Monthly Archives: July 2011

If you’re not familiar with the profound effect the Federalist Society has had on America’s legal systems you should read up. Whatever you may think about the originalist perspective espoused by the Federalist Society it has transformed Constitutional jurisprudence. It’s no stretch to say that originalism frames every major Constitutional debate, regardless of its ultimate outcome. Recent, notable cases whose outcome turned on originalist issues include Heller v. DC (2nd Amendment), Citizens United (First Amendment), and each of the Obamacare lawsuits (Commerce Clause, 10th Amendment).

Did you know three sitting members of the Supreme Court are or were members? Or that the Federalist Society is only 29 years old. In short the Federalist Society is a legal powerhouse of Conservative and Libertarian lawyers, most of whom join the society in law school.

I write, however, about another similar, fantastic, student initiated, soon to be socio-political and economic powerhouse organization on the rise whose transformatory effect will eclipse, I predict, many times over in scope and import that of the Federalist Society. Statists beware–members of the Students for Liberty are coming to get you. Though yet small in number they fervently wish for pure unadulterated freedom, and intend to reduce government accordingly. They heart Murray Rothbard like Republicans luv Ronald Reagan. By the way have you read the autopsy of Reagan Rothbard wrote in 1989? It’s not very kind:

Eight years, eight dreary, miserable, mind-numbing years, the years of the Age of Reagan, are at long last coming to an end. These years have surely left an ominous legacy for the future: we shall undoubtedly suffer from the after-shocks of Reaganism for years to come. But at least Himself will not be there, and without the man Reagan, without what has been called his “charisma,” Reaganism cannot nearly be the same. Reagan’s heirs and assigns are a pale shadow of the Master, as we can see from the performance of George Bush. He might try to imitate the notes of Reagan, but the music just ain’t there. Only this provides a glimmer of hope for America: that Reaganism might not survive much beyond Reagan.

Reagan the Man

Many recent memoirs have filled out the details of what some of us have long suspected: that Reagan is basically a cretin who, as a long-time actor, is skilled in reading his assigned lines and performing his assigned tasks. Donald Regan and others have commented on Ronald Reagan’s strange passivity, his never asking questions or offering any ideas of his own, his willingness to wait until others place matters before him. Regan has also remarked that Reagan is happiest when following the set schedule that others have placed before him. The actor, having achieved at last the stardom that had eluded him in Hollywood, reads the lines and performs the action that others – his script-writers, his directors – have told him to follow.

Carrying on, as SFL is not quite 4 years old (it was founded in 2007) SFLers are just barely arriving to socio-political launching pads such as graduate schools, Wall Street, political offices, and law schools. If the Federalist Society could change the course of legal discourse in America, SFL will transform America’s political landscape towards the cause of individual freedom. You’ll know SFL has arrived when Fox devotes a prime time television slot to someone like a Jack Hunter, or John Stossel. Don’t forget where you heard it first.

Finally, here’s a look at the type of discourse common amongst SFLers. If you’re not familiar with the “classic “minarchism” versus “anarchism”” debate, pack a lunch.

On Conservatism: Why Rational Social Calculation is Doomed to Failure:

After our heated debate last week against conservative students, I thought it *prudential* to continue the conversation, if only to shed light on a variety of lingering arguments, deepen insight, and continue the battle of ideas.

Conservatism is ultimately logically incoherent because it is systemically flawed. The problem of rational calculation as described in the Austrian tradition plagues conservatism as much as it does socialism. Let’s explore how both right and left lead to the same outcome.

The problem of calculation in the market is an epistemological issue: how do we know when to use steel or platinum when building a railroad? How do we determine prices for a skiing match as opposed to a curling match? We know these things because the market is a revelatory and communicative process whereby individuals coordinate plans as circumstances change and knowledge accumulates. Entrepreneurs fuel the ebb and tide of information flows as they discover opportunities to reap benefits from market exchanges, create value, produce what is desirable, and abandon what is undesirable. The market process is evolutionary rather than rationally planned. Similarly, the market in ideas and traditions helps us understand why some behaviors are desirable and others undesirable. How do we know, after all, that it is bad to steal from others? How do we know not to ruin our lives with drugs? Only through an organic and revelatory process of evolution in which individuals collide and form religious, familial, and community institutions are they able to understand how to live peacefully, prudently, and virtuously. As times and circumstances change, individuals adapt by responding to one another and adjusting their expectations. To achieve social order, there is no central planner to pick what we buy; there is no philosopher king to tell us how to live.

This organic process is not without rules or restraint; it depends on some systemic protection of rights that will keep individuals from infringing upon one another’s lives and properties. If I adopt a rights-based framework for society, conservatives will typically respond by arguing that my advocacy of property rights stems from a subjective ethical preference just as much as their advocacy of virtue stems from a subjective ethical preference. Doesn’t this amount to moral relativism?

