Liberty Forged

the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. ` Nock

Posts Tagged ‘republican’

Freedom Works -> Deny Statism

Posted by Jesse on April 3, 2009

Mises on War

War…is harmful, not only to the conquered but to the conqueror. Society has arisen out of the works of peace; the essence of society is peacemaking. Peace and not war is the father of all things. Only economic action has created the wealth around us; labor, not the profession of arms, brings happiness. Peace builds, war destroys. (Socialism, p. 59)

Advertisements

Posted in Mine | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Left or Right? Stalin or Hitler? That makes no sense.

Posted by Jesse on March 15, 2009

Posted in Mine | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Political Peer Pressure – and Continuity as “Change”

Posted by Jesse on March 13, 2009

“Every state should be laser-focused right now on one issue: jobs, jobs, jobs,”

….”This rejection is less about the people of South Carolina than it is Sanford’s political ambitions,”  said O’Malley, vice chairman of the Democratic Governors Association.

Maybe the vice chairman should go get a real job and stop playing political bully. I wonder what political ambitions he’s talking about? Afraid of a little competition? Of course he is.

South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn, the No. 3 House Democrat, dismissed Sanford’s move as “100 percent political posturing.”

Oh really? And I wonder what Clyburn is getting out of the stimulus? More votes for bringing home the artifical bacon? It sounds to me like these Keynesian schills think Sanford is committing political suicide. So what are they so worried about? Oh right. Jobs. Well, like I said, go get a real job and leave the social engineering to people and out of the reach of political whim and the long arm of the law.

I always look forward to a new installment by Jack Hunter – aka The Southern Avenger – and wasn’t surprised that he dedicated a whole youtube clip to the SC Governnor. I don’t claim to know anything about Mark Sanford and I care nothing for party politics, but I understand very clearly what Hunter is saying and that Sanford has presented himself as a man to be reckoned with. PS- Jindal sucks.

Posted in Mine | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Radically hating the State

Posted by Jesse on March 9, 2009

Last on the Colbert Agenda was an author, I missed his name, but he mentioned Joseph Priestley. He made the claim that Priestley and others were very influential in the beginnings of the American nation, despite the fact its not exactly a household name.

In Rothbards Do you Hate the State? he credits Priestley among others of being radical in a true sense of the word.

Perhaps the word that best defines our distinction is “radical.” Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul.

Furthermore, in contrast to what seems to be true nowadays, you don’t have to be an anarchist to be radical in our sense, just as you can be an anarchist while missing the radical spark. I can think of hardly a single limited governmentalist of the present day who is radical – a truly amazing phenomenon, when we think of our classical liberal forbears who were genuinely radical, who hated statism and the States of their day with a beautifully integrated passion: the Levellers, Patrick Henry, Tom Paine, Joseph Priestley, the Jacksonians, Richard Cobden, and on and on, a veritable roll call of the greats of the past. Tom Paine’s radical hatred of the State and statism was and is far more important to the cause of liberty than the fact that he never crossed the divide between laissez-faire and anarchism.

This in turn recalled a book I read last year: The Betrayal of the American Right. In Chapter 2 Rothbard mentions Priestley, among others. He says:

The conventional historical wisdom asserts that while the radical movements in America were indeed laissez-faire individualist before the Civil War, that afterwards, the laissez-fairists became conservatives, and the radical mantle then fell to groups more familiar to the modern Left: the Socialists and Populists. But this is a distortion of the truth. For it was elderly New England Brahmins, laissez-faire merchants and industrialists like Edward Atkinson, who had financed John Brown’s raid at Harper’s Ferry, who were the ones to leap in and oppose the U.S. imperialism of the Spanish-American War with all their might. No opposition to that war was more thoroughgoing than that of the laissez-faire economist and sociologist William Graham Sumner or than that of Atkinson who, as head of the Anti-Imperialist League, mailed antiwar pamphlets to American troops then engaged in conquering the Philippines. Atkinson’s pamphlets urged our troops to mutiny, and were consequently seized by the US postal authorities.

In taking this stand, Atkinson, Sumner and their colleagues were not being “sports”; they were following an antiwar, anti-imperialist tradition as old as classical liberalism itself. This was the tradition of Price, Priestley, and the late eighteenth-century British radicals that earned them repeated imprisonment by the British war machine; and of Richard Cobden, John Bright, and the laissez-faire Manchester School of the mid-nineteenth century. Cobden, in particular, had fearlessly denounced every war and every imperial maneuver of the British regime. We are now so used to thinking of opposition to imperialism as Marxian that this kind of movement seems almost inconceivable to us today.1

See the article on Mises.org

Posted in Mine | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Bush policies as opposed to what?

Posted by Jesse on October 22, 2008

The democrats, Obama in particular, talk about failed bush policies.

Hmm…Well, what do they mean by that exactly. We all know that Bush isn’t the most articulate SOB to ever be in the whitehouse, not to mention some really stupid aggressive costly decisions, but policies?

I’d say this sure looks like Obama language to me. Or is it Reaganite? Actually, its both!

Posted in antiwar, Constitution, Current Events, economy, Education, free market, Politics, republican, Rights, Ron Paul | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »