I still prefer the phrase "tyranny of a small government." Precisely because being counter-intuitive it challenges the reader. And because of the quote, "A government may have more employees or a bigger budget, but if its powers are properly restrained, it is a more limited government than one which has fewer officers but no rule of law."
Magnificent article and much needed soaring rhetoric. The examples of Mike Pence and the Georgia SoS--individuals who make the dangerous but brave choice to uphold the Constitution--should be brought up continually.
An important realization for me is this: "Firing some, while not abolishing the coercive powers that they wield, is simply to replace one set of masters with another."
It seemed well received. It was not a stemwinder where you hope for a standing ovation, but it was intended to provoke thought. I got many positive comments and no negative feedback. (One thoughtful commenter after the talk was hopeful that disruption would have positive effects and we had a good discussion.)
I get people voting for Trump as the lesser of two evils. But his actual supporters? Watching free market types suddenly find reasons to be anti-immigrant and anti-free trade is telling. For them it isnt a about reality or principles, it's all about being part of a clique, same as for the Leftists.
I think it's weird to view Trump as "the lesser of two evils" when he was the only candidate who is actually evil.
He is a psychopath with no moral compass - as even Jeffrey Epstein noticed. He obviously has an aggressively self-centered concept of right and wrong. He is indifferent to the matter truth. He scorns rules and ethics. He openly praises "iron-fisted" despots and clearly wants to be like them.
I was a fairly consistent GOP voter until Trump, because his malignant sociopathy struck me as uniquely dangerous. In the first term, he was somewhat restrained by institutionalists. His behavior after the 2020 election should have been a warning that a second term would be far worse - and it has quickly surpassed many a pessimistic prediction.
His vengeful lawlessness is enabled by radical reactionaries who clearly view his contempt for rules and norms and laws as an asset, helping them eviscerate the "administrative state," repeal the New Deal and civil rights, and rip apart everything about modern America that doesn't suit a mindset locked in the 1950s or earlier. Some of them basically want to repeal the Enlightenment.
You don’t think Harris imprisoning black men for drug use, fighting tooth & nail to keep innocent men on death row, etc. is evil? I’ll buy that she’s less evil than Trump, but that’s not what you said.
All politics is identity politics--- suburban housewives are an identity--- soccer moms are an identity--- Joe six-packs are an identity--- white nationalist are an identity---Evangelical voters are an identity--- Pro-Life voters are an identity--- why would anyone try and get the endorsement of any politically active group if they were not appealing to their IDENTITY as members of that group.
When you criticize progressives (who can be roundly criticized for many things) because of their engaging in identity politics you seem to simply be saying that some identities are more legitimate than others.
It is the pious bourgeois notion that they constitute what is normal and all things range on a spectrum relative to their own sense of normality.
"Don't try to" tell anyone what not to "pull on" you, authoritarian. The individualist "libertarianism" of your and Cato's 0.01%-funded political philosophy (a corruption of that noble word ("love of wisdom")) has no answers for a modern SOCIETY in the 21st Century. Like Maggie Thatcher, you deny the very existence of society (or any obligation of those who've benefited most from it to the rest of us), though all of us who have not moved to Ruby Ridge live in it and depend on it. Taxes you consider "confiscatory" on the 1% -- you may call it "democratic socialism" (note that root "soci-") -- are what made this country thrive in the 1950s-60s and gave us the elbow room to begin correcting the worst injustices of our (here comes that word again) society -- that is, not only to thrive economically but to progress morally. The Trumpian "populist" demagoguery is directed not to the traditional "peasants with pitchforks" but to the "poorly educated" (his words for those he "loves") with AR-15s. Popularly elected government has been and will again become the instrument of obstruction of the amoral and oppressive acquisitiveness of the rich and strong; the present moment too shall pass.
Or should I have said: It is the Anglophone notion that they constitute what is normal and all things range on a spectrum relative to their own sense of importance. Would you prefer Battenberg Cake or Victoria Sponge with your tea?
