My Cato Essays

[George H. Smith]

Independence Day: What is There to Celebrate?

The ideal of individual freedom is more than a will-o-the-wisp. It was widely appreciated in the past and so may become widely appreciated in the future.

My Cato Essay #133 is now up.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Well, George, you've pretty much explained the old Atlantis with Jimmy Wales playing King George III.

--Brant

and you, General George Washington?

[George H. Smith]

Thomas Paine Versus Edmund Burke, Part 10

Smith explains Paine’s views on paper money, price controls, self-interest, and exploitative governments.

My Cato Essay #134 is now up.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

We are obviously getting closer to a discussion of political anarchy vs delimited government.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

We are obviously getting closer to a discussion of political anarchy vs delimited government.

--Brant

I already discussed Paine's view on anarchy in Part 5. . Paine believed that a decent anarchistic society is possible, as evidenced by past societies that functioned quite well without government for lengthy periods of time. According to Paine, however, government is desirable in most cases as a matter of convenience, but not as a matter of necessity.

This was a fairly standard position among Lockean types. Even David Hume, who was hardly a flaming radical, conceded the possibility of orderly anarchistic societies. Much of the modern handwringing by libertarians over the supposed horrors of anarchy stem from Ayn Rand's rather arbitrary pronouncements on the matter. Her views are very similar to those of Hobbbes.

I didn't respond to some of your recent posts because I didn't quite understand them.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

I'm aware of prior discusion but I suspect it comes back to that, not that you'd bring it up again but leave us at the front door. That was my vague impression of the progression. This is not, afterall, just about 200 years ago. The whole idea of the history of philosophy--political philosophy--is how it informs the present, as just about any other endeavor does too--informs it if not fully in it.

The remark about Jimmy was the analogous effect he had on the old Atlantis as the British government had on the colonies and how it was more of the reaction it engendered than the gross nature of the insult. They both behaved like purblind landlords not welcome in the homes, but they came in anyway. What the rent entitlement was, if any, was another issue.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

Considering how widely Paine was read in the colonies, it is simply staggering to compare the real levels of comprehensive and caring intelligence then to now.

--Brant

Good point; the same thing has occurred to me as well. Paine was widely criticized for catering to the "common man" by dumbing down his ideas, and the style of his writing was attacked as crude. Yet a lot of college students would have trouble following him today.

Ghs

The quality of literature in an age varies inversely with the rate of literacy.

[Brant Gaede]

Considering how widely Paine was read in the colonies, it is simply staggering to compare the real levels of comprehensive and caring intelligence then to now.

--Brant

Good point; the same thing has occurred to me as well. Paine was widely criticized for catering to the "common man" by dumbing down his ideas, and the style of his writing was attacked as crude. Yet a lot of college students would have trouble following him today.

Ghs

The quality of literature in an age varies inversely with the rate of literacy.

I'd have to change "rate" to "type."

--Brant

if you can't think so what if you can read?

[George H. Smith]

I'm aware of prior discusion but I suspect it comes back to that, not that you'd bring it up again but leave us at the front door. That was my vague impression of the progression. This is not, afterall, just about 200 years ago. The whole idea of the history of philosophy--political philosophy--is how it informs the present, as just about any other endeavor does too--informs it if not fully in it.

The remark about Jimmy was the analogous effect he had on the old Atlantis as the British government had on the colonies and how it was more of the reaction it engendered than the gross nature of the insult. They both behaved like purblind landlords not welcome in the homes, but they came in anyway. What the rent entitlement was, if any, was another issue.

--Brant

I still don't understand your point, but I'll make a few remarks in the hope of accidentally saying something relevant.

As understood throughout the history of political thought, "government" has signified a sovereign political authority. When Edward Gibbon, Adam Smith, and other Enlightenment figures spoke of "feudal anarchy," they were referring to the fact that medieval feudalism, with its legal pluralism and competing political agencies, generally lacked sovereign national authorities.

There is nothing inevitable or morally necessary about governments in this sense. If there were, we would either have a world government, or, at the very least, minarchist libertarians (especially O'ists) should be advocating a world government as a remedy for the chaos of international anarchy.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Well, I understand Madison thought it was theorectically possible to extend the US federal system over the entirety of the world if the world would go along with it as a system. The US, of course, has become way too big and powerful and is turning on its own citizens more and more. I'm now of the opinion that Hamilton is the real Father of the Country as it is and Washington as it was before the Constitutional Convention.

