problems.

Image result for chinese factory

Leave a Comment

Mises: Actions are performed by individuals

Mises:

First we must realize that all actions are performed by individuals. A collective operates always through the intermediary of one or several individuals whose actions are related to the collective as the secondary source. It is the meaning which the acting individuals and all those who are touched by their action attribute to an action, that determines its character. It is the meaning that marks one action as the action of an individual and another action as the action of the state or of the municipality. The hangman, not the state, executes a criminal. It is the meaning of those concerned that discerns in the hangman’s action an action of the state. A group of armed men occupies a place. It is the meaning of those concerned which imputes this occupation not to the officers and soldiers on the spot, but to their nation. If we scrutinize the meaning of the various actions performed by individuals we must necessarily learn everything about the actions of collective wholes. For a social collective has no existence and reality outside of the individual members’ actions. The life of a collective is lived in the actions of the individuals constituting its body. There is no social collective conceivable which is not operative in the actions of some individuals. The reality of a social integer consists in its directing and releasing definite actions on the part of individuals. Thus the way to a cognition of collective wholes is through an analysis of the individuals’ actions.

We often gloss over the personal responsibility present in certain historical events by pretending that it was a certain group or nation or social institution at fault. Referring to these collectives or groups can sometimes be convenient, and there is no problem in using them as a reference point. But it must be remembered that it is indeed merely a reference point.

In saying that “the state has committed a moral grievance” or that “the US bombed another geographical location whose residents did us no wrong,” we must remember that there are individuals consciously and willfully acting in these ways; and they will of course be held morally responsible. Whether the individual is giving a certain order or command or the individual is receiving the command and performing the action, the fact remains that moral and economic responsibility rests on human actors.

Leave a Comment

The Division of Labor and the Beginnings of Western Civilization

I’ve recently taken it upon myself to go through Carroll Quigley’s epic “history of the world in our time,” Tragedy and Hope. tragedy_and_hope_by_carroll_quigleyFor those new to the libertarian scene, this book stands in a unique place as far as history books go. It tracks in very specific detail the rise of the Fabian socialists in Europe and how the inner circles of these groups integrated into positions of power in the Western world and had been (largely until Britain was destroyed in WWII) behind major power players in the early effort toward Anglo-American empire. This includes those close to the American banking cartel (the Fed), the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and so on.

More blogging on that to come.

In any event, I found and interesting tidbit much farther back in time: at the dawn of what can properly be called “Western Civilization” (700-970 ad). Essentially Western Civilization was born on what was left behind in the fall of Roman Empire. When the Roman Empire began its remarkable downfall, smaller geographical locations began to split apart and handle things separately. This sparked an era of capital accumulation (capital of course being the bedrock of a prosperous and modern economy) and investment of capital into higher means of production (to use a Bohm-Bawerkian idea).

But what caught my eye was something else that came along with the new idea of capital investment:

“…a change from… the centralized, state-centered political orientation of the Roman world to the decentralized, private-power feudal network of the medieval world. In the new system a small number of men, equipped and trained to fight, received dues and services from the overwhelming majority of men who were expected to till the soil.

For those who have studied theorists like Hans-Hermann Hoppe, this should sound familiar. In Hoppe’s recounting of the transition from the feudal order to monarchy in medieval Europe, there were those who might be considered “natural elites;” those who were especially judicious in their thinking and far more capable of acting as “free market” judges and law-interpreters. Eventually they began to ignore the rich tradition of naturally arising “judges” and instead began to force the people to pay for their services and thus taxes again were brought back to society.

But what is interesting is Quigley’s mentioning of the “dues and services” that were given to the fighters/protectors and sourced in the tillers of the soil (the workers). The lesson that I want to draw from this is simple: what made Western Civilization unique was the emphasis on the division of labor! It wasn’t equal, no, because equality qua equality is not what builds a productive society. The division of labor and the rise of specialization is really fundamental to the success of the west (see also de Soto’s book). In fact, Quigley highlights the inequality:

From this inequitable but effective defensive system emerged an inequitable distribution of political power and, in turn, an inequitable distribution of the social economic income. This, in time, resulted in an accumulation of capital, which, by giving rise to demand for luxury goods of remote origin, began to shift the whole economic emphasis of the society from its earlier organization in self-sufficient agrarian units (manors) to commercial interchange, economic specialization, and, by the thirteenth century, to an entirely new pattern of society with towns, a bourgeois class, spreading literacy, growing freedom of alternative social choices, and new, often disturbing, thoughts.”

