# Jeffrey Hart on the American Gentlemen



## hydepark (Sep 4, 2007)

"My conservatism is aristocratic in spirit, anti-populist and rooted in the Northeast. It is Burke brought up to date. A 'social conservative' in my view is not a moral authoritarian Evangelical who wants to push people around but an American gentleman, conservative in the social sense. He has gone to a good school, maybe shops at J. Press, maybe plays tennis or golf and drinks either Bombay or Beefeater martinis or maybe Dewar's on the rocks or both"

-- Jeffrey Hart '51 in "How the Right Went Wrong," Dartmouth Alumni Magazine Jan/Feb 2007.


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

hydepark said:


> "My conservatism is aristocratic in spirit, anti-populist and rooted in the Northeast. It is Burke brought up to date. A 'social conservative' in my view is not a moral authoritarian Evangelical who wants to push people around but an American gentleman, conservative in the social sense. He has gone to a good school, maybe shops at J. Press, maybe plays tennis or golf and drinks either Bombay or Beefeater martinis or maybe Dewar's on the rocks or both"
> 
> -- Jeffrey Hart '51 in "How the Right Went Wrong," Dartmouth Alumni Magazine Jan/Feb 2007.


As a political liberal but traditionalist guy, I find a good deal to admire in Mr. Hart's sentiments.


----------



## anglophile23 (Jan 25, 2007)

Ditto


----------



## PennGlock (Mar 14, 2006)

I dont like to pass judgment without having read that quote in context, but he sounds like an elitist ass.


----------



## Untilted (Mar 30, 2006)

PennGlock said:


> I dont like to pass judgment without having read that quote in context, but he sounds like an elitist ass.


Ditto.


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

PennGlock said:


> I dont like to pass judgment without having read that quote in context, but he sounds like an elitist ass.


Then I,too, will proudly wear that label.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I agree with the pushing people around part, but I also think he's a bit smug.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

hydepark said:


> "My conservatism is aristocratic in spirit, anti-populist and rooted in the Northeast. It is Burke brought up to date. A 'social conservative' in my view is not a moral authoritarian Evangelical who wants to push people around but an American gentleman, conservative in the social sense. He has gone to a good school, maybe shops at J. Press, maybe plays tennis or golf and drinks either Bombay or Beefeater martinis or maybe Dewar's on the rocks or both"
> 
> -- Jeffrey Hart '51 in "How the Right Went Wrong," Dartmouth Alumni Magazine Jan/Feb 2007.


For me as a non-American, this sounds quite admirable and pleasant. But why does he mention shopping and drinking habits?


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

Albert said:


> For me as a non-American, this sounds quite admirable and pleasant. But why does he mention shopping and drinking habits?


Hard to tell without the entire article. Can anyone post it?


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

https://www.supremefiction.com/theidea/2006/12/how_the_right_w.html


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

This sounds a lot like the quintessential Rockefeller Republican.

It sounds great for the one living such a life -- fantastic wealth and social status, but with the comfortable ease of upper-middle class manners instead of the stuffy, complicated formality of old-world aristocracy.

In politics, however, this sort of attitude produces the worst of the worst -- an unholy alliance between commerce and government, limousine liberalism, the attitude that financial success entitles them to rule, an attitude of _noblesse oblige_ that is heavy on the _noblesse_, but really only pays lip service to the _oblige_ part, paternalistic economic policies, capitalism with the heavy hand of a protectionist government behind it ("State capitalism," you might call it, or crony capitalism, or right-wing socialism).

It's an undercurrent that runs through Lincoln's northeastern banking and industrialist backers, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, the Kennedys and Bush 41.


----------



## septa (Mar 4, 2006)

Phinn said:


> This sounds a lot like the quintessential Rockefeller Republican.
> 
> It sounds great for the one living such a life -- fantastic wealth and social status, but with the comfortable ease of upper-middle class manners instead of the stuffy, complicated formality of old-world aristocracy.
> 
> ...


I can understand your contempt for the smugness and self-satisfaction of the Northeastern Elite. (Full disclosure: I'm writing from a computer at the Ivy League university in Phildelpahia, and have experienced its smugness first hand, all the while proudly wearing the label Establishment Liberal). However, do you really count the presidents you listed: Lincoln Wilson, FDR, Kennedy and Bush 41 "the worst of the worst" or am I confusing your point? Do you merely find the attitude intolerable or is it the politicians themselves? 
Cheers,
S.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Do you merely find the attitude intolerable or is it the politicians themselves?


I find all politicians repugnant on general principle.

But as far as US Presidents go, the worst of the worst are Lincoln (destroying federalism), Wilson (central banking and the income tax) and FDR (massive price-fixing of everything from wages to commodities).

Kennedy and Bush 41 did not do a tenth of the damage that any one of these other criminals did. I include them merely as examples of the Northeastern elitist personality.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Phinn said:


> I find all politicians repugnant on general principle.
> 
> But as far as US Presidents go, the worst of the worst are Lincoln (destroying federalism)


 I think the U.S. Supreme Court bears the majority of that blame - by far.


