One of the Greatest Scholars of All Time: Author of
one “of the more amateurish neo-Confederate books,”*
a “travesty of historical method and documentation”**
Anyone visiting from the historical writer (but see below) Tom DiLorenzo’s most recent comments on the unfairness of the world can visit here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here and make up his or her own mind about the infiltration of the freedom movement by neo-Confederate kooks and other advocates of racist hatred. (Note: it’s recommended that enthusiasts for the Confederacy read at least a few of the posts documenting Lew Rockwell‘s connections to holocaust deniers, racists, and other, um, colorful characters and think about it before cutting and pasting heated denials.)
Note that the unnamed person (not me, but I endorse the statement, anyway) quoted in this article in The New Republic mentioned “the confederacy,” not “the confederate government,” which is yet another example of Tom DiLorenzo’s research and documentation skills, as demonstrated here, here (one of the few historians strongly critical of Abraham Lincoln refers to the “blatant errors of the more amateurish neo-Confederate books, such as Tom DiLorenzoâ??s The Real Lincoln“), and here (in which about the only other historian similarly critical of Lincoln notes that DiLorenzo’s work is “a travesty of historical method and documentation”).
*Jeffrey Rogers Hummel
**Richard M. Gamble
Hahahahahahaha!
You aren’t the only one who has run into these flakes. The good news is that most of them get over it when they start to grow up.
I agree with you 100% about the merits of Dilorenzo’s views. Likewise with Lew Rockwell’s less-than-kosher connections.
Both men are hurting the classical liberal cause to which they have devoted their lives.
I also think you’ve edged into ad-hominem territory here. There is a distinctly acrid, bitter taste to what you write about them. It smacks of something personal.
Clearly they have it in for you, for Cato, and anything else they view as cosmopolitan – whatever they mean by that. Their slanders are particularly vicious, and particularly unfounded.
That has to sting. Some of these people are your former friends and colleagues.
The reason I comment is to urge you not to sink to their level. Please, continue to write about their opinions, and why you think they are wrong. And more importantly, to write about what you think is right.
But don’t do it with such obvious spite. It detracts from what you have to say. I’ve met you before, and I’ve seen what tact and grace you have. Keep your cool, even when dealing with folks like Dilorenzo, Rockwell, and the like.
You’re better than them. It may be hard, but you have to act the part.
Call me half way between Eric and Areopagitica. I can’t stand those guys. They are mean, low, and nasty. And that means that they’re not worth your time. On the other hand, if some of their new readers google your name and visit here, they might get an eye opening. I just don’t like that you feel you have to spend any of the time you could be using on positive work responding to gutter snipe.
P.S. DiLorenzo’s book is pretty much a joke. I don’t like war, including Lincoln’s war, but come on — that book is embarrassing.
I’d say DiLorenzo is English-language challenged, although I haven’t read his “book.” In the blog entry he says the “Cato smearbund” are “deceitful liars.”
I think Tom is doing the right thing by responding to the public accusations fired from the Rockwell blog. He is able to refute them with documentation.
I agree with Leona here. Although pointing out that DiLorenzo’s book is so error prone sounds personal (but in fact is objective at the same time), that information is relevant to pointing out that DiLorenzo cannot get his facts straight and cannot help but misquote others. Tom Palmer did not say that DiLorenzo is a “liar,” the frequent charge of the followers of Rockwell when they are caught with their racist pants down, but he did effectively point out that DiLorenzo is unreliable.
Here is the bottom line. They “claim” it is all about pointing out that Lincoln was not a great free market guy(neither was John C. Calhoun for that matter) or that Lincoln was not a great civil libertarian but EVERYBODY knows this. I have a nephew in grade school who knows all this stuff about Lincoln yet Woods and DiLorenzo acted and write like they have discovered some unknown history. It is old news, get over it, deal with and move on. Likewise, it is no suprise that Woods and DiLorenzo are members of the League of the South. This shows their motivation for their anti-Lincoln hatred, nothing to do with libertarianism but it is about pandering and throwing red meat to the only people who read their books.
I moseyed over from lewrockwell.com, which I visit every so often for some links to weird news and for some laughs. Do not worry about them too much. They’re nuts. Their attacks on you are some of their best stuff and make up a good percentage of the laughs I get from visiting.
It really amazing how immature they are. They can attack everybody they dislike with ad homein attacks but when you expose their own record, they cry “foul” and have temper tantrums and scream “smearbund”. The fact that DiLorenzo has published works by Cato and in the Cato Journal in the past(i have former copies to prove it), only goes to expose the phony BS about Cato they spout. If Cato is sooo bad Professor DiLorenzo, why did you have your works published by them? Are you that niave about the “Kochtopus” that you yourself feel under their satantic spell? What does that say about his own judgement if what he says about Cato is true?