I think of myself as a where-do-we-go-from here-ist? I don't seek a desirable end result but a desirable continuing process of the accumulation of more freedom. A goal post should be put up for public viewing, consideration and direction but labeled as such but if that is an anarchial state, we'll scare the horses for there is no forgiveness for minarchist sins in that heaven. Washington was right about the essential nature of government--it's force--and Rand wrong. There is no way to have a government that does not initiate force, so if we are going to have that make it as small as practical.

--Brant

an anarchist--at least of the lbertarian variety--doesn't need forgiveness for the sins of any government--which makes him psychologically a free man out of hand as long as he doesn't throw bombs and initiate force in the name of la causa which, for instance, the anarchical, the-state-whithers-away-but-let's-speed-it-up, communists had no trouble doing

[George H. Smith]

Brant,

The other day I watched all the episodes of the HB0 series "John Adams." It was better than I expected, despite some glaring goofs, such as having Thomas Paine present at a meeting several years before he was even in America. I mention the series because it pretty much portrayed Alexander Hamilton as the power-seeking, big government villain he really was.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

George,

I've read that Hamilton was the dominant force in Washington's cabinet and his number one advisor. He certainly had practical genius in figuring out the government's monetary problems and doing something about them. Now I'm beginning to wonder how much of the Founding Fathers creation and support of the Constitution of the United States had to do with protecting their status as slave owners, not only idealists, for that's what that document does. There's always hypocrisy in state politics. That's why Great Britain was supportive of the South in the Civil War, which was supportive of slavery and the fruits of slavery in spite of its occupying the moral high ground by banning the slave trade. Enough slaves had already been imported to sustain slavery economically. Economics--industrialization--would have ended slavery eventually. Idealism trumps economics only when its affordable to let it in the house all the way. Nothing's changed. Oil wars are of the same cloth.

The great American irony is fighting a war to end slavery so free men could be enslaved, albeit over a long period of time. The club replaced by the bribery carrot. Freedom swapped out for security. Youth sacrificed to the present, to the old guys and granny. A financial columnist exults that he and his wife took Social Security at 62 so they could have more retirement fun in the subsequent years, travel and such. That's what they did. This is the problem: the money stolen via taxes for SS was immediately spent, never mind the non-negotiable bonds SS acquired in compensation. The money doled out is being stolen right now from working people. That's why Rose Wilder Lane called it a Ponzi scheme and had nothing to do with it. I'm personally not so virtuous. I started my very modest SS at 70 and Medicare earlier. I feel no guilt about Medicare. Medicare rules and regulations have so degraded American medicine and driven costs so high you need to be wealthy and healthy to avoid it. I'm healthy enough so far to avoid major medical expenses. As for SS, I'm going back to work soon and it will merely be a debit against taxes I'll have to pay. In the meantime I'm rationistically sustained by IRS memories of me being screwed over over a decade ago and hope to eventually turn all my SS into charitable donations to people similarly fucked over. I won't tell them where the money came from, however, I'll let the sin stop with me, sorta like a two-bit Jesus.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Brant,

The objective of Hamilton's fiscal policy was to vest unlimited taxing power in the federal government, run up a national debt (which he regarded as the "cement" of the union, since it would tie private financial interests to the government), and establish a national bank, based on the British model. His overall economic policy was a type of mercantilism, also based on the British model, which included bounties for domestic industries, etc.

During the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton called for a president elected for life who would have absolute veto power over all federal and state legislation. Individual states in Hamilton's nationalist scheme would be reduced to little more than administrative units of the federal government.

Hamilton developed the first elaborate argument that extended the powers of Congress far beyond the enumerated powers in Art. 1, Sect. 8. He argued that the "general welfare" is a distinct and separate power granted to Congress, so Congress may do anything it deems "necessary and proper" to further the "general welfare." This broad interpretation of congressional power later received the sanction of the Supreme Court, so strict constructionism went out the window.