----------



## septa (Mar 4, 2006)

Phinn said:


> I find all politicians repugnant on general principle.
> 
> But as far as US Presidents go, the worst of the worst are Lincoln (destroying federalism), Wilson (central banking and the income tax) and FDR (massive price-fixing of everything from wages to commodities).
> 
> Kennedy and Bush 41 did not do a tenth of the damage that any one of these other criminals did. I include them merely as examples of the Northeastern elitist personality.


Thanks for the clarification. I assume, then, that you find the eggheads who draw up the "Best Presidents" lists and routinely put Lincoln, Wilson and FDR near the top even more irksome. 

There is a very interesting essay by the sociologist E. Digby Baltzell (who taught at Penn, by the way) that mentions this very fact. The politicians that establishment scholars (code for liberal elitists) tend to rate the most highly--Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson and FDR--were some of the most upper class presidents we have had. Lincoln he argues, is not the exception to the rule, but rather, a member of the frontier bourgoise and not as workig class as he would have liked people to believe. I think the essay was in The Protestant Establishment Revisited. Interesting stuff, at least I think.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Phinn said:


> But as far as US Presidents go, the worst of the worst are Lincoln (destroying federalism), Wilson (central banking and the income tax) and FDR (massive price-fixing of everything from wages to commodities)


I always thought Lincoln, Wilson and FDR are some of the most revered presidents?  I mean, after all, they have won a bit of fighting, didn't they?

(BTW: at least you can hardly argue that Kennedy lacked a sense of style!)


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> I assume, then, that you find the eggheads who draw up the "Best Presidents" lists and routinely put Lincoln, Wilson and FDR near the top even more irksome.


Yes.



> at least you can hardly argue that Kennedy lacked a sense of style!


On that point, I readily concede. They also had some great photographers, which always helps.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Phinn,

Ok now you are officially in the nutcase category. You attack Lincoln and his Northeastern bankers (which is some circles a code word)? I bet you think the Civil War was about States Rights too.

Psshaw to you, is all I have to say.

Karl


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> You attack Lincoln and his Northeastern bankers (which is some circles a code word)?


Banking and industrialist _backers_. I can assure you it is not a code word.



> I bet you think the Civil War was about States Rights too.


How is the right to secede _not_ a States Rights issue?



> I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
> 
> Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it-break it, so to speak-but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
> 
> ...


 -- Lincoln's First Inaugural Address

Whether you agree with this tripe or disagree, it's pretty clear that even Lincoln himself framed the _issue_ as one of the validity of the right of secession.


----------



## Title III Guy (Mar 18, 2007)

Phinn said:


> -- Lincoln's First Inaugural Address
> 
> Whether you agree with this tripe or disagree, it's pretty clear that even Lincoln himself framed the _issue_ as one of the validity of the right of secession.


Phinn - Do you therefore also hold that within states, it is the right of counties to secede from their state? Cities from counties? Wards from cities? Neighborhoods from wards? Streets from neighborhoods? Residents from streets? Do you feel beholden to any law?

T3G


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

septa said:


> Thanks for the clarification. I assume, then, that you find the eggheads who draw up the "Best Presidents" lists and routinely put Lincoln, Wilson and FDR near the top even more irksome.
> 
> There is a very interesting essay by the sociologist E. Digby Baltzell (who taught at Penn, by the way) that mentions this very fact. The politicians that establishment scholars (code for liberal elitists) tend to rate the most highly--Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson and FDR--were some of the most upper class presidents we have had. Lincoln he argues, is not the exception to the rule, but rather, a member of the frontier bourgoise and not as workig class as he would have liked people to believe. I think the essay was in The Protestant Establishment Revisited. Interesting stuff, at least I think.


Good reference to Baltzell, SEPTA. As we both know, Prof. Baltzell was a true conservative, who was positive about JFK and FDR as the finest examples of Establishment Presidents who were neither radical nor reactionary, but represented the best tradition of American leadership. Phinn, sir, do you really prefer Harding, Buchanan and such? If you do, sir, it is certainly your prerogative, but I would have to question your judgement in such matters.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Do you therefore also hold that within states, it is the right of counties to secede from their state? Cities from counties? Wards from cities? Neighborhoods from wards? Streets from neighborhoods? Residents from streets?


Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes.



> Do you feel beholden to any law?


Yes, and that includes the law that no one can delegate to another any power that he does not have himself. I cannot authorize you to do a thing if I cannot rightly do that thing. If you do not have the power, in your private capacity, to take my money, control my business or run my life, then you cannot, by voting, authorize government agents to do any of these things.

You, I take it, do not consider yourself beholden to this essential law.



> Phinn, sir, do you really prefer Harding, Buchanan and such? If you do, sir, it is certainly your prerogative, but I would have to question your judgement in such matters.


Thank you for graciously allowing me to hold my own opinions. You are most generous and merciful.

I prefer people who mind their own business.

And, no, in a sense, FDR was not all that radical -- he did nothing that Hoover had not already done, albeit on a smaller scale. Hoover was another one of those smug, elitist statists who believed, in his stunning arrogance, that he could improve the economy by centrally controlling it.


----------



## Title III Guy (Mar 18, 2007)

Phinn said:


> Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes.
> 
> Yes, and that includes the law that no one can delegate to another any power that he does not have himself. I cannot authorize you to do a thing if I cannot rightly do that thing. If you do not have the power, in your private capacity, to take my money, control my business or run my life, then you cannot, by voting, authorize government agents to do any of these things.
> 
> You, I take it, do not consider yourself beholden to this essential law.


