By ilana mercer
To manipulate Americans, politicians Before Trump have used the values cudgel. With respect to immigration, the idea is to impress upon gullible Americans that the world has a global Right of Return to the U.S. Fail to accept egalitarian immigration for all into America; and you are flouting the very essence of Americanism. (Or, to use liberal argumentation, you’re Hitler.) Continue reading
There is nothing special about ‘democracy’. Democracy is just one way of legitimising a government so that it can rule by consent. It varies from culture to culture. Continue reading
About ten years ago, the Belgian philosopher of law Frank van Dun published a paper entitled “Concepts of Order.” In that paper he gives, among much else, an account of what he calls the convivial order. In this order, “people live together regardless of their membership, status, position, role or function in any, let alone the same, society.” It appeared in a book “Ordered Anarchy: Jasay and His Surroundings,” published in 2007 as a tribute to Anthony de Jasay. It has been preserved on the Internet on Anthony Flood’s website here .
Around the same time, the German-American libertarian philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe published a paper, “The Idea of a Private Law Society” . That paper outlines some of the institutions, which might maintain order and justice in societies without political states.
Recently, I re-read Frank van Dun’s work in this area, and I find it seminal. I was surprised and rather disappointed to find no evidence of anyone having tried to build on his framework in the intervening decade or so. So today, I’ll try to build on the theoretical ideas of Frank van Dun and the practical suggestions of Hans-Hermann Hoppe. I’m going to sketch a picture of how people might be able to live together, and resolve their disputes, without a state or a “sovereign.” Continue reading
By Ilana Mercer
In his August 20 rally in Fredericksburg, Va., Donald Trump continued to say things surprisingly basic. Or, “insubstantial,” if you believe the presstitutes (with apologies to prostitutes, who do an honest day’s work and whom I respect). I paraphrase:
We are going to take our country back.
It is going to be a new day in America. It is going to be a great day in America.
Government will listen to the people again. The voters, not the special interests, will be in charge. Ours will be a government of, by, and for the people.
Our economy will grow. Jobs will come back. New factories will stretch all across the nation.
Families will be safe and secure. Crime will go down. Law and order will be restored to these United States of America. Continue reading
Homosexuality and Discrimination:
A View from the Right
by Sean Gabb
(19th April 2011)
On Wednesday the 13th April 2011, two men, James Bull and Jonathan Williams, kissed each other in the John Snow public house in Soho. Apparently, they were then asked to leave by a member of staff who called their act “obscene.” This alleged incident led to the usual sort of outrage. On the Friday following, several hundred homosexuals gathered in the street outside the pub to kiss each other. The pub closed early. Though its landlord has not so far made any comment to the media, the Metropolitan Police are now on the prowl, to see if he or his staff can be done under the “hate crime” laws. Continue reading
I am using “Progressive” as the label popullarly assigned to the movement, rather than as an adjective. Like conservative and Conservative or gay and Gay.
I think that the meaningful socio-political divide in the Anglosphere, or at least *a* meaningful dichotomy, dates as far back as the Reformation. It can be seen as two approaches to Christianity. One of these is individualist, distinguishes Church and State (moral and secular rules) and so on. This is the liberal side, which we are on. The other interpretation is collectivist and theocratic. There is no division of the moral and secular rule sets. The State and Church are one, and the law is used for moral correction. This is the side of the extreme Protestants such as Calvin (particularly) and thus I refer to this as the Puritan side. Continue reading
Recently, Sean told me he favoured the Enlightenment rather that the Romantic reaction to it, as daft Ayn Rand did. I said I rather thought he was with Romance up till then. I certainly think that Chris was.
Dirty little ideas like “class”, “struggle”, and “enemy” infuse the Romantic paradigm and the outlook is personal rather than objective whereas the Enlightenment paradigm thinks in terms of ignorance, objective knowledge and the basic unity of interests in any society. Continue reading