I don’t know if you or David ever addressed this elsewhere, but have you considered that some past eras may have been better for liberty on net even if none were ideal?
Of course, there have been many times when the movement was in the right direction, and times when it was in the wrong direction. But there was no "Golden Age." To take one example, the Progressive Era was a huge setback for civil rights, as the federal workforce was segregated under Woodrow Wilson in 1913, moral purity campaigns and vice squads were created, sodomy laws were expanded and persecution of gay people was ramped up, and so on. And, of course, the horror of World War I. Liberty does not always advance, but then, it also does not always recede.
"Congress, the judiciary, the states, and the citizenry must call a halt to lawless and arbitrary power."
I think that ship has sailed.
I love George Washington who was prophetic in the forces that would eventually unravel us. I think he could already see the forces of faction starting to coalesce. The presumption of the Founders was that those who would govern the nation were men who could first govern themselves with reason, experience, and moral probity. Passions and factions were the enemy of a well ordered state. Therefore the franchise was restricted along the lines of pre-revolutionary Britain.
As the 19th century moved inexorably toward universal (white male) suffrage the political parties had to develop new ways to herd voters through manipulation, demagoguery, bribery, irrational passions, threats, fear and false hopes the prudence and probity was replaced by "common sense" which is not common or sensible.
The political parties ceased to be coalitions of diverse regional and state interests and differences and became progressively nationalized homogenous ideological machines. Just brands for marketing and no real attachment to the civil obligations of governing a nation. The heirs of Webster and Clay are Marjorie Taylor Greene and Jim Jordan. From the sublime to the ridiculous.
Democracy as we know it today is like a box of chocolates--- you never know what your going to get---but it is probably going to be the grossest one.
I still prefer the phrase "tyranny of a small government." Precisely because being counter-intuitive it challenges the reader. And because of the quote, "A government may have more employees or a bigger budget, but if its powers are properly restrained, it is a more limited government than one which has fewer officers but no rule of law."
Magnificent article and much needed soaring rhetoric. The examples of Mike Pence and the Georgia SoS--individuals who make the dangerous but brave choice to uphold the Constitution--should be brought up continually.
An important realization for me is this: "Firing some, while not abolishing the coercive powers that they wield, is simply to replace one set of masters with another."
How was this talk received? I've noticed a rise of populism in SFL lately.
It seemed well received. It was not a stemwinder where you hope for a standing ovation, but it was intended to provoke thought. I got many positive comments and no negative feedback. (One thoughtful commenter after the talk was hopeful that disruption would have positive effects and we had a good discussion.)
Good to hear. I was disheartened last year at SFL to see so much love for a populist strongman-type (Milei).
You are right about the SFL, along with the broader libertarian movement's, populist turn/
I get people voting for Trump as the lesser of two evils. But his actual supporters? Watching free market types suddenly find reasons to be anti-immigrant and anti-free trade is telling. For them it isnt a about reality or principles, it's all about being part of a clique, same as for the Leftists.
I think it's weird to view Trump as "the lesser of two evils" when he was the only candidate who is actually evil.
He is a psychopath with no moral compass - as even Jeffrey Epstein noticed. He obviously has an aggressively self-centered concept of right and wrong. He is indifferent to the matter truth. He scorns rules and ethics. He openly praises "iron-fisted" despots and clearly wants to be like them.
I was a fairly consistent GOP voter until Trump, because his malignant sociopathy struck me as uniquely dangerous. In the first term, he was somewhat restrained by institutionalists. His behavior after the 2020 election should have been a warning that a second term would be far worse - and it has quickly surpassed many a pessimistic prediction.
His vengeful lawlessness is enabled by radical reactionaries who clearly view his contempt for rules and norms and laws as an asset, helping them eviscerate the "administrative state," repeal the New Deal and civil rights, and rip apart everything about modern America that doesn't suit a mindset locked in the 1950s or earlier. Some of them basically want to repeal the Enlightenment.