Phinn - I'll give you points for honesty. I take it you're, what, anarchist? If so, I am legitimately curious about your philosophy. For example, let's say your vision of the world ruled, and there are no laws. If you are robbed and your assailant escapes, but is known to you, how do you pursue it? Do you work up a posse to take back your possession? If you do so by force - you likely would have to - and you find you were wrong, a case of mistaken identity, do you merely apologize? If YOUR victim then mounts a posse up against you, what then? You were wrong, after all. Do you take your beating, honorable man that you are, or do you resist with more force? How many people do you have to injure or kill for justice in your perfect world?

T3G


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Phinn said:


> I find all politicians repugnant on general principle.
> 
> But as far as US Presidents go, the worst of the worst are Lincoln (destroying federalism), Wilson (central banking and the income tax) and FDR (massive price-fixing of everything from wages to commodities).


It's hard to argue with that.

I would contend that secession in the American context is a historical right held by the states rather than by subdivisions of them (eg, counties, towns, etc).

The American War of Independence itself was a (successful) war of secession, of course. The difference between it and Southern secession was the outcome, and thus who wrote the subsequent histories.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

hydepark said:


> "My conservatism is aristocratic in spirit, anti-populist and rooted in the Northeast. It is Burke brought up to date. A 'social conservative' in my view is not a moral authoritarian Evangelical who wants to push people around but an American gentleman, conservative in the social sense. He has gone to a good school, maybe shops at J. Press, maybe plays tennis or golf and drinks either Bombay or Beefeater martinis or maybe Dewar's on the rocks or both"
> 
> -- Jeffrey Hart '51 in "How the Right Went Wrong," Dartmouth Alumni Magazine Jan/Feb 2007.


Sorry...but...whoever this Jeffrey Hart guy is...he's a complete jagoff...

I went to a second teir state school, shop at either FinishLine or Saks (depending on what day you see me), find tennis to be one of the lamest sports out there (sorry, but give me some good old fashioned AMERICAN Football any day of the week), and I wouldnt be caught dead drinking any of that cheap crap liquor that this moron is touting as being for the "aristocratic"...

this guy sounds like a boarderline fairy who (to steal a line from one of my friends who is a nursing admin) is in serious need of an enema...


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Phinn - I'll give you points for honesty. I take it you're, what, anarchist?


Yes.



> If so, I am legitimately curious about your philosophy. For example, let's say your vision of the world ruled, and there are no laws. If you are robbed and your assailant escapes, but is known to you, how do you pursue it?


As an initial matter, anarchism is not primarily a vision of the world that one has to argue into existence. It is not, at base, a normative body of thought, but rather a description of how the world actually is. We live in a state of anarchy, all of us, all the time. The fact that there is a relatively large, powerful organization of people that calls itself "the government," and routinely goes around robbing and threatening people doesn't, in fact, make it a true authority, or even a particularly effective mechanism of genuine control. (The fact that they can't even control the behavior of people in prison, where the level of government involvement in daily life is nowhere more intense, illustrates the limits of its power out here in the open.) This organization, however, does have an excellent propaganda wing that makes many people _believe_ that it is the only thing that stands between you and swift, brutal destruction. But it actually controls very little. What it does control, however, it generally ruins and makes life harder for everyone, its control over the production of paper that it calls money being the most far-reaching of its destructive activities.

But rather than fill this thread with a treatise on anarchism, I refer you to a series of books:

- Anarchy and the Law, Edward Stringham

- , Robert Murphy

- , Bruce Benson

- , Linda and Morris Tannehill (haven't read, but looks interesting)

- , Hans-Hermann Hoppe

The Mises Institute also has a large selection of books available online for free. Volume I of the Bastiat Collection is a great place to start.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Phinn,

Have you ever considered that a structured system of rules which are consequently and foreseeably enforced is part of a country's infrastructure? I don't think you would have much investment and economic activity in countries without a certain minimum level of governance. Take Somalia as extreme case (or sub-saharan Africa as a whole, if you wish)...

Cheers,
A.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Have you ever considered that a structured system of rules which are consequently and foreseeably enforced is part of a country's infrastructure? I don't think you would have much investment and economic activity in countries without a certain minimum level of governance. Take Somalia as extreme case (or sub-saharan Africa as a whole, if you wish)...


I have. I do not object to law and order. I like law and order (albeit different from the top-down kind of order that one usually encounters). I object to the claim of any one organization to being the monopolist, the ultimate arbiter and wielder of violence. That monopoly is not only unnecessary, it leads to all kinds of corruption, usually in the form of economic manipulation (i.e., organized theft) for the benefit of the monopolists.