This is classic
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/019158.html
A high school student writes to Professor DiLorenzo and….it proves he’s right! John L. is “eager to go to college where I can learn from one of the many scholars like yourself.”
Sad. Just sad.
Roderick Long, as usual, making sense:
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/47076.html
About the Mises Institute vs. Cato clash see also:
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/7763.html
and
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/7842.html
A “must read” for all the people following this nonsensical and childish fight between fellow libertarians.
The tragedy of the Lew Rockwell followers is that Murray Rothbard died when he was in his embarrassing “appeal to the populist far right” phase. He also had his embarrassing “appeal to the far left” phase. There were others, I am sure. But Rothbard didn’t live long enough to throw out the “appeal to the populist right” strategy and denounce everyone who had not changed with him. So the Rockwell followers are like robots with a stuck gear. The don’t have the master key to change gears. So they try to combine “Austrian” economics and populism, which are not very stable combinations. (Read Mises and Hayek on populism and on conservatism.)
Ron Paul has done well for one basic reason, which is that he has been the only anti-war candidate in the Republican party during the later stages of an unsuccessful war. Really, the only anti-war candidate in either party. Not because he has a theory of the business cycle.
The populist/racist trappings that Lew Rockwell gave him in the Ron Paul newsletters isn’t what is getting him any support. If he would jettison the crazies and go with the middle class antiwar movement, he could have a viable strategy. But debating the Civil War on television is not the way to build an anti-war constituency.
Anyway, it’s clear that the LRC strategy is all about “Look at me!”, “Look at me!” Their rhetoric is so juvenile and embarrassing. They may get some high school students for a while, but they eventually grow up, as Eric reminds us.
“Cato, Reason, Steve Horwitz, and other beltway haters and losers”
No bitterness there!
How come it’s a certain sort of person who calls others “losers”? I have my copy of Freud somewhere…what was that about “projection”?….. Oh, here it is!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
I guess that applies to “haters,” too. Now who wrote those hatefilled articles about Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, and those other people who wanted to upset the idyllic life in the South? Hmmmmm……and they call other people “haters” when they point that out to the world. Riiighhhhtttt……
I wanted to let you know that exposing the Mises Institute for what it is has been helpful, at least for me. On a few occasions the last year, I have refused to link to material on their site, while surprising friends with information of their true nature. I think if it hadn’t been for your debunking efforts, I would have been less adamant.
I have been to the von Mises Institute several times. I enjoyed Professor DiLorenzo’s lectures. I have not personally verified every fact in the book. And while I remain unconvinced by some arguments(any reasonable person withholds final judgment on unconfirmed facts), I would not characterize the experience of a student in the way many people are doing. I have always had an excellent time there and have met people from all over the world at the von Mises Institute many of whom I still keep in contact with. I can say that for an advanced undergrad or for a young graduate student, it is hard to find a learning experiance that a week in Auburn provides.
I am going to tell you, that as a person who went to High School and College in Alabama, there is nothing wrong with being proud of that state’s history. And yes, it is bound for our two generations with the horrible images of the Civil Rights area. It is intense, it is not a feel good story, but there are also amazing stories of individualism and courage. The people of Alabama ooze history in a way no place I have been to on earth quite gets it. Look at the way Fitzgerald writes about Alabama if you need convincing proof. There is a pride with finally learning to love the good and accept the bad as part of your own family history. As with the U.S. internment camps during World War II and Andrew Jackson’s crimes against the Cherokee, there are many horrible things to dwell on about the Union as well. I was raised to be proud of my Cherokee heritage (for example, Horseshoe Bend, where the Cherokeeâ??s fought for General Jackson) as well as my ancestors who fought for the Confederacy. I have no doubt that they were racist by modern sensibilities (like Lincoln), but that does not pollute everything they stood for any more than being of German descent means that you favor killing the French (witness several wars). All of my ancestors on the Confederate side were Irish or Welsh and fought with passion against a tyrannical government. The Cherokee formed units in the Confederacy to attempt a type of freedom the Union had not offered (Some were death marched to Oklahoma). And yes, I know ending slavery is righteous, but even more so would be ending it without war. Calling someone neo-confederate because they find something worthwhile in secession from the Union does not make them racist. The world is not so simple. Being able to sort the good from the bad rather than taking a knee-jerk interpretation is what being a scholar is about.
One of my professors recommended a book by DiLorenzo and Bennett today, Underground Government. I plan to read it because DiLorenzo, while not perfect, is a compelling thinker. The great thing about true cosmopolitanism is that I can learn from DiLorenzo without walking in his shoes. Ludwig von Mises, for example, was able to treasure Viennese Opera without condemning those who had not reached this cultural apex.