Indeed! The inequality, far from being a systemic stain on the New Era, was in actuality part of the explanation of its stability. It was the “inequitable distribution of income” that allowed those who brought more value to the market to save and invest. Without this key component of savings and capital accumulation (much to the disapproval of the consumption-oriented Keynesians), there would be no Western Civilization. Thus, the emphasis in our time needs to be on private property and the glories of the division of labor and we must explicitly oppose any attempts to drive civilization toward egalitarian ends.

In complete rejection of Marxist and cultural egalitarian goals, it was the rise of the bourgeois, the high income earners, the beneficiaries of the proper entrepreneurial decisions, that were the foundation of Western Civilization. And this started not just in the industrial factory, but right at the very heart of society: the production of law and order. The division of labor allowed those who were good at something to be paid for doing that thing en masse and for many other consumers on the market rather than the agrarian-specific system wherein everyone produces only for their immediate needs. And just as interestingly, it took the collapse of the central (Roman) state to awaken the conditions necessary for a radically decentralized phenomenon to begin working.

Leave a Comment

Ignorance Begets Ignorance in Journalism

“I’m going to be honest with you, I’m not a reader. I don’t like to read long books. I like to read news. So I couldn’t tell you that there was a book that I read that changed my life. More so, I love to read news and I love to read commentary and I love to watch TV. I love to watch news. I’m a watcher and I’m a writer. A reader in the sense that I like to read news but I have a very short attention span, so sitting down with a book is very difficult for me.” — Tomi Lahren.[1]

The one thing… the only thing I like about Tomi Lahren is that, unlike the vast majority of people who hold to such boisterous opinions on politics and economics, at least she openly admits to her own ignorance and lack of study. She brazenly stated that she doesn’t like to read and that she doesn’t make it a point to do so.

I find this to be a problem with most people; and sadly most people are able to cast votes for decisions that personally affect myself and others. And typically such decisions are built more so on emotion than on reason. Tomi is no less of a sensationalistic harlequin than Trevor Noah from The Daily Show, but at least she’s honest about her own lack of knowledge. However, both do their jobs because a large audience takes their nonsense seriously.

This is ignorance begetting ignorance… Tomi Lahren’s lack of sufficient knowledge is characteristic of the skill that is required for today’s journalism. No person, especially journalists, should read the news to become intellectually informed. You read news to be apprised of current events and to be exposed to another original opinion that is hopefully built on some sort of meaningful rationale. Tomi admits to having no original thoughts; no legitimate rationale for her commentary. She’s the poster child of modern journalism; the regurgitation of clamoring willful ignorance.

[1] http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/23/tomi-lahren-on-conservatism-her-support-for-trump-and-her-influences/

Leave a Comment

Libertarians Hate Tax Breaks

I never thought I’d see the day where libertarians would complain about tax breaks for a company, yet here we are. All of a sudden, tax breaks are subsidies and are a clear indication that cronyism took place, and thus should be rejected.

Bob Murphy sums it up perfectly in this tweet:

img_1514

And he’s right for calling out the absurdity of the libertarian outrage. Libertarians should be overjoyed at the thought of someone getting a tax break. I keep thinking back to the Ron Paul quip when asked what he thinks about half of the US population not paying taxes. His response? “Good. We’re halfway there.” Corporations shouldn’t be any different.

Is it lame that only one company is getting a tax break? Sure. But the response shouldn’t be to get angry at this corporation and at tax breaks, it should be fighting to get EVERY corporation this tax break. 1 down, many many more to go.

Tax breaks and loopholes are awesome! We need more! As Mises said: “Capitalism breathes through loopholes.” Here is Rothbard’s column “Long Live the Loophole.”

Thankfully, the Mises Institute exists to be the one voice of reason in this world where “libertarians” hate tax breaks.

Leave a Comment

The Flag-Burning Debacle

Donald J. Trump, that bastion of intellectually stimulating discourse, set Twitter aflame when he tweeted out that “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag- if they do, there must be consequences- perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail.”

The left suddenly pretended to care about the Constitution and appealed en masse to Supreme Court decisions protecting flag burning as free speech. Though hilariously, Hillary Clinton sponsored a 2005 bill to outlaw flag burning.

Here’s the thing though: Federal bans on American flag burning should not take place– not because it is free speech– but because flags are property owned by private property owners and the Federal Government has no authority over the use of private property. Rather than being a “free speech” issue, the more fundamental principle here is that it is a private property issue.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights, of which the 1st Amendment is a part, is not to declare 10 specific exceptions where the Federal Government cannot take action. No, the Constitution was written in such a way so as to prevent all actions except those that had been expressly delegated by the States and to the Federal Government. In this way, the Bill of Right was actually unnecessary because the Federal Government was never delegated power in those areas anyways. It was only added as a precaution against the Federalist tendencies to nationalize everything.