Sub-Saharan Africa is a prime example of the destructive effects of governments, not market anarchy. Many of them are avowed Communists. Just look at the recent results of Mugabe's governmental price-fixing decrees. The long-term destruction that has been caused by the corrupting influence of so-called "aid," which as far as I can tell only props us kleptocracies and displaces any potential private entrepreneurship.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Yes.
> 
> As an initial matter, anarchism is not primarily a vision of the world that one has to argue into existence. It is not, at base, a normative body of thought, but rather a description of how the world actually is. We live in a state of anarchy, all of us, all the time. The fact that there is a relatively large, powerful organization of people that calls itself "the government," and routinely goes around robbing and threatening people doesn't, in fact, make it a true authority, or even a particularly effective mechanism of genuine control. (The fact that they can't even control the behavior of people in prison, where the level of government involvement in daily life is nowhere more intense, illustrates the limits of its power out here in the open.) This organization, however, does have an excellent propaganda wing that makes many people _believe_ that it is the only thing that stands between you and swift, brutal destruction. But it actually controls very little. What it does control, however, it generally ruins and makes life harder for everyone, its control over the production of paper that it calls money being the most far-reaching of its destructive activities.
> 
> ...


Here's some thoughts from Mises found in his book, Ludwig von Mises, _The Market Economy,_ trans. Danny Lewis, (Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1932):

Only the rise of capitalism brought monogamy into this world, because the "capitalist way of thinking and calculation" gave rise to ordered relationships. (page 68)

As late as 1925 he saw no need for giving women the right to vote, since motherhood is the "highest state of female happiness." (page 72)

He also saw no need to give women equal rights, since "a woman&#8230; is simply the lover and mother who serves the sexual drive." (page 78)

"It is perfectly legitimate to assume that the races are different in their cognitive abilities and in their willpower and accordingly are unequally suited for the task of setting up societies, and that the better races are characterized in particular by their special ability to strengthen social bonds." (page 80)

"The masses do not think. This is precisely the reason why they follow those who do think. The intellectual leadership of mankind is a position held by the very few who are able to think." (page 472)

And from Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. president and founder of the Ludwig von Mises Institute:

"Civil rights legislation is the worst regulatory intervention in labor markets."

https://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-auspoli.htm


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Phinn said:


> I have. I do not object to law and order.


Good for you.



> I like law and order (albeit different from the top-down kind of order that one usually encounters). I object to the claim of any one organization to being the monopolist, the ultimate arbiter and wielder of violence.


That's why modern states are organized with separated powers. Hence, no power can be powerful enough to dominate all aspects of the state. There is no single organization, but a competition of regulatory institutions. That's what you call checks and balances.



> Sub-Saharan Africa is a prime example of the destructive effects of governments, not market anarchy. Many of them are avowed Communists. Just look at the recent results of Mugabe's governmental price-fixing decrees. The long-term destruction that has been caused by the corrupting influence of so-called "aid," which as far as I can tell only props us kleptocracies and displaces any potential private entrepreneurship.


I beg to agree _and_ disagree on this one. No need to convince me of the evils of communism. However, these governments are weak to the respect that they usually represent only one gang of mobsters competing with other, similarly powerful gangs of mobsters (e.g. tribes, organized crime, civil war armies etc.). Consequently, there is no regulatory stability and lots of corruption (because time consistency doesn't matter if you are civil servant - you might be replaced quickly anyway). The problem of Africa is not too strong but too weak and too disorganized states.

You should also not confuse "government" with "state". Mugabe might have a strong government, but this government is quite precisely robbing the state of its stability by infiltrating, exploiting and breaking down the institutions of the state.

It's all about efficient, calculable and transparent institutions. Are you familiar with the modern theory of the institution and do you resent it or haven't you considered the requirement for long-lasting institutions in a civilized society?

Cheers,
A.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> That's why modern states are organized with separated powers. Hence, no power can be powerful enough to dominate all aspects of the state. There is no single organization, but a competition of regulatory institutions. That's what you call checks and balances.


It hasn't worked out as promised. The control by government over economic life has increased since 1776 (to put it mildly), prices are manipulated to an ever-increasing degree, not only overall, but with additional, specific manipulations in areas such as wages and housing. (Tried to buy a house lately?)

The primary form of check and balance, in the U.S. system at least (implicit in its name, actually), was the relationship between the various states on the one hand and the federal government on the other. The federal system is defunct in pretty much every way but name, inasmuch as the federal government (now a national government) controls not only the production of money itself, but asserts essentially unlimited control over any legal issue. As I mentioned earlier, the all-important right to secede (the ultimate trump card to the growth of national power) was squelched by force of arms by Lincoln, thus ending any real check that the states could offer as to national power. Since then, the states' power to elect Senators was removed, and the national power of economic regulation was, under FDR, given repeated rubber-stamp approval by our Supreme Court, which effectively declared that the Commerce Clause grants the national government the power to regulate pretty much everything.

When a government is in control of deciding how much power it shall have, it tends to decide that it shall have more. Repeat until civilization collapses.



> It's all about efficient, calculable and transparent institutions. Are you familiar with the modern theory of the institution and do you resent it or haven't you considered the requirement for long-lasting institutions in a civilized society?


It would help if you were more specific, or pointed me to a nutshell version of what you are referring to.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Phinn said:


> It would help if you were more specific, or pointed me to a nutshell version of what you are referring to.


Phinn,

I must admit that I have only read the German institutionalists, mostly Arnold Gehlen and Schelsky as well as quite a bit of Luhmann. :icon_pale: I think most of their works have been translated. Otherwise, I suspect that you might find some stuff in this wikipedia article, which seems to cover a similar school of thought (albeit Anglo-American).