Again, as I have said other places, I have met the principals in these discussions. I know some peopleâ??s faults better than I know others. I have taken something significantly inspiring from interactions with each person involved here (including Dr. Palmer). I donâ??t understand why it is important to wave flags and characterize one another in this condescending way. I am younger than my elders here; maybe I will see it different later. Maybe there is some secret that I am missing. I have sat in the rooms in the Mises Institute and they didnâ??t act like people have said they act. The Mises Institute provides an amazing wealth of information in the recordings of lectures, many great resources in books and articles. I have greatly benefited from access to these. This group is a net benefit in my life. I have my kooky stories from virtually every corner of the libertarian universe, but this does not mean that I forgotten how to learn from each. I post this because I want people to know that these people are more than the brunt of a joke, that they have had an impact on a young scholar. It is too easy to play the faction card. Certain accusations stick even when they are off the mark: “flake, child, populist, racist, neo-confederate;” these are not the arguments of an academic, much less a cosmopolitan. Relishing in smears is hardly admirable behavior. But I guess we are all guilty of this from time to time, somehow it is tempting. A critique must rest on more than an emotional appeal. We owe ourselves more than that after all the work we (an others before us) have done to be taken seriously. No one has to accept what the other says, but being committed to liberal principles prohibits treating an other’s honest judgement as absurd.
Michael,
That is a very thoughtful note. You sound like a fine person.
Let me ask you then, whether you read the postings Dr. Palmer linked to. Did you find the League of the South connections? Or the Institute for Historical Review? (Holocaust deniers) Or Hans Hoppe’s connections to German right wing extremists? Did they disturb you, even a little?
You use the word “smears.” Is it a smear to quote someone? Is it a smear to quote the really ugly comments of DiLorenzo and his friends about Rosa Park? Is it a smear to quote the really racist statements that Ron Paul admitted Lew Rockwell wrote for his newsletter? Or is it a smear to call others “Beltway haters and losers,” and “liars”? Do they defend the things they wrote? Or do they launch personal attacks against those who quote them?
You’re obviously trying to find your own path in the world. I just ask you to think carefully about where that path leads and with whom you choose to share it. Lew Rockwell has worked to create a racist movement and to ally it with libertarianism, or to ally libertarianism with racism. (Why else would have have written those newsletters?) Is that the path you would choose?
I continue to be impressed by the ability of libertarians to tear their movement apart. In this case, however, my sympathies are definitely with Tom Palmer. The people he criticizes (I have not seen any smears in his remarks) are substantially the same people who shown the door by the conservative movement, not for being libertarians, but for being too antilibertarian to be acceptable among conservatives who are loyal to a republic founded on the proposition that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Those are American conservative values and those who reject them — and neo-Confederate is a good enough term, but there are other strains of such alien thinking, as well — will find no welcoming embrace among American conservatives. Why should they be welcomed among libertarians? I am puzzled how the people whose role Tom Palmer has documented should ever have found a niche of any sort among libertarians. If the Joseph Sobran’s and the Sam Francis’s are unwelcome among American conservatives (and their racism certainly is repulsive to conservatism) and the Junge Freiheit’s are unwelcome among German conservatives (my German is not near good enough to wade through the material, but the testimonies from Germans was persuasive), why should any libertarian seek to break bread with them?
Here’s an interesting exchange!
http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/003165.html
Lew Rockwell was willing to trash Ron Paul’s campaign. If he were a man, he would have admitted writing the newsletters and resigned. Why would anyone stand by such an unscrupulous P.O.S?
http://reason.com/blog/show/124485.html
“Is it a smear to quote the really racist statements that Ron Paul admitted Lew Rockwell wrote for his newsletter?”
For example, it is a smear to say this when the closest to the truth it is is that Ron Paul, according to _someone else_, was ready to admit that Lew Rockwell was _involved_ in the newsletter, but not necessarily the questionable content.
Michael, Sandra thinks you sound like a “fine person.” But be careful. The more you defend the Mises Institute, the more likely Palmer will throw you in the fever swamp. The game is guilt by association.
DiLorenzo should read the Alabama Secession Speech of 1861, notes from the Milledgeville Convention or any of the documents that emerged from secession and constitutional conventions of the Confederate States. A quick glance at these primary source documents will quickly confirm that slavery was the number one reason for secession.
Oh, Brother forgot to point out that that “someone else” is Tom Lizardo, the chief of staff of Ron Paul’s Congressional Office.
And “guilt by association”? If Lew Rockwell is the author of racist statements and approved an explicitly racist publication, then is it “guilt by association” to say that he is associated with racism, because he wrote racist statements? Oh, Brother, indeed!