Yes, Hamilton, while Secretary of the Treasury, exerted more influence on Washington than any other cabinet member. But more than that: Hamilton viewed the position of Secretary of the Treasury as akin to the First Lord of the Treasury in Britain, i.e., as the Prime Minister, in effect. Thus during his tenure as Secretary of the Treasury Hamilton stuck his nose in all kinds of government business (including foreign affairs) that was not within the purview of his office, figuring that it was his job to run the federal government while Washington served a king-like figurehead.

Washington was probably one of our worst presidents, though it is politically incorrect, especially among conservatives, to say so. He also wasn't much of a military commander, either, though he looked like a general should look.

Ghs

[BaalChatzaf]

Brant,

The objective of Hamilton's fiscal policy was to vest virtually unlimited taxing power in the federal government, run up a national debt (which he regarded as the "cement" of the union, since it would tie financial interests to the government), and establish a national bank, based on the British model. His overall economic policy was a type of mercantilism, also based on the British model, which included bounties for domestic industries, etc.

During the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton called for a president elected for life who would have absolute veto power over all federal and state legislation. Individual states in Hamilton's nationalist scheme would be reduced to little more than administrative units of the federal government.

Hamilton developed the first elaborate argument that extended the powers of Congress far beyond the enumerated powers in Art. 1, Sect. 8. He argued that the "general welfare" is a distinct and separate power granted to Congress, so Congress may do anything it deems "necessary and proper" to further the "general welfare." This interpretation later received the sanction of the Supreme Court, so strict constructionism went out the window.

Yes, Hamilton, while Secretary of the Treasury, exerted more influence on Washington than any other cabinet member. But more than that: Hamilton viewed the position of Secretary of the Treasury as akin to the First Lord of the Treasury in Britain, i.e., as the Prime Minister, in effect. Thus during his tenure as Secretary of the Treasury Hamilton stuck his nose in all kinds of government business that was not within the purview of his office, figuring that it was his job to run the federal government while Washington served a king-like figurehead of the executive power.

Washington was probably one of our worst presidents, though it is politically incorrect, especially among conservatives, to say so. He also wasn't much of a military commander, either, though he looked like a general should look.

Ghs

Alex baby was the first Crony Capitalist.

It was a damned shame that some sharp eye sharp shooting Pennsylvania wheat farmer did not plug Alexander Hamilton dead during the Whiskey Rebellion. Shucks!

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

By then it was much too late, Bob. Aaron Burr did that job; much, much too late, again, too late for the same reason: the Constitution ruled, not the Articles of Confederation. The Constitutional State had the legal authority and imperative to put down the Whiskey Rebellion and Washington had the will. The Sedition Act (acts?) proved the primacy of state power contra the Ten Amendments.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

By then it was much too late, Bob. Aaron Burr did that job; much, much too late, again, for the same reason: the Constitution ruled, not the Articles of Confederation.

--Brant

1794 to 1804 is ten years. That is a fair amount of time. However the mind set was already in place, so you are probably right.

1794 was too late for liberty to really have a good hold in the new nation.

What a pair. Alex and George, leading 13,000 Federales against the good yoemen of Pennsylvania. The March of the Cronies.

[George H. Smith]

Alex baby was the first Crony Capitalist.

Correct. Unfortunately, Hamilton has frequently been portrayed in American history texts as the great prophet and champion of "capitalism," in contrast to Jefferson, who allegedly favored a primitive "agrarian" economy. What a crock of shit.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Reading about Washington's conduct in Wikipedia, he probably did the right thing. There was the matter of violence in western PA. That was stopped without much loss of life because the rebels stoipped rebelling. There were two federal convictions and Washington pardoned both parties. It goes back to government and force. They go hand in hand no matter the gloves that may be worn. Hamilton, though, was Washington's backbone urging him on in the sense of being opposed to turning back the federal militia. It's too bad the rebels weren't more passive, avoiding violence and had merely refused to pay the tax. Then there could have been the considerations of a debate on federal power, especially taxing power. It was the violence that raised the militia, not the tax. It's not good enough to say that the tax made the violence.

--Brant

if you want a hoot read the satirical piece "The Whiskey Rebellion" --I'll try to find the author

edit: "'A Parody Outline of History' [aunt Polly]" by Donald Ogden Stewart

Edited July 13, 2014 by Brant Gaede

[George H. Smith]

What a pair. Alex and George, leading 13,000 Federales against the good yoemen of Pennsylvania. The March of the Cronies.