What I mean in a nutshell and highly simplified: individual human beings are by definition imperfect and can't fully control their environment as individuals. Hence, humans create institutions to set up a controlled environment in which they can pursue their business (any sort of business, think of economic interest, procreation, education, health care, whatever). These institutions are reasonably complex to develop their own mode of operating and memory. As a consequence, they guarantee civilized society and stability because the institutions control both the people joining them as well as the environment they operate in. The balance of economy and society is provided by these institutions (or systems) competing with each other. Without institutions, a complex society wouldn't be able to exist.



Phinn said:


> It hasn't worked out as promised. (...)


I might be missing something here. From my point of view, the United States are the most successful currently existing state and society in the world. Living standards in the U.S. are certainly higher than in any other part of the world (maybe excluding Monaco and the Channel Islands) although you guys started from a lower base than the rest of the world in 1776. So where is the great, cataclysmic failure you are writing about here?

Just my two pence.

Cheers,
A.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> From my point of view, the United States are the most successful currently existing state and society in the world.


Things change.



> So where is the great, cataclysmic failure you are writing about here?


About 3-5 years away. The magnitude of the inflationary stock bubble of the late 1920s is tiny compared to the current one. Today's version not only includes the stock market, but housing finance as well, and will soon lead to the insolvency of our two largest (nationalized) finance companies that together hold over $5 trillion in debt. The Fed just bought $40 billion in mortgage-backed securities, in what amounts to a massive bail-out that went all but unnoticed. They buy these rotten notes, then call them assets, claiming that it "injects necessary liquidity," but what that really means is that the cash masks all the bad decision-making for the last 10-20 years, enables them to continue, and delays the necessary changes in the mortgage credit market.

I'll look into your German Institutionalist references at my first opportunity.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Phinn said:


> About 3-5 years away. The magnitude of the inflationary stock bubble of the late 1920s is tiny compared to the current one. Today's version not only includes the stock market, but housing finance as well, and will soon lead to the insolvency of our two largest (nationalized) finance companies that together hold over $5 trillion in debt. The Fed just bought $40 billion in mortgage-backed securities, in what amounts to a massive bail-out that went all but unnoticed. They buy these rotten notes, then call them assets, claiming that it "injects necessary liquidity," but what that really means is that the cash masks all the bad decision-making for the last 10-20, years, enables them to continue, and delays the necessary changes in the mortgage credit market.


Phinn,

The $40 Bn bailout did _not_ go unnoticed. And there were quite a few scholars and journalists that condemned it as promoting risk-friendly, irresponsible decision-making (quite precisely as you say). However, the bad decision making in sub-prime was more a matter of the last few years (when markets were exceptionally hungry for high-yielding securities). I see the long-term problem of the U.S. economy in the trade deficit, because it is not clear how long it can be financed with imports of fresh capital. However, I do not see a complete economic collapse anywhere near. The U.S. _is_ a very successful economy and, moreover, an extremely successful _state_ and _society_. It think you are too gloomy.



> I'll look into your German Institutionalist references at my first opportunity.


If you can read German, have a look at Gehlen. Fantastic stuff.

Cheers,
A.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Phinn said:


> Things change.
> 
> About 3-5 years away. The magnitude of the inflationary stock bubble of the late 1920s is tiny compared to the current one. Today's version not only includes the stock market, but housing finance as well, and will soon lead to the insolvency of our two largest (nationalized) finance companies that together hold over $5 trillion in debt. The Fed just bought $40 billion in mortgage-backed securities, in what amounts to a massive bail-out that went all but unnoticed. They buy these rotten notes, then call them assets, claiming that it "injects necessary liquidity," but what that really means is that the cash masks all the bad decision-making for the last 10-20 years, enables them to continue, and delays the necessary changes in the mortgage credit market.
> 
> I'll look into your German Institutionalist references at my first opportunity.


I seem to remember quite a few "survivalists" making similar claims (based on similar facts) in the early 1980's. Before then, there have been many predictors of ultimate doom in this country both from economic and religious reasons. How many bunkers are left from Y2K, the 1980's doom seers, the 1950's cold war era, etc.

You are right when you say "today's version". It is just another version of the same. There are major issues that need to be solved, but they can be solved. Think of what we could have done with the billions spent in Iraq.

As to our standard of living, real food costs are less now than ever. Exotic foods from the all over the world are present in every supermarket for incredibly low process. Could my great grandparents ever have imagined the fruits, veggies and meats that are now common everywhere? No, and not just due to technology. As to housing, I think (but can not find the source right now) that home ownership in the US is at an all time high. Sure it's hard to buy a house, but somehow many people manage it. Not everyone lives in NY City or LA or Boston. There are reasonable house prices in many areas.

As to the presence of government, I am very thankful for a strong government. I don't necessarily want laws telling me what to do, but I do want laws that protect me from others forcing me to do what they want or live as they see is the only true way of living. You don't like taxes, but without them would you have the roads, the schools, the protection from others, the protection from people telling you how to live, the freedom to write what you want, etc that you now have. No. Anarchy does not bring freedom. Adam Smith's guiding hand was palsied, frail, blind, arthritic, leprous, and pawing lost in the air.