Instead of arguing about newsletters from the 1980s, let’s join together in our opposition to the warfare state and vile warmongers such as John McCain and Hillary Clinton. The below quote brilliantly summarizes the antiwar position from the libertarian viewpoint.
“It is not an act of liberation, however, if A frees B from the hands of C in order to take B hostage himself. It is not an act of liberation if A frees B from the hands of C by killing D. Nor is it an act of liberation if A forcibly takes D’s money to free B from C.”- Hans Hermann Hoppe
Come again? How does that convoluted statement “brilliantly” summarize an antiwar position? And the fact that it’s from a sick racist (you know, the guy who favors expelling the Untermenschen physically from society), how does it advance the cause of peace to quote him?
We should all support ending American occupation of Iraq. I think that that’s more clear, and maybe even as brilliant, without quoting a whackjob.
It’s a very good summary in that it lays out the criteria for an unlibertarian war. If war enslaves innocent people, kills innocent people, or taxes innocent people, it cannot be defended by libertarians. Period.
So much interesting comment!
I think that Ben has put his finger on an important issue. When the cult leader is dead, where do the followers get their direction? Murray flipped from one strategy to another, each time it turned out that the most recent strategy was not successful in building a centrally coordinated mass movement run on purely Leninist lines. So it went from work with the far left to build a mass movement to smash the state to work with the far right to build a mass movement to smash the state. And whoever was not on board with Murray’s latest strategy was evil and had to be fought, fought, fought. He loved fighting.
The common theme was the idea that to support liberty, you needed a movement that a “cadre” (one of his favorite words) could direct and which would take orders to achieve a takeover of the state. That seems a very inauspicious method to create freedom. Lenin and his cadre used it to take over the state of a large country, with catastrophic effects for the human race. But can it be used to promote individual liberty? It seems quite unlikely, as the seizure of power is not the same as the reduction or elimination of it and, given what we know of the attractions of power, is unlikely to result in its reduction or elimination. Indeed, Murray’s prime motivation (and I am not speculating about motives, I am reporting what he used to tell people) was not to reduce the suffering of the unfree, but to exact revenge on the rulers. As he was so fond of putting it, “The great question is, ‘Do you love the oppressed, or hate the oppressors?’ I say, fuck the oppressed, the oppressors must be made to pay!” (That is a very close paraphrase from memory that captures both the language and the spirit of Murray’s approach.)
Accordingly, all strategies that consider reductions in state power, without the overthrow of the state itself, were to be rejected. Some like to present Murray as a great strategist, but my personal experiences with him and my involvement with his various efforts suggests otherwise.
There are many things that I would say to Michael, but the main one is to learn from whom you can learn. If you learn things from X or Y, that’s a good thing. But remember to keep your own mind active in the process. “Mises said it; I believe it; that settles it” isn’t a very good foundation for the life of the mind. Also, always remember what your own purposes are in life.
Lastly, regarding Joshua’s comment, I find the statement quoted neither “brilliant” nor “a very good summary” of anything. It tells us what something is not, but it does not tell us the criteria that could justify a war, if any. There is a grand tradition of thinking about just war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war ) and the statement from the nutty professor is hardly a summary, much less a good one, of either that tradition or of the criteria for “an unlibertarian war.” Indeed, it elides a number of important issues, such as whether liberating B from C at the expense of D is a “net liberation” or a violation of side constraints on the treatment of D. The clumsy formulation suggests that B is not, indeed, any freer (liberated) from C if the liberation came at the expense of D. That is, to put it in a word, stupid. European Jews were most certainly liberated by the Allies from the terror and oppression of National Socialism, despite it coming at the expense of American taxpayers. Hoppe (who has, shall we say, unorthodox views on the topic of World War II and the Third Reich) suggests that they were not, in fact, liberated. It is one thing to suggest that the side constraints on the American government mean that one cannot liberate one person at the expense of another (although it does not suggest whether there are any tradeoffs or tipping points), but another to suggest that the people who are thus freed from slavery are not, in fact, freed.
A more intelligent approach would look at the proper limits and purposes of government. The American government is not constitutionally authorized to liberate the people of other countries from their states, unless it is a part of the “common defense.” The decision to wage war on the Iraqi state did not meet the criteria for a just war and was unjustified.
Hoppe is completely wrong, and shows he has no understanding of Austrian economics, since he’s making an interpersonal comparison of utility. If A save B from C’s aggression, and violates D’s rights in doing so, then B indeed has been libertated, even if D was oppressed in the process. The net result is, for Hoppe, no act of liberation. For an Austrian, OTOH, B was liberated and D oppressed.