This is an interesting critique of natural rights theory, and it comes down to my ability to explain where rights come from. But where does this lead us? Conservatives will make an objective ethical preference (“virtue” or “prudence”) and claim a monopoly on force to legislate based on that preference. I am willing to concede that my inability to explain where rights originate may make me incapable of using a monopoly on force to legislate based on my preference (“property rights”). I will be open to the claim that alternative institutions within civil society can enforce property rights. One may engage in the classic “minarchism” versus “anarchism” debate here and draw his or her own conclusions.

Via Gary Johnson Grassroots Forums:

Via GaryJohnson2012.com:

Our economic future hangs in the balance.

There’s a ludicrous debate going on in Washington between the people who got us into this economic mess and the people who want to dig us in deeper.

That about sums it up.

We are indebted to the tune of $15 trillion, and yet they still refuse to cut spending and balance the budget. Our “choice” is either default and chaos or more debt and stagnation.

I am the only candidate who has repeatedly cut spending and balanced a budget, and the only candidate who has stated publicly that he will submit a balanced budget to Congress in 2013.

I am also the only Presidential candidate who has committed to veto every appropriations bill that exceeds a balanced budget. Given my veto record in New Mexico you can trust that when I say I will veto a bill, I will do so.

But I will only be able to stop destructive legislation with your support: https://donate.GaryJohnson2012.com.

When I was Governor, these were the types of debates that I engaged in every single day. “If Johnson has his way, people will be thrown out on the streets!” “Essential goods and services won’t be provided,” they would say.

Of course, none of these things ever happened. In fact, I was re-elected in 1998 by a wider margin than in my initial victory. This happened in a state that is 2:1 Democratic, proving that running a leaner, more efficient, fiscally conservative government makes life better for everyone.

No one has said that cutting $1.65 trillion will be easy. But it can be done and our budget can be balanced.

Reducing government spending by enough to balance the budget merely requires shrinking the size of the federal government back to 2003 levels.

Is the world really so different today to warrant the unprecedented expansion in the size and scope of government that has occurred over these last eight years?

Game, set, match. POW!!!

Eliminating our deficit requires a President who recognizes that fiscal solvency is the most important issue of our day. If we elect a President who calls for balancing the federal budget ten years from now, then we will end up with a budget that is balanced in 20 or 30 years instead.

We need someone in office who will start steering America’s fiscal ship in the right direction the day he takes office, but I can only get there with your generous financial support: https://donate.GaryJohnson2012.com.

Two weeks ago, I signed the Cut, Cap and Balance pledge, which calls for spending cuts, a cap on federal spending, and a balanced budget amendment. But this is the least we can do.

Our debate should not be about whether the President should go around Congress to raise the debt ceiling without their approval. It should be about principle first and politics last.

I refuse to cave to the demands of those who promote fiscal irresponsibility. I pledge to engage our fellow citizens and win over public opinion – even when the right solution may be a difficult pill to swallow.

You won’t hear me make unfounded promises about what growth rate we’ll have when I’m President, just as I never took credit for creating jobs as Governor.

Instead, I will work to create certainty in government, which is the one thing a President can do to help the economy, and something that has been missing for far too long.

But most of all, I pledge to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is the only pledge that matters.

Thank you for your support: https://donate.GaryJohnson2012.com.

Via BoingBoing:

Via:

The Royal Irish Fusiliers of the British expeditionary forces come to the aid of French farmers whose horses have been commandeered by the French Army. A tank is hitched to a plow to help with the spring tilling of the soil on March 27, 1940. (AP Photo)

I spent the morning reading Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience:

[5] The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus,(7) etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others, as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders, serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men, serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it.

Here’s Whitney Houston performing the geratest rendition of the Star Spangled Banner. Ever. EVER!

pg. 12 (Regarding the difficulty of properly enjoying a “good swinging cocktail party” while on a reduced calorie diet):

With that much liquor and that little food inside you, you’ll be lucky if you don’t wreck your car on the way home.

pg. 14: (Words of wisdom):

A large T-Bone steak contains no more carbohydrates than a small one.

My favorite passage, also from pg. 14:

You can drink as much as you think is good for you. There is ample medical testimony to show that ingestion of fats slows down the rate of absorption of alcohol into the bloodstream. Remember how the Russians were said to keep sober at International conferences by swallowing olive oil before the vodka? On our [the Drinking Man's] diet you can keep up with the Russians or anyone else.

A testimonial (from a classics professor) on pg. 24-25:

For years I had to steer a perilous course between the Scylla of abstemiousness and the Charybdis of adiposity. Now, thanks to your diet, I am able to serve with a light and carefree heart meals which my colleagues qualify as Lucullan.

Here: