Hoppe on Libertarian Philosophy

‎"Arguing never consists of just free-floating propositions claiming to be true. Rather, argumentation is always an activity, too. However, given that truth claims are raised and settled in argumentation and that argumentation, aside from whatever it is that is said in its course, is a practical affair, it follows that intersubjectively meaningful norms must exist—precisely those which make some action an argumentation—which have a special cognitive status in that they are the practical preconditions of objectivity and truth."
‎-- Hans Hermann Hoppe, The Economics and Ethics of Private Property, p. 315. 

The New Madrid Fault: a St. Louis Katrina?

It seems that public consciousness of the New Madrid Fault has been pretty low since Iben Browning's famed failed prediction of a quake way back in 1990. But though there has been considerable scientific speculation about the potency of the fault, there has been no definitive finding that the fault is inactive. On the contrary, the USGS still rates the chances of a catastrophic quake in the next fifty years as one in ten.

Back in the 1811-12 quakes, St. Louis was still lightly populated and Memphis did not even exist. An 8.0 earthquake such as occurred then, which was allegedly strong enough to ring church bells in Boston, would cause damage many orders of magnitude greater today, especially given Missouri's geologic susceptibility to liquefaction. The 1964 Good Friday Quake, which occurred in Alaska, caused $311M in damage, largely in Anchorage due to buildings not designed to withstand quakes. (The quake measured 9.0 on the Richter scale, which is ten times greater than an 8.0.) The 1994 Northridge Quake in LA, which was only a 6.7, caused twenty billion dollars in damage.

If we should learn any lesson from Katrina, it is that complacency can become a very expensive proposition. If the USGS is right, we have a lot riding on a one in ten shot, and yet who considers whether where he is living would be a good or bad area in the event of a quake, or whether his house would be likely to withstand an 8.0 on the Richter scale, or whether his neighborhood would be secure against looters? After the fact is too late to realize the imperative of survival.

Christianity and Government Authority

Bust of Constantine I,
photographed by
Jean-Christophe Benoist.

This is a must-read article on Romans 13 and Government Authority by Paul Green. For those keeping score, there have been at least three major answers to the problem of just how much authority the government has according to Christian doctrine:

• Absolutist (the government may do more or less whatever it wants).
• Compatibilist (the government may do most things, as long as it does not compel me to do anything against my Christian-informed conscience.)
• Anabaptist (all coercion, violence and authority are immoral. Jesus was a pacifist.)

The Compatibilist view has been I'm sure the most common view, and it exists both on the Religious Left and Right as they are commonly understood. For example, it makes perfect sense in the Compatibilist-Left view that the government can set up a compulsory welfare state, and those on the Right who question whether this is the state's role are missing the point from the Left-Compatibilist's viewpoint. According to him, the government can compel us to do anything not actually immoral; and certainly taking care of the poor is not immoral. The Right-Compatibilist generally concedes that ground, and limits his critique to pragmatic objections -- that churches are better at taking care of the poor than the state -- rather than questioning the very legitimacy of compulsory charity.

The absolutist view is not common, though there is good evidence that it was Luther's view -- such as when he sided against the peasants in their rebellion. Green, of course, gives evidence of its persistence.

The Anabaptist view is also not common, though it has had some brilliant expositors. Tolstoy and Gandhi probably did a good deal to inspire it, but the key works are John Howard Yoder's Politics of Jesus and Jacques Ellul's Anarchy and Christianity. It has some passionate contemporary advocates, such as Shane Claiborne (author of Jesus for President) and the folks at Jesus Radicals.

Yoder's masterpiece
of Christian pacifist
exegesis.

Despite its compelling and often learned advocates, the view is not without flaws. For one thing, it's anachronistic. Christian pacifism simply has more to do with Gandhi and Tolstoy than it has to do with Jesus, and Jesus' teachings and actions are frequently inconsistent with a doctrinaire pacifism (Green cites many of the best examples). Moreover, there is very little historical evidence that the early Christian fathers interpreted the gospel as calling for pacifism -- about the only thing that can be cited are controversies about whether Christians could be soldiers in pagan Rome, and this is inconclusive to say the least, since participating in the Roman army was problematic for any number of Christian reasons without even raising the question of doctrinaire nonviolence. All this is without going into the frank inconsistency of pacifism with the Old Testament (Christian pacifism, it seems to me, demands some form of Marcionism.)

The brilliant part of Green's analysis, though, is that he takes many of the smartest critiques of the Anabaptist school (1 Samuel 8 alone is a pregnant chapter) and demonstrates that they make more sense as a critique of the coercive state than as a critique of violence per se. The verses usually cited by the Anabaptist interpreters retain all of their potency and pose none of the same interpretative problems when read in the way Green suggests. Green's essay might also be profitably read in light of James Davison Hunter's critiques of political Christianity in To Change the World (expect a fuller review of that book in a future post).

