Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.
Virgil, Aeneid, VI, 95
“Do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it.” So Aeneas is admonished as he enters Dis with the Golden Bough. Ludwig Von Mises adopted this phrase as his motto. It frames the conversational spirit of the post: a warning of the perilous danger of Leviathan; its seductive assurances that it will provide, and its forceful coercion when resisted.
I have forced “free time” with the Covid-quarantine to watch how the so-called leaders are contending with the crisis. We are all living through a period of deprivation that appears to be withering into another Great Depression. And this despite the massive creation of cash from the aether.
The exogenous shock of Covid-19 is further polarizing the political conversation and laying bare the divide between the intellectual class (who can work from home) and the service industries, food processing, and factory workers, who cannot. This will further polarize the political conversation. (Shouting match among children?) But there are real questions:
________________
Lockdown Socialism Will Collapse
Posted on April 20, 2020 by Arnold Kling
I’ve seen headlines about polls showing that people are afraid of restrictions being lifted too soon. To me, it sounds as if they prefer what I call Lockdown Socialism.
Under Lockdown Socialism:
–you can stay in your residence, but paying rent or paying your mortgage is optional.
–you can obtain groceries and shop on line, but having a job is optional.
–other people work at farms, factories, and distribution services to make sure that you have food on the table, but you can sit at home waiting for a vaccine.
–people still work in nursing homes that have lost so many patients that they no longer have enough revenue to make payroll.
–professors and teachers are paid even though schools are shut down.
–police protect your property even though they are at risk for catching the virus and criminals are being set free.
–state and local governments will continue paying employees even though sales tax revenue has collapsed.
–if you own a small business, you don’t need revenue, because the government will keep sending checks.
–if you own shares in an airline, a bank, or other fragile corporations, don’t worry, the Treasury will work something out.
This might not be sustainable.
_________________
Much of what follows is a reminder that what is often lambasted as “traditional” or “conservative” values are pragmatically useful for the individual and therefore at the level of society. I argue that ultimately a libertarian position is the only viable one. I fully admit that I write from a position where I am safely cloistered at home among the elites who are only experiencing deprivation:
dep·ri·va·tion/ˌdeprəˈvāSH(ə)n/
- the damaging lack of material benefits considered to be basic necessities in a society.
- the lack or denial of something considered to be a necessity.
Fear is a pernicious thing. We train to limit fear to its proper roll – an emotional recognition that we are in danger and therefore need to take action.
The untrained are paralyzed by fear. The trained use it as a catalyst for proper action. Education and training is required to combat fear and lead to more rational outcomes. And I know it is unpopular in this entitled age, but that means a healthy dose of deprivation and self-reliance. Shocker, I know: traditional American values are required.
We have so much material shit and daily conveniences that shelter-in-place orders and figuring out how to make and use a bidet will be seen as a major inconvenience. My sincere hope is that we as a country learn how to deal with inconvenience and learn how to deal with less and learn that we really didn’t need it. Perhaps I am warped, jaded and too simple, but I when I read Shibumi (1979) many years ago several passages resonated. And this one seems very timely:
He thought of Americans as a decadent people whose idea of refinement is fluffy toilet paper.
Sounds almost prescient given current circumstances! And let me be clear, I find Shibumi to be a very indulgent read but in large part because Trevanian reminds us through his protagonist Nicholai Hel of what traditional values were and laments their demise:
It’s not Americans I find annoying; it’s Americanism: a social disease of the postindustrial world that must inevitably infect each of the mercantile nations in turn, and is called ‘American’ only because your nation is the most advanced case of the malady, much as one speaks of Spanish flu, or Japanese Type-B encephalitis. It’s symptoms are a loss of work ethic, a shrinking of inner resources, and a constant need for external stimulation, followed by spiritual decay and moral narcosis. You can recognize the victim by his constant efforts to get in touch with himself, to believe his spiritual feebleness is an interesting psychological warp, to construe his fleeing from responsibility as evidence that he and his life are uniquely open to new experiences. In the later stages, the sufferer is reduced to seeking that most trivial of human activities: fun
But there are other bon mots to be found. The public narrative is equating the Covid-19 outbreak to a war (more like a siege) and Trevanian reminds us that:
It is a property of the American that he can be brave and self-sacrificing only in short bursts. That is why they are better at war than at responsible peace. They can face danger, but not inconvenience.
Despite the war analogy, the vast majority of us are facing inconveniences. We need to take care of ourselves and limit social interactions. Most of us are distinctly not at war, not on the front lines, not contending with potential exposure without sufficient supplies. A narrow segment of the population is definitely at war and contending with real danger. The rest of us are being inconvenienced.
We are seeing incredible acts of bravery from our health care professionals and first responders ‘just doing their job’ and regrettably without sufficient supplies. Why? Because the United States especially has become a just-in-time supply chain – economic efficiency based on trailing consumption data. And that efficiency will be able to respond to the new demand. But it will take time.
Today (3/21/2020) the news and political briefings are trying to assign blame on the lack of governmental preparedness and criticizing that the Federal Government hadn’t directed resources faster. The sheep look to Big Brother for their salvation. How can people so readily clamor for a war-time control of production?
I am deeply worried that this crisis will see us as a people cede even more power and control to Leviathan “for our own good.” Because of a failure to understand definitions we will trade our Natural Rights for “benefits.”
People now talk blithely of “rights.” I admonish you to read the history on the debate over the Bill of Rights and then read the first ten amendments. Those rights regulate and limit the power of the government to oppress the individual. They are adamantly not right or benefits bestowed upon you by the government.
All the current rights people seem to discuss today in sophomoric political discussions are entitlements people want the government to benignly bestow upon whatever constituency is in need today. And today we are all in need so the cries for governmental action seem all the more genuine and innocuously necessary.
Balderdash and nonsense. Government doesn’t exist. Pulling from the work of György Lukács, sociology labels this ontological fallacy reification (Verdinglichung). Look again to the source material.
We the people. Proper identification of agency, the sum of the individuals collectively agreeing to act together. We set up a framework by which the general rules are established which afford people opportunities for excellence. It’s Locke and the Scottish intellectual tradition that informed our foundation. It’s a shame that the anti-Federalists have been forgotten and now we have a hit musical about Hamilton, who deserves our scorn and Burr is relegated to the margins. [1] Thus we need a basic reminder on definitions and principles. You don’t have the right to a guaranteed income, health care, or any other bullshit agenda – those are called responsibilities. You have a responsibility to take care of yourself (health) and to work hard (generating income).
I am sure that this post will be deemed unrealistic and callously untimely: people are in need and we should be dictating resources through a command and control structure, we are at war, we need the government to take action! Why the lecture on natural rights?
Precisely because this is a teaching moment. We need to remember that you can never fully prepare for a crisis. By definition, if you were prepared, it isn’t a crisis. And I know this for certain: we will never have perfect information and we will never always have ready-at-hand the resources to respond. We can prepare and we can improve our resiliency but that will necessitate learning to be more responsible for ourselves (I mean really, we have to be admonished to wash our hands?) and remembering how to be self-sufficient so that we can then be better prepared to help one another. It starts with you, not at the Federal level. We the people.
Watch what happens in the wake of this pandemic. In short the narrative will move toward a false conclusion:
The paradigm has already shifted and we are no longer in an individualistic reality, but rather a collective reality that demands a massive collective response that only governments can provide at this point. Basically, the burden of payments shifts to government stipends in a state of forced closures.
Not true.
Praxeology – humankind acts. The locus of human action is precisely at the level of the individual. Willing collective action is de facto done either through voluntary decisions of a group of individuals, or it will be done through the coercion, the threat of violence precipitated by the government. Now more than ever as people wait for their paltry checks signed by Mr. Trump, the masses believe that their government is doing something. They have mortgaged the future of your children’s children, and you thank them?
Paul Harvey well summarized the concern in 1965
More context:
Peter Robinson was Regan’s speech writer who wrote the Tear Down This Wall (1987) speech. The Berlin Wall came down shortly thereafter proving President Regan was correct to challenge the Soviets. Regan was criticized for lavish military spending but the arms race exacerbated the fall of the Soviet Union. There was a glimmer of hope that American values would actually be triumphant.
Peter Robinson is now a fellow at the Hoover Institute and hosts Uncommon Knowledge.
The Hoover Institute is labeled ‘conservative’ and I would argue it is accurate. Conservative in the classical sense and understanding, where traditional values are upheld not simply ‘because’ but rather with a reasoned understanding that the traits inculcated by tradition have practical value. Value, meaning these characteristics are critical to the continuation of self-reliance and critical thinking, which are required to be a true member of a Republic. And I use that word with a vivid understanding of Rome’s decline.