All of that said, I do really like Jeffrey Hart although I do not agree with some of what he says, he better defines real conservatism than the wing nuts now in power that have left conservative values so far behind while using the term just to gain favor from the population. (I am a good, dyed in the wool (tweed) liberal, but I think real liberals are closer in core values to conservatives than any of us want to admit).

(I feel much more concern about the trade deficit ).


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

When it comes to drinkig Dewars with ice, any real scotch drinker must be shuddering with distaste! Straight up with no ice and only good blends or good single malts.


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

MichaelS said:


> When it comes to drinkig Dewars with ice, any real scotch drinker must be shuddering with distaste! Straight up with no ice and only good blends or good single malts.


I have to disagree with both you and Professor Hart. A real scotch drinker drinks what he likes how he likes it when he pleases and doesn't take tutelage on the subject from anybody.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

A Questionable Gentleman said:


> I have to disagree with both you and Professor Hart. A real scotch drinker drinks what he likes how he likes it when he pleases and doesn't take tutelage on the subject from anybody.


May I add: "...and how much he likes".


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Albert said:


> For me as a non-American, this sounds quite admirable and pleasant. But why does he mention shopping and drinking habits?


For an New Englander it sounds the same.


----------



## Title III Guy (Mar 18, 2007)

Phinn said:


> Yes.
> 
> As an initial matter, anarchism is not primarily a vision of the world that one has to argue into existence. It is not, at base, a normative body of thought, but rather a description of how the world actually is. We live in a state of anarchy, all of us, all the time. The fact that there is a relatively large, powerful organization of people that calls itself "the government," and routinely goes around robbing and threatening people doesn't, in fact, make it a true authority, or even a particularly effective mechanism of genuine control. (The fact that they can't even control the behavior of people in prison, where the level of government involvement in daily life is nowhere more intense, illustrates the limits of its power out here in the open.) This organization, however, does have an excellent propaganda wing that makes many people _believe_ that it is the only thing that stands between you and swift, brutal destruction. But it actually controls very little. What it does control, however, it generally ruins and makes life harder for everyone, its control over the production of paper that it calls money being the most far-reaching of its destructive activities.
> 
> ...


Thank you, Phinn, for your reply. Rather than get too far afield of the original post, I'll say only that we disagree about the role, reality and necessity of government in civilized human endeavor.

Kind regards,
T3G


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Albert said:


> May I add: "...and how much he likes".


Both of you are correct, a real scotch drinker drinks what and how much he likes.

I have to admit however, that I cringe when I see someone take a very good (and often expensive) single malt that he/she bought just to demonstrate his/her sophistication and mix it with Coke or some other mixer. I personaly believe that they need a serious re-education camp!


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

MichaelS said:


> Both of you are correct, a real scotch drinker drinks what and how much he likes.
> 
> I have to admit however, that I cringe when I see someone take a very good (and often expensive) single malt that he/she bought just to demonstrate his/her sophistication and mix it with Coke or some other mixer. I personaly believe that they need a serious re-education camp!


While I've learned to be tolerant in my dotage, I had a similar experience long ago in law school. A bunch of us would get together on Tuesday nights to watch a movie. This happened at a house rented by friends. I kept there a bottle of malt whisky of one sort or another. This had to be carefully and cleverly hidden or another of the attendees (a hardened alcoholic of the first stripe) would arrive before me, ferret it out, pour half of it into a 44 oz. plastic cup and top it up with Coke. Now mind, I had no objection to sharing, but this guy did in half a bottle of whisky in one go and didn't even enjoy it for what it was. Nor did he ask permission. Bugs me to this day.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

MichaelS said:


> Both of you are correct, a real scotch drinker drinks what and how much he likes.
> 
> I have to admit however, that I cringe when I see someone take a very good (and often expensive) single malt that he/she bought just to demonstrate his/her sophistication and mix it with Coke or some other mixer. I personaly believe that they need a serious re-education camp!


Michael,

Couldn't agree more. Why drink Whisky-Coke anyway? Coke is meant to be mixed with *Rum*.

Cheers,
A.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

A Questionable Gentleman said:


> I kept there a bottle of malt whisky of one sort or another. This had to be carefully and cleverly hidden or another of the attendees (a hardened alcoholic of the first stripe) would arrive before me, ferret it out, pour half of it into a 44 oz. plastic cup and top it up with Coke.


You could have re-filled an empty single malt bottle with Ethanol and put it somewhere half-hidden. Would have been an appropriate lesson and, after all, he wasn't a first-time offender!


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Albert, you mentioned Somalia. As fate would have it, there is an interesting recent article on that very subject here.



> When the Somalis dismantled their government in 1991 and returned to their precolonial political status, the expectation was that chaos would result. ... Somalia's pastoral economy is now stronger than that of either neighboring Kenya or Ethiopia. It is the largest exporter of livestock of any East African country. Telecommunications have burgeoned in Somalia; a call from a mobile phone is cheaper in Somalia than anywhere else in Africa. A small number of international investors are finding that the level of security of property and contract in Somalia warrants doing business there. Among these companies are Dole, BBC, the courier DHL, British Airways, General Motors, and Coca Cola, which recently opened a large bottling plant in Mogadishu. A 5-star Ambassador Hotel is operating in Hargeisa, and three new universities are fully functional: Amoud University (1997) in Borama, and Mogadishu University (1997), and University of Benadir (2002) in Mogadishu.