Let me close with a quotation that will hopefully pique your interest if it hasn't been already to read the article:

In Anglo-Saxon countries until the mid 1800’s with the introduction of police, the administration of justice worked well, largely without government. The Common Law was (and still is in some places) administered by unpaid local Justices of the Peace and Constables who were independent and often opposed the State. "Citizen’s arrest" was the primary means of enforcement. Enforcement of law under ancient Israel was similar, with Judges and volunteer officers of the court.

Sketches of a Critique of the Arch

My previous post on the Arch was not really a critique in any systematic sense (though the comparison to the statue of Louis IX might have been suggestive to some), but comments I have since received have suggested to me what the lineaments of such a critique would be:

An excellent critique
of "placeless"
architecture.

• A public architecture of placelessness: the defining feature of modernist architecture is its lack of place; public architecture, on the other hand, succeeds primarily through conveying content, essential to which is a sense of place; a placeless public architecture is therefore a kind of contradiction.
• The purpose of fascist architecture was to make the individual feel dwarfed, while exalting the potential of collective action (cf. the fasces); the resemblance to Mussolini's never-completed arch is therefore not incidental, but actually quite central to the artistic effect of both structures.
• In comparison, the defining feature of a monument like the statue of Louis IX or the Jefferson Memorial is humanity: they commemorate certain individuals whose lives we regard as exceptional, and perhaps as models to our own; Louis IX may just inspire someone to do good for someone less fortunate: nobody ever reflected on their life because of a giant hunk of metal.

I thought Scrooge McDuck was Scottish?

Not Austrian (this is really quite remarkable).

The Obscenity of the Gateway Arch

El Greco's portrait of Louis IX.

I must say, even as a lifelong St. Louisian, that I am no fan of the Arch, and so I was not particularly enthused to learn about the three hundred million dollar (!) project to make the Arch/riverfront even more of a focal point, complete with beer garden and ice skating rink (?!).

OK, I do realize that when people think of St. Louis, they think of our little bit of possibly fascist architecture (though maybe not). But personally, I'd prefer as a symbol of our city something like the majestic equestrian statue of Louis IX outside of the Art Museum. Though he may have been a crusader, St. Louis was also renowned for his charity towards the less fortunate:

"The peace and blessings of the realm come to us through the poor he would say. Beggars were fed from his table, he ate their leavings, washed their feet, ministered to the wants of the lepers, and daily fed over one hundred poor. He founded many hospitals and houses: the House of the Felles-Dieu for reformed prostitutes; the Quinze-Vingt for 300 blind men (1254), hospitals at Pontoise, Vernon, Compiégne."

Beats the heck out of a naked metallic hunk of geometry.

Jeffrey Tucker: an Appreciation

Jeffrey Tucker is undoubtedly one of my favorite authors on Mises.org or Lew Rockwell. Whether he's skewering the price-less abyss of health care "markets", outlining his ultra-conservative sartorial philosophy, pondering the virtues of fermented breakfast beverages, or lamenting what the state has done to our toilets, Tucker never fails to entertain, enlighten and enrich. His mixture of social conservativism and political libertarianism has undoubtedly serve to wean me off coercive solutions to social problems.

Not surprisingly, then, I think this address he recently gave about his new book Bourbon for Breakfast (which I hope to soon acquire) is a must-listen piece of audio. I hope it will usher you into the hallowed ranks of Tucker Appreciators.

Bourbon for Breakfast: Living Outside the Statist Quo - Jeffrey A. Tucker - Mises Media(Audio File)

Questions We Aren't Asking About Health Care: Why?

There are numerous questions about health care that just aren't getting asked -- by the left or the right. Yet these questions seem essential to any real solutions to the problems we face. Today I will begin the first in this series.

#1: Whatever happened to the small, family-practice GP?



If you're keeping score, you've probably noticed that the small, family-practice doctor with his own office is essentially a thing of the past. Nowadays, doctors as a rule band together into small consortia, primarily to defray the costs of malpractice insurance, which are considerable.

What are the consequences of this? Well, for one thing, the fact that you probably aren't going to a small-town doctor (heck, you probably don't even live in a small town) means your relationship to that doctor probably isn't one of considerable trust. You aren't a part of the same community, and in that situation people are going to be more suspicious and, perhaps, more likely to sue.

Of course, these consortia, their insurance rates, and the buildings that house them all contribute to medical costs. A doctor is going to charge more if, in addition to the overhead inherent in providing medical care, he has to pay astronomical rates for insurance as well as the mortgage or rent on the shiny medical center just off the interstate.

The solutions, of course, are tricky. Putting arbitrary caps on even punitive damages in malpractice suits seems unfair: who are legislators to declare what it was worth to you when they sawed off the wrong leg?

An alternative might be voluntary contracts between you and your doctor not to sue for malpractice in exchange for lower rates, a prescient suggestion Walter Block makes in a lecture on health care. These might include clauses that the doctor will provide you additional care for free if anything goes wrong, or that you waive the right to sue as long as the doctor follows some set of "best practices"--even if something nevertheless goes wrong.