Hoppe’s standard implies that if a policeman prevents a criminal from raping a woman, murdering her husband and children, and making off with their life savings, we can’t say it’s an “act of liberation,” since his salary was paid by taxes collected by force. Similarly, Jews freed from Nazi death camps weren’t liberated, since it was tax-funded soldiers who set them free.
May I respectfully suggest that Hoppe’s position is utterly idiotic?
I’m reposting on my blog a short note on the libertarian-commonlaw theory of just war, which explains in more detail.
http://www.unforeseencontingencies.blogspot.com
There is and never has been any such thing as a “just war.” The very concept is asinine beyond belief.
JR
It’s good to know that the ever deep and thoughtful Jeff Riggenbach would have opposed the American War for Independence and the Polish resistance to National Socialist German occupation, as well as the Estonian resistance to Soviet occupation, as unjust, and those who promoted them as “asinine beyond belief.” That comes, no doubt, after much thought and a deep study of the contributions of thousands of years of moral philosophy, along with an extensive literature of international law. Thanks for the contribution to the discussion, Mr. Riggenbach!
Why do you have to consult thousands of years of moral philosophy and the extensive literature of international law to know that war is always evil? Libertarians opposes the state, despite thousands of years of moral philosophers defending the state.
Really…..is it pure pacifism you’re promoting, or just a lack of seriousness? Is a defensive war to oppose being conquered by a totalitarian enemy “always evil”? Yes or no. If yes, you are simply a pacifist and that is an intellectually respectable position, if not very plausible to most of us. If no, then you are incoherent.
Is it just to liberate one individual at the expense of another person? Many conservatives and modern liberals would say yes but I believe a classical liberal ought to say no because our concern is with the rights of the individuals.
The United States Constitution is silent on who has the power to initiate war and when war should be initiated. It only states that Congress “shall have the power to declare war.” Many constitutional scholars argue that the President has the inherent authority to wage war at will.
I believe looking to the Constitution for determining when it is morally permissible to wage war is silly. What we know is that it is wrong to wage war against innocent people. It is not right to liberate a group from one oppressor in order for that group to be oppressed by another oppressor. (ie, Eastern Europeans in World War II).
The libertarian movement hurts itself with internal fighting over whether one should be a “cosmo” or a “paleo”. Instead, we should put to rest disputes over who supported who in the LP in the 70s or 80s (I was born in 1985) and recognize that our government is dedicated to waging wars in the Middle East and taking away what liberties we have left in “The War of Terror on Us.” Let’s work together against our neo-conservative enemies and would be oppressors and reject their war, fear-mongering, and the expansion of the welfare-warfare state.
Tom,
Back to the subject of the post. You’ve indicated that you knew Tom DiLorenzo in the past (back when he was not a “former economist”, presumably).
I’ve always found his writings on economics generally informative (to a layman at least) but skipped reading a lot of his other stuff, due to his tendency to (obsessively) relate all manners of ill back to Lincoln.
Was he always a neo-Confederate? He’s not even originally from the South is he? Where did it “all go wrong” for Tom DiLorenzo?
I only ask because he wrote some stuff for Cato in the past and it seems you had professional dealings with him at some point. (Correct me if I’m wrong on that last point.)
There are Americans who believe the War of Independence was a mistake.
That would be hans Hoppe, the advocate of royal absolutism, right?
I don’t know if H.H.H is an American citizen, I meant to link to this but apparently it was removed: http://mangans.blogspot.com/2008/02/americas-worst-strategic-mistakes.html#c5859481736257469388
I will try to get back to Joshua’s and LB’s points later. I’ve been extremely busy and haven’t had the time. (I checked and the link above was inserted earlier, but this system doesn’t support the coding for HTML, so it was invisible. If you want to insert a link, just insert it, without any punctuation on either side. Then it just appears as a simple link.)
More later……
A pity Tom’s diligent study of “thousands of years of moral philosophy and the extensive literature of international law” (in between trips to the gym, of course, and the indispensable lectures and workshops by means of which he has secured the liberty of grateful millions around the world) – too bad all this study didn’t yield up a more coherent definition of the word “pacifism.”
Since I believe in the perfect legitimacy of personal self-defense, including defense of one’s property and loved ones, up to and including the use of deadly force, I am sure as hell no “pacifist.”
On the other hand, I must say that, to anyone who understands libertarianism at all, opposition to war as such is a no-brainer. War is mass murder of innocents by States. No such activity can be described with a straight face as “defense” of anyone’s rights – unless, of course, you’ve devoted decades to poring over all those “thousands of years of moral philosophy and the extensive literature of international law.”
Then you can do it.