From a strict Constitutionalist perspective, the answer is simple: the Federal Government does not have delegated authority to make decisions regarding the proper use and treatment of flags. So-called Constitutionalists never make this argument, however, because doing so would reveal the unconstitutional nature of so much of the GOP’s actions since, well, its inception.

Now, the libertarian answer is obvious: the government acts contrary to its intention (prosecuting those who breach the property rights of others) when it is the one breaching the property rights of the owners of the flag. Easy peasy.

However, I do want to point out that there is no reason to jump to the other extreme and call those who burn flags heroic. It seems to me that such a juvenile and disruptive activity is intended merely to get attention and offend others. Look: people get offended at that kind of stuff. Why not challenge other people’s worldviews with reason and intellect? There is no need, in my opinion, to feel like we as libertarians are accomplishing something when we rejoice when a flag is burned.

We ought to live in a respectable and civilized manner. That’s how we win the future.

The deeper into libertarian theory, economic theory, and US history without all the State-sponsored propaganda one gets, the more disillusioned one become about all the symbols of American patriotism. If America itself is to be conflated with the Federal Government and its vast PR efforts, there is little reason to let one’s emotion get wrapped up in the flag.

There are some who say that the flag is nothing without the Federal Government and therefore is necessarily statist; there are others who view the flag as symbolic of a liberty-oriented ideal and therefore see the Federal Government as an enemy of that symbol.

There’s no libertarian position on that matter. Whatever your opinion I always recommend two courses of action: 1) don’t go out of your way to offend those who view things differently (though if offense is a byproduct of honesty and intellectual battle, so be it); and 2) don’t get so easily offended! Toughen up and defend your position.

As for me, I tend to prejudge that most flag-burners as silly leftist types and therefore roll my eyes; I also roll my eyes when someone gets offended at flag burning, as if it somehow harms them; and I also wish we didn’t have to get caught up in such ridiculous arguments.

As for Trump, of course his statement is absurd and anti-liberty. I also think nothing will come of it.

Leave a Comment

Liberty Classroom’s epic 50% off sale will soon go the way of the buffalo


I have some good news and bad news. The bad news is that there is only 8 hours left of you guys seeing me post about the goodness of Tom Woods’ Liberty Classroom. You are really going to miss my sales-type posts, aren’t you? Email me for tissues.screen-shot-2016-11-27-at-1-59-53-pm
 
Well here’s the good news: there’s still a chance for you to get 50% off one of the best intellectual resources in the liberty movement. You get access to all the courses on history, economics, political theory and more. You can also access the live sessions with Tom and other professors. And, if you get the Master membership, you get all Tom’s courses from the Ron Paul Homeschool Curriculum.
We are talking an entire course on Austrian economics, the history of political and economic thought, a thorough rebuttal of that devilish economic system called Keynesianism, history of the US, history of Western Civ, and more. Much more.
Your fears of not having the ammunition throughout 2017 with which you can take on your statist friends, is now over.
 
“No way!” Yes way. Would I lie about this?
 
You have to sign up through my affiliate link! All the cool kids are doing it. Here it is: www.reformedlibertarian.com/woods 
Leave a Comment

Go Sign Up for Liberty Classroom. Now. I Mean It.

I’ve done a lot of self-education since leaving college. I’ve read everything I can get my hands on in regards to history, economic theory, political theory, and so forth. The number 1 site for me was Mises.org.

But the second greatest resource was hands down Tom Woods’ Liberty Classroom. If you are a fan of this site and pay attention to me enough you understand the extent to which I hold Tom Woods in the highest regard. His Liberty Classroom has so much to offer. The very best professors and teachers in the liberty movement, Liberty Classroom has taken me to the next level. I mean it. From Austrian Economic Theory to History to Political Theory, you can do no wrong in joining the site!

You can watch the lectures, listen to them, download them for later, stream them in the car. They come with power points, recommended reading, resources, forums, live sessions with Tom and others. Seriously. Amazing.

People often ask how I’ve learned so much in the short period of time of being in the liberty movement. Liberty Classroom is one of the biggest parts of the answer. They are having a Black Friday sale. Which means it ends VERY SOON. Please, if you are interested, visit the site THROUGH MY AFFILIATE LINK!screen-shot-2016-11-25-at-2-54-19-pm

And you can always, always join Liberty Classroom through this link, even when the Black Friday sale is over.

Always remember: reformedlibertarian.com/woods

Leave a Comment