Conditions are still poor compared to Europe and America, but life expectancy, number of doctors, infant mortality and other quality-of-life statistics have all _improved_ over this time period.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Conditions are still poor compared to Europe and America, but life expectancy, number of doctors, infant mortality and other quality-of-life statistics have all _improved_ over this time period.


But isn't that because the extreme Islamist militias have taken over and are transforming the country into a muslim dictatorship? Or am I totally wrong with this assertion?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

The writer of the article attributes the improvements to a true common-law system that protects property rights (i.e., the _Xeer_, a traditional body of law that is not dictated by a handful of judges -- the English common law was formulated in a similar way, and has since been co-opted and gutted by the highly-centralized American juristocracy).

He also notes the fact that since there is no immediate probability of there being a UN/US-sponsored almighty central State, there is less cause for war. (U.S. Presidents used to receive visitors all the time. They used to go on walks unescorted. Now that he is a de facto emperor, security is through the roof. Why? Centralized power attracts thugs like sh*t attracts flies.)


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Phinn said:


> The writer of the article attributes the improvements to a true common-law system that protects property rights (i.e., the _Xeer_, a traditional body of law that is not dictated by a handful of judges -- the English common law was formulated in a similar way, and has since been co-opted and gutted by the highly-centralized American juristocracy).


"Juristocracy" is one of those fabricated, politically agendized terms that have no basis in reality, like "partial-birth abortion" or "defense of marriage". If you're against constitutional government, fine, but given that form of government, the only teeth any constitution has is in a judiciary who can interpret and enforce it when necessary.

As for English common law, you're correct about its roots, but claiming American courts have "co-opted and gutted" it is absurd. The "guts" of common law courts are common sense and stare decisis, and interpretation/enforcement of Acts of Parliament. Although judges have a bit more leeway in their decisions, the decisions still have to respect precedent, and still can be appealed to the House of Lords (at least until 2009, when the judicial function of Parliament will end and an independent UK Supreme Court will be established).


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> "Juristocracy" is one of those fabricated, politically agendized terms that have no basis in reality, like "partial-birth abortion" or "defense of marriage".


Yippiehh!! Frankie "The Voice" apodictic is back with a whole basket of wasps. I'm looking forward to great wrestling about "partial-birth abortions", "defence of marriage" and "juristocracy". Well done, chum.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Agendized?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Phinn,

And I didn't think Frank's defense of North Korea could be topped! But now you did it! Anyone defending "market forces" in Somalia is a very special person indeed. 

What next? Federal income taxes are voluntary?

karl


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

A stateless market is _improving_ conditions in Somalia. Even the UN appears to agree with that, and the statistics bear this out.

The absence of a UN/US forces has reduced the incentive of the warring factions, since there is no longer the prize of control of a UN/US-sponsored central state to fight over.

I'd be glad to hear your thoughts on how either of these statements are incorrect.

As for income taxes, I have no doubt that the United States government _considers_ them to be mandatory. However, the powers claimed by that government are illegitimate and of no authority whatsoever, including the power to steal money and call it "taxation."


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

So, how would you like to organise public life, Phinn?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> So, how would you like to organise public life, Phinn?


Such that it is fully private and voluntary.


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Such that it is fully private and voluntary.


Good stuff. I first would form a militia which forces people wearing rubber soles out of my area. Fully private and voluntarily.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Do you own that area?


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Do you own that area?


No, but if there is no state there is consequently no one to guarantee ownership rights. Especially not of public areas. So we take a bit of nice kit and get the whole rubber soled lot shifted. Will be a heyday! 

By the way: how would that be conceptually different from what happened in Somalia?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> if there is no state there is consequently no one to guarantee ownership rights. Especially not of public areas


Two errors:

1. the State is not the only way to "guarantee property rights," nor even a particularly good way. In fact, it seems to be one of the most effective mechanisms for the wholesale violation of property rights yet devised.

2. No State = no public areas. There are only private areas (many of which, as they do now, would give broad permission for you and others to be there, which permission, however, would not include allowing you to assault other invitees), or unowned areas.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Two errors:
> 
> 1. the State is not the only way to "guarantee property rights," nor even a particularly good way. In fact, it seems to be one of the most effective mechanisms for the wholesale violation of property rights yet devised.


Ok I'll bite. Name one credible alternative mechanism, other than a mishmash of private police forces (which would clash among themselves in an anarchy), or a billion people all sitting on their front porches 24/7 with shotguns?



Phinn said:


> 2. No State = no public areas. There are only private areas (many of which, as they do now, would give broad permission for you and others to be there, which permission, however, would not include allowing you to assault other invitees), or unowned areas.


And who enforces the "no assault" restriction? Shotguns again?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Ok I'll bite. *Name one credible alternative mechanism, other than a mishmash of private police forces (which would clash among themselves in an anarchy)*, or a billion people all sitting on their front porches 24/7 with shotguns?
> 
> And who enforces the "no assault" restriction? Shotguns again?


Yes, just like the early volunteer fire brigades used to do.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Since neither of you have bothered to read any of the sources I have cited, I don't feel particularly compelled to explain it all to you.