JR
It’s hard to find a more concise summation of the libertarian view of war than here:
http://www.no-treason.com/archives/2006/07/24/libertarian-view-of-war-cleared-up-lets-have-a-drink/
War means government, or collectivist, action. If I fire back at some aggressor, or resist being mugged, that is neither pacifism nor war. Individual self defense, or defense against an invading army, can be conducted in a just manner. It is entirely impossible for the U.S. government to mount a just war. Insofar as it was the government doing it, especially in foreign land, it would not be an act of self defense. And, as much to the point, it never once has mounted a just war. That should matter, too.
Libertarians should oppose all government wars. We oppose all government welfare, just on the basis of the aggressive nature of funding. War is equally aggressive in its funding. That alone makes it unlibertarian. Once a single innocent person is killed, it’s even far more unlibertarian.
You don’t need to be a pacifist to oppose all government wars. Just a libertarian.
What could have been a dispassionate, informative dialog about what types of associations are acceptable and whether decentralism is or isn’t a good strategy for the advancement of liberty has turned nasty, with team Palmer practically painting team Rockwell as a bunch of Klansmen and team Rockwell painting team Palmer as court academics for the federal leviathan.
Tom posed a question to you. Would you have supported or opposed the American War of Independence? Would you support or oppose defense against invasion? Is a war of defense just? It’s presupposed that wars of aggression are unjust.
When might war be just? When it is defensive. Even then, of course, there are standards of justice that have to be followed for it to be just. What should the Czechs and Poles and Balts have done? Should they have resisted the Nazis and the Soviets by force? Is that not a defensive war?
Even individual defensive action is ruled by justice. If I resist an aggressor, I can’t just shoot randomly. I have to use the right amount of force and with concern for innocents.
Your tone of mockery simply reveals your own ignorance. Some hard questions are involved in when and how to use force. But go ahead and be an asshole. There is no law against it, Mr. Riggenbach.
“Tom posed a question to you.”
No, he didn’t. If you were able to read with reasonable comprehension, you’d know this. He asked me nothing. He *told* me what I thought about the American War of Independence. Why would he ask me if I supported or opposed it? He already knows. He knows everything. Haven’t you noticed?
The answer to the questions you raise is implicit in what I’ve already posted. The fact that you’re still wondering about it demonstrates your own inability to read quite graphically. So go ahead and be an ignoramus. There is no law against it, Mr. Anonymous Because He’s Too Scared To Post What He Thinks Under His Actual Name.
JR
Palmer,
“It’s good to know that the ever deep and thoughtful Jeff Riggenbach would have opposed the American War for Independence…”
What good reason can you give for an individual supporting either side of the Revolutionary war?
“Now let me tell you something Johnson, â??fore you get on my wrong side. My corn I take serious because itâ??s my corn. And my potatoes and my tomatoes and my fences I take note of because theyâ??re mine. But this war is not mine and I take no note of it.” — Charlie Anderson, Shenandoah
http://www.no-treason.com/archives/2002/06/17/shenandoah-a-terrific-anarcho-capitalist-film“ rel http://www.no-treason.com/archives/2002/06/17/shenandoah-a-terrific-anarcho-capitalist-film
Joshuaâ??s approach suggests that he believes that rights are agent-relative side constraints the reason for which could not be overcome by any other reason. Thus, even if taking a penny from one person would prevent terrible harm to others, one should be forbidden under any circumstances to take that penny. I doubt that Joshua would actually follow such a principle in real life, especially when it comes to the imposition of risks on others. Thus, firing randomly into the air, such that bullets are likely to land on innocent others, is imposing a risk on them that is a form of aggression. (Thatâ??s why shooting ranges have strict rules about shooting into the air and high berms behind the targets to prevent shots from going astray and harming either other shooters or people living outside the shooting area, but within range of the bullets.) But firing a shot in self defense clearly poses a risk, not only to the presumed aggressor, but to any innocents who might be hit with a shot that goes astray, as almost all shots do in such cases. So even the use of force in self defense entails risk to others. What level of risk is acceptable? If you live in an apartment building and you use a weapon in self defense, be sure that the weapon you use wonâ??t go through the walls and kill your innocent neighbors. Such use imposes unreasonable risks on others. Similarly for the use of other kinds of force. There are few cases in which the use of defensive force imposes no risks on innocents. That is why there are standards that can be applied to determine the kind of force and the amount to be used. (Indeed, one can use too much force against even an aggressor in self-defense.)