That was Hamilton's idea, and he led the army of 15,000 to crush the "Whisky Rebellion." That uprising had dissipated by the time Hamilton got to Western Pennsylvania, but never mind. Hamilton capitalized on any excuse he could find to build and maintain a standing army, including a dire warning that the French would invade America.

[George H. Smith]

Thomas Paine Versus Edmund Burke, Part 11

Smith discusses Paine’s welfare proposals in Rights of Man and Agrarian Justice.

My Cato Essay #135 is now up.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

The objective of Hamilton's fiscal policy was to vest unlimited taxing power in the federal government, run up a national debt (which he regarded as the "cement" of the union, since it would tie private financial interests to the government), and establish a national bank, based on the British model. His overall economic policy was a type of mercantilism, also based on the British model, which included bounties for domestic industries, etc.

During the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton called for a president elected for life who would have absolute veto power over all federal and state legislation. Individual states in Hamilton's nationalist scheme would be reduced to little more than administrative units of the federal government.

Hamilton developed the first elaborate argument that extended the powers of Congress far beyond the enumerated powers in Art. 1, Sect. 8. He argued that the "general welfare" is a distinct and separate power granted to Congress, so Congress may do anything it deems "necessary and proper" to further the "general welfare." This broad interpretation of congressional power later received the sanction of the Supreme Court, so strict constructionism went out the window.

Yes, Hamilton, while Secretary of the Treasury, exerted more influence on Washington than any other cabinet member. But more than that: Hamilton viewed the position of Secretary of the Treasury as akin to the First Lord of the Treasury in Britain, i.e., as the Prime Minister, in effect. Thus during his tenure as Secretary of the Treasury Hamilton stuck his nose in all kinds of government business (including foreign affairs) that was not within the purview of his office, figuring that it was his job to run the federal government while Washington served a king-like figurehead.

Washington was probably one of our worst presidents, though it is politically incorrect, especially among conservatives, to say so. He also wasn't much of a military commander, either, though he looked like a general should look.

Ghs

I wouldn't be so hard on Washington. He couldn't have done much better militarily and he kept the army together. A bad President then has nothing on a bad President today qua bad. The Battle of Saratoga and Ben Franklin in France had the most to do with the winning of the Revolutionary War. But look what happened to France because of all that! Again, I blame the insufferable Brits for so much that has gone wrong in the world. Of course, it's hardly so simple.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Thomas Paine Versus Edmund Burke, Part 11

Smith discusses Paine’s welfare proposals in Rights of Man and Agrarian Justice.

My Cato Essay #135 is now up.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Social Laws, Part 1

Smith explains methodological subjectivism and how it applies to the study of human action.

My Cato Essay #136 is now up.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

If we posit two categories of science, hard and soft, with the hard sciences concerned with nature and the soft with human nature, then the only real science in the soft sciences such as economics and sociology or anything else is the interpretation of numbers conmixed with all the interpretations of thought and anecdotes. This, of course, makes these soft sciences comparatively weak when compared with the hard sciences especially when it comes to objectification. It's too hard to get enough data and know it's the right data to effectively apply strict scientific methodology for a hypothesis that will ever get to truly falsifiable theory. Economics, of course, is awash with statistics, but I don't think statistics have much data end use in hard science.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

If we posit two categories of science, hard and soft, with the hard sciences concerned with nature and the soft with human nature, then the only real science in the soft sciences such as economics and sociology or anything else is the interpretation of numbers conmixed with all the interpretations of thought and anecdotes. This, of course, makes these soft sciences comparatively weak when compared with the hard sciences especially when it comes to objectification. It's too hard to get enough data and know it's the right data to effectively apply strict scientific methodology for a hypothesis that will ever get to truly falsifiable theory. Economics, of course, is awash with statistics, but I don't think statistics have much data end use in hard science.

--Brant

That latest and greatest stuff on the Higgs Boson was supported by Bayesian Statistics.

http://hea-www.cfa.harvard.edu/astrostat/Stat310_1314/dvd_20140121.pdf

http://for-sci-law-now.blogspot.com/2012/07/more-on-statistical-reasoning-and-higgs.html

Ba'al Chatzaf