But I'll make you a deal -- if the governments that purport to control and represent (ha!) us were to confine their activities to the guaranteeing of property rights, to the prevention and remedies of assaults, even (dare I say it?) to the extinguishing of fires, I'll settle. I'll even throw in the other chestnut that ignorant, uneducated fools invariably toss onto the pile -- child labor laws (even though the actual history of child labor laws shows quite plainly that they were enacted to protect jobs for connected political insiders like unions to eliminate youthful competition, and the laws actually resulted in an increase of the hardship on the children and families that depended on those incomes, thereby resulting in an increase in child crime, prostitution and death by poverty -- buy, hey, you're the benevolent ones, right?).

Of course, that would mean that the other 99.9% of what the modern State _actually does_ every day in this country -- the currency manipulations, the price-fixing, the production quotas, the protectionist restrictions and tax schemes, the sponsorship of monopolies, the building and development restrictions and subsidies, etc. -- would come to an end.

Deal?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Since neither of you have bothered to read any of the sources I have cited, I don't feel particularly compelled to explain it all to you.
> 
> But I'll make you a deal -- if the governments that purport to control and represent (ha!) us were to confine their activities to the guaranteeing of property rights, to the prevention and remedies of assaults, even (dare I say it?) to the extinguishing of fires, I'll settle. I'll even throw in the other chestnut that ignorant, uneducated fools invariably toss onto the pile -- child labor laws (even though the actual history of child labor laws shows quite plainly that they were enacted to protect jobs for connected political insiders like unions to eliminate youthful competition, and the laws actually resulted in an increase of the hardship on the children and families that depended on those incomes, thereby resulting in an increase in child crime, prostitution and death by poverty -- buy, hey, you're the benevolent ones, right?).
> 
> ...


I'm not going to argue this with you. You have your dream of this perfect system (which, to be honest, in theory does not sound too bad), and that is fine. I however, unlike Maslow, don't believe that people are basically good, so I don't ever see a system like this working.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Albert said:


> Good stuff. I first would form a militia which forces people wearing rubber soles out of my area. Fully private and voluntarily.


Even those with Dainite-soled EGs and C&Js?


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> Even those with Dainite-soled EGs and C&Js?


We will be issuing special permits starting at 0630h.


----------



## eg1 (Jan 17, 2007)

Keep on fighting the good fight, *Phinn*! I don't happen to agree with you any more than I agree with the atheists, but I happen to believe they, like yourself, are necessary. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Since neither of you have bothered to read any of the sources I have cited


I read most of them, and didn't find a single credible (let alone practical) answer.



Phinn said:


> But I'll make you a deal -- if the governments that purport to control and represent (ha!) us were to confine their activities to the guaranteeing of property rights, to the prevention and remedies of assaults, even (dare I say it?) to the extinguishing of fires, I'll settle. I'll even throw in the other chestnut that ignorant, uneducated fools invariably toss onto the pile -- child labor laws


That's your list. "Phinn's Justifiable Government Functions". Great. Now, what happens when your next door neighbor has a different list? Do you have the right to impose your list on him? Or 300,000,000 other people?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> I read most of them, and didn't find a single credible (let alone practical) answer.


You ordered, received and read 5 full-length books since Tuesday?



> Now, what happens when your next door neighbor has a different list? Do you have the right to impose your list on him?


No. That's, uh, kinda my entire point.

I think this shows how you are able to read 5 full-length books in 2 days -- you either live entirely in your own imagination, or your reading skills are so inconsequential that you can "read" 295 pages a minute without any loss of comprehension -- you can't get much lower than zero.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Albert said:


> Good stuff. I first would form a militia which forces people wearing rubber soles out of my area. Fully private and voluntarily.


The trouble is, your militia may need to wear rubber soles on their boots or else their boots will be too slipery to push the other rubber sole wearing miscreants away! What to do??


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Phinn said:


> You ordered, received and read 5 full-length books since Tuesday?


Did I claim I did? I read Anarchy and the Law several months ago, Market for Liberty and The Enterprise of Law some years ago, and have read several other books over the years on the subject.



Phinn said:


> I think this shows how you are able to read 5 full-length books in 2 days -- you either live entirely in your own imagination


Right back at ya, Phinn. Anarchy looks ok on a Malcolm McLaren t-shirt, but seriously believing in it is just delusional.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> That's your list. "Phinn's Justifiable Government Functions". Great. Now, what happens when your next door neighbor has a different list? Do you have the right to impose your list on him? Or 300,000,000 other people?


It's possible that _snide_ is simply a core component of your personality, but you give the impression that you disagree with the idea of _limited government_ -- you imply that I have no right to ask my neighbor not to interfere with the prices I agree to with third parties, to refrain from supporting an organization that tells me (and others) what businesses we can and cannot enter, what we can charge for our goods and services, and what we can and can't build on our property. (When I ask this neighbor not to do these things to me and others, you think I am somehow "_imposing _my list" on him -- that's nuts, but I'm willing to overlook this crack-pottery for the time being.)

Perhaps it would be helpful if you could sketch out your idea of the proper scope of government, but more importantly explain briefly the philosophical, moral, scientific and/or logical reasoning _process_ that you used to arrive at your conclusions, so that we can come to understand the method by which you judge current events and various proposals as they come along.


----------