I strongly disagree with Joshuaâ??s statement that the United States Constitution is silent on the issue of war powers. I do not believe that the President has the inherent authority to wage war at will; why would the founders have put that power in the hands of the deliberative body? In any case, one does not look solely to the Constitution to decide when it is morally permissible to wage war. But it is worth looking to it for some guidance on the grounds on which actions can be taken and be constitutionally authorized and for the checks and balances that protect us against tyranny. As James Madison wisely noted in Federalist 47, â??The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.â? That is why the writ of habeas corpus is such a precious legal instrument in the defense against tyranny and why the Bush administrationâ??s attempts to eliminate it are so outrageous. One can be imprisoned for just cause, but not on the say-so of one person. At least another branch is necessary, viz. the judicial branch. (In fact, all three are necessary, since the laws by which the executive acts and which are interpreted by the judiciary are to be passed by the legislative branch.) Such a system of checks and balances is not perfect, but it has protected us from much injustice and abuse of power.
Joshua has stepped round an important issue. It is true that the people of Eastern Europe were â??liberatedâ? from the Nazis for very short periods of time before being oppressed by the Soviets and their puppet states. But what of the people of Italy and Denmark and France? Were they not liberated at all, on the grounds that some others paid taxes for it? Hoppe seems to think that is the case. That cannot be true. Was it justified to tax some to liberate others? That is a different question. But that they were indeed liberated is not in question at all, at least among serious people.
Regarding L.Bâ??s questions regarding DiLorenzo. He seemed to have gone, one could say, over the edge. Iâ??m not quite sure when, but it became evident when he attacked my colleague David Boaz for urging citizens of Mississippi to vote to remove the Confederate Battle flag from the state flag. It was, after all, added in the late 1950s as a rather deliberate insult to black people, and not to do honor to southern chivalry. Boaz noted that one should be free to fly it from oneâ??s house, put it on oneâ??s car, etc., etc., but that a clear statement of support for the Confederacy and slavery should not fly over the courthouse where all citizens should be able to expect equal justice. DiLorenzo wrote a very unhinged attack that accused Boaz of joining with the Communist Party in overriding oneâ??s right to free speech by banning displays of the Confederate flag. Nothing of the sort was the case and it was at that point that I became acquainted with the strange case of DiLorenzoâ??s inability to represent accurately the views of others. The disaster of his later works suggests that something happened to his abilities to distinguish between things that might be true and things that ought to be true, or, if true, would support his conclusions, and to settle on simply reporting whatever would support his conclusions, regardless of evidence or logic. Accordingly, although DiLorenzo may write some statements that are true, I would not trust any of them unless I had independent reason to do so, other than his work or his citations, given how disastrously confused and erroneous they tend to be, as Hummel and Gamble have pointed out. (They agree substantially with his conclusions, but dismiss him as an embarrassment.)
Mr. Riggenbach has made a virtue of being ignorant. And by his standards, he is a very virtuous man, indeed. He is ignorant of such activities as, for example, â??guerrilla war,â? a nice redundancy which means the â??little war,â? or war on a relatively small scale. Even the sainted Murray Rothbard was very enthusiastically in favor of the War for Independence, although his history of it was occasionally rather confused (especially concerning the role of George Washington, who faced down a threatened officerâ??s coup at Newburgh, New York, in 1783, whereas Rothbard described Washington as the leader of the coup attempt).
An anonymous commentator noted that â??War means government, or collectivist, actionâ? and prefers â??individual self-defense.â? But that elides collectivist and collective. A business enterprise, a chess club, and a hunting club are collective enterprises, but not collectivist. If only individual defensive actions were justified, without any collective action, resistance would be quickly destroyed by invading armies. Coordination for self-defense is both necessary for achieving common goals and undoubtedly morally defensible when it is achieved voluntarily and limited to defense, rather than to aggression against innocents.
If a country is invaded, should its government respond with force, or simply surrender? I think that the French resistance to National Socialism was morally just. That hardly seems such a radical statement. Waging war against invasion is justifiable, but even that is governed by standards of just conduct, such as not carpet bombing innocents in the country of the aggressors. But action that harms innocent individuals can be undertaken when necessary for self-defense. The doctrine of the double effect (someone not committed to perpetual ignorance could look that up) is a reasonable moral response to the harm of innocents in pursuit of morally justified self-defense.
I posed a question quite generally, to the proudly ignorant Mr. Riggenbach among others. If the War for Independence (which certainly entailed harm to innocents) and the guerrilla struggles against the Nazis and the Soviets (among many other possible examples) were justified, then not all war is unjustified. It is certainly not a good thing in itself (as many collectivists have maintained); it is a last resort; and it is governed by standards of just conduct; but it is not always and in all circumstances unjust. (And to return to the anonymous comment of 12:25 pm, there is a non sequitur. I do not merely oppose the state; I favor freedom and justice. Sometimes I favor existing states acting to protect freedom from worse predators. The fact that many philosophers have defended â??the stateâ? is no reason to abstain from thinking.)
