Pun Salad

Last month, I looked at Matt Zwolinski's essay, titled Libertarianism's Democracy Problem. In it he referred to this book by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (H3 from here on). And also Against Democracy by Jason Brennan, which I read and liked quite a bit.

But I was intrigued enough to request H3's book, which arrived from Brandeis U, thanks to the Interlibrary Loan Service of the University Near Here. (The inner cover says the book was purchased for the Brandeis library by the "Brandeis National Women's Committee", which strikes me as an odd choice for a Women's Committee, but never mind.)

Anyway: I didn't care for the book much. It's not really about democracy, but a manifesto detailing and advocating H3's political philosophy. Which his subtitle calls "natural order", but most of us fellow travellers of the libertarian camp know as anarchocapitalism: all property is private, its justice system (police, justice, punishment) provided by firms competing for voluntary customers in the marketplace.

H3's inspiration is in the Austrian school of economics, particularly Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. Those two are quoted and praised extensively, with the fervor of a old-style bible-thumper quoting the Good Book. The (equally Austrian) Friedrich Hayek is relatively ignored, relegated to some footnotes. (H3's excuse: Hayek studied under early Mises, before the Misesian system was entirely worked out, and hence is a heretic. Rothbard got Mises later, and therefore is his true intellectual heir.)

H3's political/economic views are heterodox. For example, he likes old-style monarchy better than democracy, because the monarch "owns" the state, and is constrained in his behavior as is any business owner: his ability to please the customers. Democratic governments, on the other hand, are all on a slippery slope eventually, inevitably, leading to socialist totalitarianism; it's just that some countries got there quicker than others.

As for America: the Declaration was great, the resulting Revolution was inspiring, the post-Revolutionary government was admirable, and the Constitution was a big fat mistake, giving too much power to the Federal Government. Arguable!

Even more arguable is H3's sympathy for the secessionist "Southern Confederacy" decades later; after all, weren't they just insisting on doing the same thing America did when it seceded from Britain? (H3 admits, finally, that "the issue of slavery" might have "complicated and obscured the situation in 1861." Gee, ya think?

Along the way H3 disdains liberal pieties, for example multiculturalism. He claims "no multicultural society—and especially no democratic one—has ever worked peacefully for very long." Uh, Hans, simply as an editing pedantry: if no such society exists, then the aside about democratic ones is superfluous at best.

H3 can also be hair-on-fire apocalyptic: "The U.S. government does not protect us. To the contrary, there exists no greater danger to our life, property, and prosperity than the U.S. government, and the U.S. president in particular is the world's single most threatening and armed danger, capable of ruining everyone who opposes him and destroying the entire globe."

The book is ©2001, by the way. U.S. Presidents have just been "biden" their time in destroying the globe.

Bottom line: even as a mostly-libertarian, I can't recommend H3. He's right about some things, utterly wrong about way too many others. If you want a libertarian critique of democracy, Jason Brennan's a better choice.

I've been blogging about REAL ID for a REAL long time (heh). An example from eighteen years ago: REAL ID == Imaginary Security.

And also linking to folks like Bruce Schneier. and Jim Harper. I bought Jim's book Identity Crisis long ago (and so can you, Amazon link at your right); my report is here.

But I have a confession to make: My driver license came up for renewal this year, and the Official Word is that you're gonna need a REAL ID card to get on a plane, starting next month.

So I meekly gathered my documentation together (an ancient Social Security card, birth certificate, plus my car registration), shelled out some extra money, and voila, a few days later, I got a REAL ID-compliant license.

Jim Harper's telling me, however, that I probably didn't need to do that: Which is in Collapse? Administrative Law or REAL ID?.

I'm in total agreement! So why did I get REAL? As with so many things involving government: at my age, I just want to minimize hassle. I plan on flying to Iowa later this year, and just want to avoid even a chance of a TSA agent's raised eyebrow.

It will be interesting to see whether there will be news reports of masses of irate travelers on May 7. Will President Trump "illegally" come to their rescue? Pass the popcorn.

Also of note:

• Geez, it's almost as if Trump's not a First Amendment fan. Jacob Sullum notes Constitutional illiteracy at the highest levels of Your Federal Government: Treating Journalism As Consumer Fraud, Trump Claims Coverage of a Presidential Poll Was Not 'News Reporting'.