The Costs of Ultra-Feminism

Alice Walker's daughter has a stirring article on growing up with an ultra-feminist mom in the Daily Mail. The qualifier "ultra-" here is only fair, since we're not talking about mere legal equity but an active disparagement of the family.

Senor Shriver Tilts For Windmills

Since it seems my comment will never be allowed to escape moderation limbo, I'll summarize my criticism of Adam Shriver's paean to windmills here.

Let's start with the relatively elementary fallacy that government spending on windmills will generate jobs. The problem with this plan is that the government has to get its funds ultimately from the private sector (it can take the long way around and print the money, but ultimately such a deficit must be paid for with taxes or inflation). That really deserves emphasis: anything the government does is ultimately parasitic on funds created by the private sector.

Reducing the amount of money in the private sector is going to invariably have one or more of several effects: a) it will reduce the revenues of firms; b) it will reduce the amount of capital investment in firms; c) it will reduce the amount of savings accrued in banks; d) it will reduce the amount of private consumption. Obviously, all of these effects have a negative impact on jobs. (This reasoning is best exposited by Hazlitt in Economics in One Lesson.)

At best, the government can shift employment from (unsubsidized) firms to (subsidized) firms. Of course, it will only be a "shift" if the government uses its tax dollars as efficiently as the private sector would have -- and considering that those funds must be funneled through a vast bureaucratic apparatus of collection, decision and distribution, none of which is susceptible to market incentives towards economy, that is a virtual impossibility.

Shriver paints a roseate picture of the possibilities of subsidies:

There's no reason our country couldn't become the leader in a new green economy if we invested in green energy as much as we do in fossil fuels.

I'm not sure what he means by money "invested" in fossil fuels (as far as I'm aware, there are no subsidies comparable to the ones being proposed and implemented for windmills), but why in any case should oil or wind be subsidized at all? If wind is really a better source of energy than fossil fuels, why not let the companies duke it out in the ledger books, and let the investment capital flow to the victor?

Such a contest would seem, at least, more chivalric, which you would think would be more suitable for a man who tilts for windmills (if not at them).

Is Prop. C Irrelevant?

It seems the experts have generally agreed that the passage of Prop C in the recent primary election was a largely symbolic vote that will have little real legal ramification. As the Post-Dispatch article has it,

Richard Reuben, a law professor at the University of Missouri School of Law, said that if the federal government sues on the issue, it would likely win. Several other Missouri legal and political scholars agreed.

Based merely on recent precedent, it seems the safe bet that Prop C will not be able to become a basis of legitimate resistance to Obamacare. The notable exception here would be California's de facto nullification of federal medical marijuana laws, a conflict between state and federal law that the Obama administration has decided to back down on.

Does Missouri have the political will to mount a resistance similar to California's? Missouri's Tenth Amendment Resolutions, which affirmed our sovereign privilege to resist any unconstitutional federal laws, enjoyed broad support in the legislature, though as I understand it the bills are somewhat in limbo now. Certainly, the overwhelming passage of Prop. C indicates that the popular support is there if the politicians have the gumption.

American Politics as Crypto-Catching

Have you been keeping track of all of the cryptos lately?

Obama is a crypto-Muslim; this may be why he seems to support (albeit lukewarmly) the crypto-Wahabist mosque (oddly enough headed by a Sufi--Sufism is like the Episcopal Church of Islam) to be constructed near Ground Zero. Obama's backers, the Democrats, are crypto-Communists, a rather mysterious alliance between atheist Marxists and extremist Islam.

Meanwhile, the Tea Partiers, Obama's sworn enemies, are crypto-racists and crypto-misogynists, conniving to turn back the clock to the era of the whiskey bottle in the desk drawer, the secretary patted on the bottom and Jim Crow (perhaps they are trying to capitalize on the popularity of Mad Men?).

This despite the fact that the Tea Partiers apparently became temporarily confused and sought the nomination of a female of Sikh-Indian descent when she ran against an Old White Dude in South Carolina (I guess we all have off days).

American politics has gotten a little too "crypto" for my tastes, lately. It's a classic example of relying on attacking people instead of policies. We needn't engage with Obama's policies or the Tea Party's positions and exposit their defects if we can simply begin by poisoning the well and revealing their secret allegiance to some popularly vilified group.

We should all be able to answer the question, "What is wrong with the other side's policies?" We cannot do this if we are content to begin and end with the question, "What sort of people are on the other side?"

What is "independent"?

The intent of this blog is to cover and comment on political affairs -- primarily local affairs in St. Louis -- from an independent perspective. What do I mean by independent? Independence is probably best defined by its dissent -- what things it refuses to affirm. This blog will refuse to affirm the welfare-warfare state, omnicompetent bureaucrats, the spirit of centralization, radical egalitarianism or any of the fashionable fallacies of our time. It will endeavor, in fine, to be independent of anything dishonorable, ill-conceived or unjust.