Lastly, Mr. Lopez ‘s remark seems to suggest that one should never support any kind of collective action in self defense. The fact is, however, that there are bad predators and there are worse predators. Being governed by the interwar Czechoslovak state certainly had its disadvantages, but being governed by the SS was worse.
“I posed a question quite generally, to the proudly ignorant Mr. Riggenbach among others.”
Let’s quote that “question,” shall we?
“It’s good to know that the ever deep and thoughtful Jeff Riggenbach would have opposed the American War for Independence and the Polish resistance to National Socialist German occupation, as well as the Estonian resistance to Soviet occupation, as unjust, and those who promoted them as ‘asinine beyond belief.’ That comes, no doubt, after much thought and a deep study of the contributions of thousands of years of moral philosophy, along with an extensive literature of international law. Thanks for the contribution to the discussion, Mr. Riggenbach!”
You’re quite welcome, Dr. Palmer! One thing, though. If you fancy that the paragraph quoted above is a “question,” I’d say your ignorance of the English language is sufficient to qualify you as the biggest ignoramus on this thread. Accordingly, I’ll treat your moronic mouthings about my own supposed ignorance with the respect they deserve.
JR
“Joshuaâ??s approach suggests that he believes that rights are agent-relative side constraints the reason for which could not be overcome by any other reason. Thus, even if taking a penny from one person would prevent terrible harm to others, one should be forbidden under any circumstances to take that penny. I doubt that Joshua would actually follow such a principle in real life . . . . So even the use of force in self defense entails risk to others. What level of risk is acceptable?”
An individual of intellectual integrity, having reached such conclusions, would publicly announce the truth – that he had decided libertarianism was unworkable. He wouldn’t try to redefine libertarianism as some sort of coercive system in which anyone who imagined himself to be acting in “self defense” could decide for *others* what level of risk it was appropriate for *them* to face. In short, he wouldn’t go on pretending to be a libertarian.
JR
“An anonymous commentator noted that â??War means government, or collectivist, actionâ? and prefers â??individual self-defense.â? But that elides collectivist and collective. A business enterprise, a chess club, and a hunting club are collective enterprises, but not collectivist.”
Yes, but war is collectivist, unlike the others. Even the American Revolution, while close to a just war, employed many collectivist (coercive) measures that are nothing like what we get from chess clubs.
Sorry, Mr. Riggenbach, but as an Internet Troll you have become quite tiresome. Rather than quote myself, I suggest that you search for these phrases: “I posed a question quite generally ….” and “Is a defensive war to oppose…”
Mr. Riggenbach supports using force in self defense and is not a pacifist. But he thinks that you should never impose risk on others. Discharging a weapon (perhaps something the effete would never do) imposes risks on others. Bullets don’t always lodge in only the aggressors. They often strike the innocent. But that’s the real world. A formulation of libertarianism that ruled out all impositions of risks on others (no airplanes? they do crash on the innocent sometimes.) deliberately ignores the world and is absurd, even asinine.
Mr. Mellon points out an important issue, but confuses matters a bit, as there was, indeed, a war for independence, not something that was merely like a war for independence. The distinction between the “revolution” and the “war” was made in a letter of 1815 from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson:
â??What do we mean by the Revolution? The war? That was no part of the Revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it. The Revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected, from 1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen years before a drop of blood was shed at Lexington. The records of the thirteen legislatures, the pamphlets, newspapers in all the colonies, ought to be consulted during that period to ascertain the steps by which the public opinion was enlightened and informed concerning the authority of Parliament over the colonies.â?
That the war was a war and not merely close to a war is suggested by the fact that battles were fought. The horrors of even a defensive and morally justified war were acknowledged by the advocates of independence when they signed the Declaration of Independence:
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Given the evidence before them, they decided that war for independence was justified. But their enmity to the British state was limited to the issue of independence and extended no further: “We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.”
They knew about the application of standards of just conduct to violence. And precisely because of their respect for rights and justice, they gave to the world a legacy of freedom. Incomplete, to be sure, but the foundation for a society of justice and freedom and prosperity that compares well to the other states of the world.
My experience with deontologists is that they don’t care much for probability and risk. So JR most likely has no problem with firing a gun and thereby imposing risk as long as there is no mens rea.
I defended Charles Lindbergh’s isolationism here:
http://entitledtoanopinion.wordpress.com/2007/10/02/what-was-so-bad-about-charles-lindbergh/
A question for Tom: DiLorenzo has denied writing anything in support of the Confederacy, but rather taking a “Spoonerian” position against both the Union and Confederate governments. Do you think he is misrepresenting himself in saying that?