Is the Federalist Society Evil?

History, Legal System, The Right, Vulgar Politics
Share

I love this article by Paul Craig Roberts on the “true cost” of the Iraq war and think everyone should read it.

But there’s one sentence in this otherwise-outstanding piece to which I take exception.  Roberts writes: “The fascist Republican Federalist Society has put enough federal judges in the judiciary to rule that the president is above the law.”

This is nonsense.

First, let’s tackle the claim that the Federalist Society is “fascist” and “Republican.”

The Federalist Society was formed by law students who were frustrated by the left’s dominance at law schools.  They created the organization to provide a forum for alternative voices: namely, those of conservatives and libertarians.

Here’s how the Federalist Society functions.  There’s a national headquarters in Washington (a red flag, I’ll grant you), there are student chapters in almost every law school, and there are lawyers’ chapters in various cities.

The student and lawyers’ chapters generally do one thing: host lectures and debates.  These events feature speakers ranging all the way from people Roberts would probably call “fascist” to anarcho-capitalist libertarians such as Randy Barnett and Walter Block.   One frequent Federalist speaker is Roberts’s fellow columnist at Antiwar.com, Doug Bandow, whose lecture topics include the American Empire.

Who decides who will speak at these events?  Each chapter’s members.  If the members tend to be more conservative, they may bring in more conservative speakers.  If the members tend to be more libertarian, they may bring in more libertarian speakers.

Is the Federalist Society Evil? Read Post »

Glenn Beck Is a Statist, Not a Libertarian

Imperialism, The Right, War
Share

At the beginning of his show this morning, Glenn Beck started ripping into the imam that all the talk-radio hosts love to hate, because the imam has (correctly) pointed out that the U.S. has killed many more innocent non-Muslims than al-Qaeda has.

Beck went on to defend the U.S. embargo against Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people during the 1990s, argued that we should have fought the Iraq war “full on” from the beginning (meaning we shouldn’t have been so squeamish — as if “we” were — about killing innocent people), and claimed that the current U.S. government is the only one in the history of the world that has ever fought wars in a manner that avoided killing civilians.

Last year, Beck promoted a rally in Washington to protest the federal government’s taxing and spending.  This year, he’s holding a rally to glorify the U.S. military.  Can there be any doubt that by the time the Republicans regain control in Washington, Beck and his many followers will be right back where all the conservatives were during the George W. Bush years?  Only it will be much worse, because they’ll have much bigger, more powerful government at their disposal, which they will not reduce one bit.  And one shudders to think of what the apparent growing extreme, irrational hatred of Muslims may lead to.

Unless, that is, Ron Paul and other true libertarians can steer the Tea Party movement onto the right track before it’s too late.

As a good first step, it’s time for everyone — including some people who should know better — to stop suggesting that Glenn Beck is any sort of libertarian.

(Cross-posted at LRC and my blog.)

Glenn Beck Is a Statist, Not a Libertarian Read Post »

The “Ground Zero Mosque” and the Prospects for Liberty

Immigration, Vulgar Politics, War
Share

The furor over the “Ground Zero Mosque” (which is neither a mosque nor at Ground Zero) doesn’t make me very optimistic about the prospects for liberty.

As a libertarian and just a live-and-let-live kind of guy, I can’t imagine caring much about, let alone vocally protesting, what someone is building two blocks away from me.

Yet apparently many of my fellow Americans are such busybodies that they’ll whine for weeks about something being built hundreds or thousands of miles away from them, in a city where they don’t live and probably won’t even visit. And many of the complainers are among the Tea Party set whom we are occasionally told are “libertarian,” even though they seem to hate Muslims and Mexicans and love war at least as much as they hate the federal government and love liberty.

Jonah Goldberg claims that the conservatives who object “mostly” recognize that the Muslims have a legal right to build their center. But what I hear on talk radio makes me doubt this. A common argument there seems to be that since “liberals” don’t care about the constitution or property rights in general, they aren’t entitled to invoke them now — as though liberals somehow have the power to waive Muslims’ rights.

In any event, even if Goldberg is correct, it’s hard to imagine that the spirit of liberty resides in the sort of people who get so worked up over this sort of thing. The ease with which they’ve been distracted by this issue suggests that reducing government isn’t going to be their top priority once their team is back in control in Washington.

(Cross-posted on my blog.)

The “Ground Zero Mosque” and the Prospects for Liberty Read Post »

Talking About Libertarianism on the Air and Online

Podcasts, The Basics
Share

The publication of my new book, Libertarianism Today, has given me an opportunity to appear on several radio shows to talk about libertarianism.

On August 4, I was on the nationally syndicated Michael Smerconish Program with guest host Brian Wilson.  Highlights of this interview include our discussions of education (at 27:00) and intellectual property (at 30:00).


[download]

On August 10, I was on Wilson’s own show:


[download]

And on August 2, I was on Antiwar Radio with Scott Horton, where we talked about libertarianism and war:


[download]

Talking About Libertarianism on the Air and Online Read Post »

Is Libertarian Legal Activism Worthwhile?

Firearms, Statism
Share

These quotes from 1976 and 2010 (via “Snowflakes in Hell“) suggest an answer:

Then:

“Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. My estimate is seven to ten years. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.”

–Pete Shields, July 1976, President of National Coalition to Control Handguns (which later became Handgun Control Inc. and then the Brady Campaign)

Now:

“It is settled law. If I were taking a law school exam today, I would say, yes, you have got an individual right to have a gun in your home for self-defense.”

— Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign, June 28, 2010

Is Libertarian Legal Activism Worthwhile? Read Post »

Scroll to Top