  Shortly before last year's presidential election, the Des Moines Register reported the results of a poll that gave Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate, a three-point lead in Iowa. That surprising result, generated by a survey that pollster Ann Selzer conducted for the Register, proved to be off by more than a little: Donald Trump ultimately won Iowa by 13 percentage points.

  Trump is still mad about that survey, and he is trying to punish the Register and Selzer for it by persuading a federal judge in Iowa that it amounted to consumer fraud under state law. The obvious problem for Trump is that his fraud claim hinges on showing that he suffered damages because he reasonably relied on misrepresentations by the defendants in connection with the sale of "consumer merchandise." Since Trump did not buy anything from the Register or Selzer, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) argued in a motion to dismiss his lawsuit, he is trying to invent a tort that consists of reporting "fraudulent news," which would be plainly inconsistent with the First Amendment.

  I'd consider this grounds for impeachment, in violation of his oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

  But nobody asked me.

• Did I call it, or what? Jeff Maurer provides a guest writer for his substack, Vice President J.D. Vance. Who writes Omen, Schmomen: Sometimes Popes Die Five Minutes After You Meet Them.

  Libtards and naysayers are gunning for the Trump administration. Every small setback is treated like a crisis, every hiccup reported like it’s the end of the world. And that’s why, when I learned that Pope Francis had passed away almost immediately after meeting with me on Easter Sunday, and that basically his last act on Earth was to rebuke the path that President Trump and I have chosen, I thought: “People are going to make something of this.” That’s just the world we live in; when the Pope grasps your hand, issues a stark warning, and then dies, almost as if he had been kept alive purely to deliver a dire message directly from God, the bedwetters and snowflakes will try to find some symbolism in that sequence of events.

  And sure enough, they have! Cut-ups on social media are trying to make a connection between me shaking the Pope’s hand and his so-proximate-as-to-be-functionally-concurrent death. But I know the truth: These things simply happen. Pope Francis was 88. And sometimes, you meet the Pope during a time of turmoil, he pulls you close and issues an admonition, and then passes away with your hand practically still clasped within his so that you may feel the icy grip of death enter his body in a chilling representation of what might happen to the Body of Mankind should you not heed his warning. Ho hum.

  You don't want to miss a guest appearance by "the beheaded ghost of John the Baptist". Click through.

• On the LFOD watch. Valley News reporter Narain Batra covers A day in the life of a Vermont state senator. Specifically, Senator Joe Major, from Windsor County. Joe's not a fan of the Granite State:

  Finally, I asked him why Vermont is not “A Live Free or Die” state like neighboring New Hampshire, where there is no state income tax or sales tax?

  Vermont’s philosophy contrasts sharply with New Hampshire’s libertarian approach, he said.

  “A couple of things. One, this state, Vermont, is a bit of a safety net state. And what I mean by that is we want to take care of everyone and create somewhat of a safety net,” thus resulting in higher taxes to fund social programs. Vermont’s tax policies, including taxing seniors and military benefits, discourage retirees and businesses, making affordability a challenge. Balancing compassion with economic sustainability remains Vermont’s ongoing struggle, he said, “And I personally like Vermont a little better.”

  For reference, the Tax Foundation ranked New Hampshire #6 among the states for "tax competitiveness". Vermont was … not close behind, coming in at #43.

  But I also got a chuckle out of this:

  Major serves on two Senate committees: Agriculture and Institutions, each of which offer a window into the state.

  “Agriculture is interwoven into the fabric of Vermont,” he said. As vice chair of the Agriculture Committee, he focuses on sustaining Vermont’s struggling farming sector, which faces challenges like federal subsidy reductions and weather impacts. Vermont has lost over $55 million in farming revenue in four years, including a 40% decline in dairy farms between 2012 and 2022.

  Which reminded me of the article I cited yesterday, claiming that attempts to bring back manufacturing jobs was a "fool's errand". Senator Major seems to be on an even more foolish errand, frantically trying to prop up a sector that's obviously been fading for a long time. Because it's "interwoven."