Monthly Archives: December 2012
Britain: A ‘dad’ is tenth most popular Christmas list request for children
When it comes to Christmas, it might be safe to assume children will ask Santa for an extensive list of toys, games and treats.
But a survey of their typical lists for Father Christmas has shown many have more serious concerns, requesting “a dad” instead.
A study of 2,000 British parents found most children will put a new baby brother or sister at the top of their Christmas list, closely followed by a request for a real-life reindeer. 
(Read more)
Top Romney financier: “All we care about is being good Zionists, good citizens of Israel.”
The Crucifixion of Chuck Hagel
the neocons have a big problem: the American people are not only sick of war, they are sick of the neocons. The same people who told them Saddam had “weapons of mass destruction” stashed beneath his palace, who told them the Iraqis would greet us with showers of rose petals instead of bullets, who reassured them that the war would somehow pay for itself with Iraq’s oil revenues, who insisted Gen. Shinseki was wrong when he said it would take hundreds of thousands of US soldiers to occupy Iraq — these very same people, who should have been long ago discredited and relegated to the Index of Proscribed Pundits, are back retailing the same tired old canards, only this time directed at Iran. Their problem is that nobody believes them — except, of course, in Washington, D.C., world capital of criminal cluelessness.
Washington is different from the rest of the country — and I’m not just talking about real estate values. In the Real America, nobody believes you can spend more than you can take in — in Washington, however, spending more than you take in is not only possible, it’s mandatory. Outside the Beltway, ordinary Americans want to subject the Pentagon to radical spending cuts, and would prefer not to have to cut Grandma’s Social Security so that the military contractors who contribute so much to our incumbent politicians have plenty of tax dollars to spend on presents this Christmas: in Washington, however, real defense cuts are “off the table.” Out in the heartland, the very idea of another war horrifies ordinary folks — in Washington, it gives them a hard-on.
This is the Great Divide, and it is this great yawning chasm that has given the neocons their power: for while a malignant dwarf like Bill Kristol, the little Lenin of the neocons, may inspire revulsion in the average American, in Washington he’s a respected and powerful figure, one whose lust for combat — albeit from a safe distance — counts for much in determining what course our foreign policy will take. In such a town, David “Axis of Evil” Frum, who has “spent his career,” as conservative columnist Timothy Carney put it, “singing odes to war and purging those who wanted peace,” is considered a “moderate” — because he’s calling for tax hikes in order to pay for his favorite pastime.
If we allowed the soldiers in the field to vote on who should be the next Secretary of Defense, President Obama’s first choice, former Republican senator Chuck Hagel — a Vietnam veteran and the recipient of two Purple Hearts, whose work at the Veterans Administration during the Reagan years endeared him to vets — would win hands down. In Washington, however, as the Washington Post averred, he’s outside the “mainstream,” a “fringe” character who’s well to the “left” of our bipartisan let’s-go-to-war-at-the-drop-of-a-hat “consensus.”
It’s a sad commentary on the Washingtonian mindset that a foreign policy “realist” like Hagel is considered the 21st century equivalent of Abbie Hoffman, but these people live in a bubble where the outdated “left-right” paradigm still dictates our political choices. Yet the majority of Republicans out in the country support Hagel’s basic position — caution, retrenchment, paring down the Pentagon — the very stances Hagel is being pilloried for by the likes of Lindsey Graham.
That Washington is America’s Bizarro World was vividly dramatized when Sen. Dan Coates attacked Hagel for — wait for it — being “disrespectful of the military“! What this can mean when applied to a two-time winner of the Purple Heart, a Vietnam vet who was severely wounded in action and spent his entire time at the VA fighting for vets, is beyond me — but, then again, I don’t live inside the Beltway.
We know what this is about: it’s about the fanatic supporters of Israel’s current extremist government demanding absolute fealty to Tel Aviv. The “Emergency Committee for Israel” is running television ads in the Washington, D.C. area screeching that “Hagel is not an option.” They get to determine what America’s options are, don’tcha know — and that’s been true for too long. (Read more)
Gay Republican Group Takes To The NY Times To Oppose Hagel
Adding to the general confusion about exactly what they stand for, the Log Cabin Republicans took out a full-page ad in Thursday’s New York Times, urging President Obama to reconsider his possible selection of Republican Chuck Hagel for the position of Secretary of Defense.
The gay Republican group, which by association and voting behavior accepts the GOP’s default position that (openly) gay people are second-class citizens not deserving of the same civil rights as “normal” human beings, is apparently miffed that Hagel — in time-honored Republican tradition — made a homophobic remark in 1998 about James C. Hormel, President Bill Clinton’s choice for ambassador to Luxembourg, calling him “openly aggressively gay.”