Clearly I am living through the careless degredation of traditional values. Use the phrase and I watch proper liberals bristle. To them it smacks of prejudicial, exclusionary, and unthinking adherence to American exceptionalism.
But American exceptionalism has a critical and unique historical importance. At our best, the purposeful exceptionalism is to create an environment that fosters the celebration of individual liberty, self-reliance, and civic engagement. Traditional values.
The framework is best set with a reminder of classical liberalism.
Milton Friedman is more accessible than Von Mises, Hayek and Rothbard. Friedman’s Free to Choose is worth a read. Hayek is more moderate and eclectic in his arguments, Von Mises is the foundation, but Rothbard is the master of argumentation.
As for these links; I do not agree with every position that is collected here, but I am gladdened that intelligent dialogue still exists.
Accused of being “all talk and no action” in his criticism of Trump, but no active votes against, Sen. Ben Sasse makes an eloquent and intelligently argued criticism of the protracted adolescence and suggested antidotes.
I have pointed to the demographic challenges that appear to be just on the horizon. Europe and Japan are early examples and the impacts we will face. Daniel Hannan has cogent observations and lessons to learn from Europe – and of course, I admire his homage to Hayek in his title – The New Road to Serfdom.
For me, the frightening aspect is that the church-going cohort is likely the ones who will continue to breed more prolifically (philoprogenitive!) and therefore gain in political power. Do note his argument on the need for America to “take up the white man’s burden.” Of course that will only foster the belief in a racist agenda, missing the broader point of the argument. Leadership on the global scale is required, and America remains the best alternative. Importantly, Europe does not provide the answer.
The European model of a broad social benefits (entitlement) program is a dangerous path because of its great cost. Hannan sets the warning, but Amity Shlaes provides the historical context for its start in the United States during the Great Depression.
Endorsed by the Mises Society, her work takes a classical liberal approach to scholarship. One that I would expect the Supreme Court to take, but doesn’t, even when approached by otherwise intelligent individuals.
The Supreme Court should be a critical part of the separation of powers. I admit a fascination with the law because it should serve to protect against intrusions into liberty. Scalia, makes common sense reading of language the basis of his approach. [2]
However, based on his dissents, it is clear Scalia imposed his moral predilections into his opinions. Understandable, but his textual approach allowed him his own interpretive latitude when the Constitution was silent on an issue: abortion being the most notable.
With my libertarian views and belief in a highly restricted federal government, as I would argue most of our Founders envisioned, Mr Trump is a travesty. His inarticulate presentations, marginal lexicon, and monumental egoism makes him a cruel joke. This interview with Scott Adams scares me.
Scott makes an argument that Trump is actually a highly persuasive. All the more reason to not allow the demos to vote.
There is the potential that people are in fact getting dumber, or more specifically, that there is an increasing divide in levels of intelligence created by demographic isolates. The intellectual elite tend to find one another in college or at work, so they marry each other with a higher frequency than ever before.
No longer the boy next door model where people might marry the wrong sort – socially. Like marries like and leads to an increasing intellectual divide – as measured by IQ. A very controversial and hotly contested theory. Not a Hoover institute interview – but a complimentary one:
Charles Murray betrays a nostalgia for the traditional American – the boot strap blue collar class given his “Do you live in a bubble?” quiz that clearly has an indictment of the elites’ divorce from the real (ensconced in a bubble). I scored 37 – on a 0-100 point scale where 0 = bubble and 100 = factory floor. Reviewing his questions, my rural upbringing and friends in the military “saved” and grounded me, whereas my education and elitist reading and media consumption push my score towards Aristophanes’ cloud-cuckoo-land.
________________________
[1] I admit a certain geographical predisposition to Burr. His older sister Sarah (“Sally”) married Tapping Reeve who founded the Litchfield Law School in Litchfield, Connecticut. Burr studied law with Reeve before he put his studies on hold to join the Continential Army.
[2] I asked my Uncle Tony, a former attorney, his perspective on Scalia and the Warren Court.
“I read your Bantam entry on reparations and legal research.
Reminded me of the interview with Scalia who comes off to me as reasonable and thoughtful and almost convinces me to read his book. I very much doubt I will get around to it.
But probing your post, especially given your interest in Everett’s thesis I wonder did you flirt with the ambiguity of language? I know too little of the legal mindset of the Warren court Scalia references which seems like it augmented the activist spirit for social change and added implied normative ‘oughts ‘ where they were not written.