You don’t think Harris imprisoning black men for drug use, fighting tooth & nail to keep innocent men on death row, etc. is evil? I’ll buy that she’s less evil than Trump, but that’s not what you said.
George, being working class and an immigrant, is not opposed. One can be in favor of the working class locally, nationally, and globally.
All politics is identity politics--- suburban housewives are an identity--- soccer moms are an identity--- Joe six-packs are an identity--- white nationalist are an identity---Evangelical voters are an identity--- Pro-Life voters are an identity--- why would anyone try and get the endorsement of any politically active group if they were not appealing to their IDENTITY as members of that group.
When you criticize progressives (who can be roundly criticized for many things) because of their engaging in identity politics you seem to simply be saying that some identities are more legitimate than others.
It is the pious bourgeois notion that they constitute what is normal and all things range on a spectrum relative to their own sense of normality.
"Don't try to" tell anyone what not to "pull on" you, authoritarian. The individualist "libertarianism" of your and Cato's 0.01%-funded political philosophy (a corruption of that noble word ("love of wisdom")) has no answers for a modern SOCIETY in the 21st Century. Like Maggie Thatcher, you deny the very existence of society (or any obligation of those who've benefited most from it to the rest of us), though all of us who have not moved to Ruby Ridge live in it and depend on it. Taxes you consider "confiscatory" on the 1% -- you may call it "democratic socialism" (note that root "soci-") -- are what made this country thrive in the 1950s-60s and gave us the elbow room to begin correcting the worst injustices of our (here comes that word again) society -- that is, not only to thrive economically but to progress morally. The Trumpian "populist" demagoguery is directed not to the traditional "peasants with pitchforks" but to the "poorly educated" (his words for those he "loves") with AR-15s. Popularly elected government has been and will again become the instrument of obstruction of the amoral and oppressive acquisitiveness of the rich and strong; the present moment too shall pass.
Or should I have said: It is the Anglophone notion that they constitute what is normal and all things range on a spectrum relative to their own sense of importance. Would you prefer Battenberg Cake or Victoria Sponge with your tea?
I don’t know if you or David ever addressed this elsewhere, but have you considered that some past eras may have been better for liberty on net even if none were ideal?
Of course, there have been many times when the movement was in the right direction, and times when it was in the wrong direction. But there was no "Golden Age." To take one example, the Progressive Era was a huge setback for civil rights, as the federal workforce was segregated under Woodrow Wilson in 1913, moral purity campaigns and vice squads were created, sodomy laws were expanded and persecution of gay people was ramped up, and so on. And, of course, the horror of World War I. Liberty does not always advance, but then, it also does not always recede.
"Death to populism, freedom to the individual!"
"Congress, the judiciary, the states, and the citizenry must call a halt to lawless and arbitrary power."
I think that ship has sailed.
I love George Washington who was prophetic in the forces that would eventually unravel us. I think he could already see the forces of faction starting to coalesce. The presumption of the Founders was that those who would govern the nation were men who could first govern themselves with reason, experience, and moral probity. Passions and factions were the enemy of a well ordered state. Therefore the franchise was restricted along the lines of pre-revolutionary Britain.
As the 19th century moved inexorably toward universal (white male) suffrage the political parties had to develop new ways to herd voters through manipulation, demagoguery, bribery, irrational passions, threats, fear and false hopes the prudence and probity was replaced by "common sense" which is not common or sensible.
The political parties ceased to be coalitions of diverse regional and state interests and differences and became progressively nationalized homogenous ideological machines. Just brands for marketing and no real attachment to the civil obligations of governing a nation. The heirs of Webster and Clay are Marjorie Taylor Greene and Jim Jordan. From the sublime to the ridiculous.
Democracy as we know it today is like a box of chocolates--- you never know what your going to get---but it is probably going to be the grossest one.