Hagel has since apologized for what he termed the “insensitive” comment, adding that it does “not reflect my views or the totality of my public record, and I apologize to Ambassador Hormel and any LGBT Americans who may question my commitment to their civil rights. I am fully supportive of ‘open service’ and committed to LGBT military families.”
His apology was accepted by the Human Rights Campaign, who referred to him as an “ally.”
But the selectively indignant group doesn’t stop there… it ups the ante by throwing in some foreign policy concerns — “Chuck Hagel: Wrong on gay rights, wrong on Iran, wrong on Israel,” reads the ad. “Tell President Obama that Chuck Hagel is wrong for Defense Secretary. Help us create a stronger and more inclusive Republican Party.”
Conservatives believe Hagel has not pledged sufficient allegiance to Israel, pointing to his assertion that there is a powerful “Jewish lobby” that intimidates legislators. (While few would contend that AIPAC is not a powerful lobby, the preferred term — says the suddenly-all-for-political-correctness crowd — is “pro-Israel” lobby.) “I’m a United States senator.” he reasoned. “I’m not an Israeli senator.” [emphasis added] (Read more)
Men with honor have no place in politics.
Saudi detains dozens for “plotting to celebrate Christmas”
Saudi religious police stormed a house in the Saudi Arabian province of al-Jouf, detaining more than 41 guests for “plotting to celebrate Christmas,” a statement from the police branch released Wednesday night said.
The raid is the latest in a string of religious crackdowns against residents perceived to threaten the country’s strict religious code.
The host of the alleged Christmas gathering is reported to be an Asian diplomat whose guests included 41 Christians, as well as two Saudi Arabian and Egyptian Muslims. The host and the two Muslims were said to be “severely intoxicated.” (Read more)
Islamists attack Indian student in Germany, slash tongue
BERLIN: A 24-year Indian student in Bonn was brutally attacked by Islamic extremists who slashed his tongue when he refused to convert, German police said on Thursday. The student was attacked on Christmas eve when he was on the way to his place in Bonn.
The men enquired about his religion and asked him to convert to Islam, warning him that they would cut his tongue if he refused to do so, Der Spiegel reported. (Read more)
Marvell Loses $1.17 Billion Patent Infringement Lawsuit
From the WSJ. Congrats, Objectivists, utilitarians, and other pro-IP libertarians. A high-tech firm is persecuted by Carnegie Mellon University. Perversely, Carnegie was represented by K&L Gates, which was founded by the father of Microsoft founder Bill Gates—it’s perverse, given the billions made and monopoly position of Microsoft which is partly a result of the copyright and patent monopolies Microsoft has, courtesy Uncle Sam. . . .
Jury Finds Against Marvell in Patent Case
A jury in Pittsburgh on Wednesday found that chip maker Marvell Technology GroupLtd. MRVL -10.42% should pay nearly $1.17 billion for infringing patents held by Carnegie Mellon University.
If the jury’s decision stands, the award would rank among the largest to date in a patent case.
The university sued Marvell in 2009 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the company infringed patents covering technology associated with “noise predictive detection,” which is used in data-storage systems.
Marvell, which is based in Santa Clara, Calif., is known for chips used in data-storage applications.
In India, police shoot dead journalist covering protest
New York, December 24, 2012–Indian authorities must immediately investigate the death of a cameraman who was fatally shot by police on Sunday while covering protests against the sexual assault of women. The Associated Press identified the journalist as Bwizamani Singh, a reporter for the news division of the satellite-distributed Prime News channel that covers northeast India. Other reports have provided different spellings of Singh’s name.
Singh was covering a rally in Imphal, the capital of Manipur state, when he was shot by police firing on protesters. Local news accounts reported that police said Singh was shot by accident while they were trying to disperse protesters with live ammunition. Five police officers have been suspended, the reports said. (Read more)
Swaziland bans ‘rape-provoking’ mini-skirts, low-rise jeans
Police in Africa’s last absolute monarchy Swaziland have banned women from wearing miniskirts and midriff-revealing tops saying they provoke rape, local media reported today. (Read more)
Book Review of World Right Side Up by Christopher Mayer
How Murray Rothbard Changed my Mind on War | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
David Friedman vs Murray Rothbard
The comments on my earlier post of the Reason TV’s interview may or may not have actually been written by David Friedman. If they were, I’m flattered to have him here.
I am particularly interested in the disagreements between intellectuals because disagreement often inspires rigor. Perhaps this casts people as rivals despite their overwhelming agreement on what a better future might look like.
However, the difference between utilitarian and moral approach has huge implications. This debate is worth exploring and resolving.
Rothbard on David Friedman:
Let us take, for example, two of the leading anarcho-capitalist works of the last few years: my own For a New Liberty [by Murry Rothbard] and David Friedman’s Machinery of Freedom. Superficially, the major differences between them are my own stand for natural rights and for a rational libertarian law code, in contrast to Friedman’s amoralist utilitarianism and call for logrolling and trade-offs between non-libertarian private police agencies. But the difference really cuts far deeper. There runs through For a New Liberty (and most of the rest of my work as well) a deep and pervasive hatred of the State and all of its works, based on the conviction that the State is the enemy of mankind. In contrast, it is evident that David does not hate the State at all; that he has merely arrived at the conviction that anarchism and competing private police forces are a better social and economic system than any other alternative. Or, more fully, that anarchism would be better than laissez-faire which in turn is better than the current system. Amidst the entire spectrum of political alternatives, David Friedman has decided that anarcho-capitalism is superior. But superior to an existing political structure which is pretty good too.
. . . such early influences on me as Albert Jay Nock, H. L. Mencken, and Frank Chodorov were magnificently and superbly radical. Hatred of “Our Enemy, the State” (Nock’s title) and all of its works shone through all of their writings like a beacon star. So what if they never quite made it all the way to explicit anarchism? Far better one Albert Nock than a hundred anarcho-capitalists who are all too comfortable with the existing status quo.
. . . Taking the concept of radical vs. conservative in our new sense, let us analyze the now famous “abolitionism” vs. “gradualism” debate. The latter jab comes in the August issue of Reason (a magazine every fiber of whose being exudes “conservatism”), in which editor Bob Poole asks Milton Friedman where he stands on this debate. Freidman takes the opportunity of denouncing the “intellectual cowardice” of failing to set forth “feasible” methods of getting “from here to there.” Poole and Friedman have between them managed to obfuscate the true issues. There is not a single abolitionist who would not grab a feasible method, or a gradual gain, if it came his way. The difference is that the abolitionist always holds high the banner of his ultimate goal, never hides his basic principles (Read more)
David Friedman on Rothbard:
Rothbard’s basic point is correct. I do not regard support for government as an act of willful evil but as an intellectual mistake; my arguments (and his) could be wrong, and some sort of government might be the least bad alternative among available human institutions. And even if we are correct, it is not unreasonable for other people to think we are not, as lots of intelligent people I know do.
The flip side of that is that I think one consequence of his attitude was to make him willing to be deliberately dishonest in his arguments—all being fair in war. That included being dishonest in the arguments he made to fellow libertarians.
. . . .
I’ve written at some length online in the past on what I consider Rothbard’s dishonesty with regard to economic history, in particular his misrepresentation of Smith (unfavorable) and his French contemporaries (favorable); see this old post for examples and further links. And there have been other examples. Murray was bright, articulate, and could be charming, but I don’t think he could be trusted. (Read more)
***
An intellectually honest pursuit of the truth can make rivals out of men who are 95% in agreement.
In my view, the criticism made by David Friedman — that Rothbard was wrong on Reagen and Adam Smith — grasps at minutia given the enormous breadth and depth of the hyper-prolific Rothbard.
Rothbard’s criticism of Adam Smith alluded to in this essay seems sound to me, but I’ll admit to having read no deeper that that into Murray’s comparison of Smith and his contemporaries.
I am very sympathetic to David Friedman’s comment “I do not regard support for government as an act of willful evil but as an intellectual mistake.” In fact, Albert Jay Nock, who Rothbard cites in criticizing Friedman, writes extensively about how the state may simply be the best that homo-sapiens are intellectually capable of. This is very similar to Friedman’s view of an “intellectual mistake.”
However “willful evil” is not an expression Rothbard used, so its a bit of a straw man. I don’t think either AJ Nock or Rothbard would regard support of the government as “willful evil,” but as an evil none the less — an intellectual mistake AND an evil.
Perhaps the closest I personally come to David Friedman’s view is that to say that Rothbard focused mostly on criticism. Institutions and norms are required for the existence of property and civilization. I could, with many disclaimers and asterisks make a statement like the following: “The modern state is an approximation of the institutions and norms required for civilization.”
Murray’s student and colleague, Hans Hermann Hoppe, worked in that directions, imagining and explaining how those institutions might emerge in a free society.
Christmas 1914 — Soldiers stop being pawns of the state for a day
Netanyahu: Jerusalem is ours, I don’t care what the UN says
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Friday said he would continue to ignore the international community’s condemnation of Israeli construction plans across the Green Line, in an interview with Channel 2. “The Western Wall is not occupied territory, and I don’t care what the United Nations says,” Netanyahu said. “We are living in the Jewish State. The capital of the Jewish state, for 3,000 years, has been Jerusalem. I want to say it clearly.” (Read more)