Was that an era of just doing ‘the right thing’ or did it derive from some philosophical uncertainty about language? It would seem anachronistic if the later since Derrida came after the Warren court and I cannot imagine they read de Saussure or Wittgenstein who I think gets (unfairly) blamed for language ambiguity. “
The Warren Court was an example of ‘mischance’. Warren had been attorney general of California during the war, and was responsible for the Japanese internment camps. The folks in Orange County loved it – and he became Republican candidate for governor, and won. When Eisenhower ran in 1952 – the Republican Party needed to clear the bench – Taft (on the right) was steamrollered out of consideration, but Warren (slightly to Ike’s left, perhaps) couldn’t be handled quite so cavalierly. Eisenhower needed California – so Warren was promised a Supreme Court appointment, and, just for frosting, Nixon was selected as vice president, so he could be replaced in the Senate by somebody even more right-wing. Everybody was happy, since the guy who had locked up all those Japs was considered a reliably right wing Republican. But along came the post war generation of blacks and women – demanding rights and causing a huge rumpus. Eisenhower did pretty well, all in all, and Warren did even better – inventing rights left and right – ‘separate but equal?’ GONE (Brown v Board of Education), abortion rights? Hey! It doesn’t say anything about it in the Constitution, but it must be a natural consequence of the ‘right of privacy’ which (also not explicitly stated) was (probably) implicit in the constitution, Roe v Wade, etc., etc. and Ike (God bless the old soldier) backed them up – sent troops to walk a little girl to school, etc. The problem was that the 81st Congress, like today’s Congress was sitting on its hands with its collective thumb up its collective butt. Things were getting tense – 1968 didn’t just pop up like a mushroom – it had been building. The postwar generation was getting pretty antsy – and so the Warren Court (not just Warren but other famous liberals left over from Roosevelt’s appointments) found ways to ease us through a potential political, or even Constitutional, crisis. It was a bit fast and loose, but it was, at least, focused on late 20th century realities.
I don’t think Justice Scalia was much concerned with scholastic arguments about the meaning of language. He was a legal thinker, not an academic philosopher. And ultimately he was more concerned with preserving a kind of ‘classical’ world, where lawyers, and judges, modestly adhered to the strict language of the Constitution, and any prior decisions that he happened to believe were properly derived therefrom.
Conservatives have always had a problem with reality – and this is particularly true of the Federalist Society – a weird organization of right wing lawyers – determined to dominate the court system – as they do, today. Supreme Court judges used to be vetted by the American Bar Association – a generally conservative but not very ideological bunch. Do you wonder why old time patricians, like Holmes and Taft, which used to be the automatic choice for high court appointments, are no longer found on the short lists? Beginning with Reagan, the vetting function has been taken over by the Federalist Society. Scalia is the idol of the Federalist Society – and of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.
Who was the most recent old line Protestant to sit on the Court? I think it was that guy from Vermont – possibly the last person who wasn’t looking for some way to either evade (or shore up) some shaky innovation of the Warren Court. And, whereas in the sixties and seventies, people looked to the Supreme Court, and the Ninth Circuit, for progressive law-making, they now want to avoid the courts at almost any cost. Civil Rights? Hmm… Abortion rights – nuh-uh…(Roe v. Wade is going down, baby!)
As long as the ladies and the Jews are in the minority, the Court will not be able to counterbalance those judges (all of them RC’s – although of course it’s not relevant) previously vetted by the Federalist Society for their ‘limited government’ views – and, maybe as a bonus, the cultural agenda of the Bishop of Rome.
This is not to suggest that Scalia was stupid or obstinate, or evil minded. He was an exceptionally intelligent and articulate (Catholic) jurist, but his relationship with present day realities was different from the New Deal and Warren jurists. He was a witty and charming man. Most issues that the Court has to decide don’t involve cultural divides – but his views on ‘original intent’ (which he didn’t entirely invent – there had always been ‘strict constructionist’ judges on the Court) put a gloss of intellectual respectability on the agenda of the ‘limited government’ cultists.
I’m sure his book is worth a read, and I’d read it myself except I don’t want to risk being persuaded by thoughtful, wrongheaded, writing. Did you notice how much more appealing Scalia was than the cheese-eating schlemiel from the Hoover Institution? It struck me as the difference between a real thinker and a pathetic ‘true believer’.
Don’t put too much reliance on the historicity of the foregoing – it is mostly a rant – the value of which may be measured by the fact there is now an Antonin Scalia School of Law – and (regrettably) no school of law named after your uncle.
Protective Arts 