TGIF: "We're" All Neocons Now

Apart from a few details, I never saw much difference between Trump's America First shtick and MAGA's chief foe, the neconservatives. It appeared to be merely a squabble over details, such as whether democracy or strongman rule abroad best served the so-called national interest. No one believes in America Second, Third, or Nth.

Trump's action in Venezuela confirms my impression. Beneath the surface, the contrast between Trumpian America First and neoconservatism disappears. At his news conference after the Venezuela invasion and decapitation, Trump was asked, "Mr. President, why is running a country in South America Ame- -- America first?" To which he replied,  "Well, I think it is because we wanna surround ourself with good neighbors. We wanna surround ourself with stability. Uh, we wanna surround ourself with energy. We have tremendous energy in that country. It's very important that we protect it. We need that for ourselves. We need that for the world, and we wanna make sure we can protect it."

How does that differ from the other major faction of American foreign policy? It's the same justification for intervention. We need friends. We need a stable world. We and the world need secure energy. The necons are every bit as America First in their intentions as Trump and his people are. Where's the difference in principle? There is none. Cynics will say that necons are Israel First and don't care about America. That's an accusation. In the absence of evidence, I take the neocons at their word. They are not all Miriam Adelson. Anyway, like many people I have known, they think the two countries' interests coincide. That deserves refutation, not insults.

American alliances have always been justified in terms of American interests. People say, "In a dangerous world, America needs good, strong allies." I'm not saying they are right, only that they say and presumably believe it. Let's not pretend that Trump is different. Don't let a difference in style, campaign rhetoric, and downright vulgarity throw you. They all essentially agree.

It's hard not to notice the throwback to earlier American imperialist presidents, such as Theodore Roosevelt, a favorite of neoconservatives. Notice that Trump said, "We have tremendous energy in that country." We. And: "We need that for ourselves." Ourselves. He's embracing what someone has dubbed the "Donroe Doctrine," but he seems ignorant of James Monroe's original speech of 1823, which stated that the United States would not meddle in Europe (as Trump is doing) and expected the European powers to no longer colonize or otherwise meddle in the Western Hemisphere. Existing European colonies would be left alone, Monroe said. This was when Latin American countries were gaining independence from Spain and recognition from America. Trump seems unaware that the doctrine, written by Secretary of State John Quincy Adams (who said that America "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy"), did not reserve to the U.S. government the right to interfere in Latin America. (Obviously, the doctrine has been routinely violated. Trump is hardly an innovator.)

As for his reference to having good neighbors, contrast Trump's actions with Franklin Roosevelt's Good Neighbor Policy. "Through the diplomacy of [free trader] Secretary of State Cordell Hull," says Britannica.com, "the United States repudiated privileges abhorrent to Latin Americans. The United States renounced its right to unilaterally intervene in the internal affairs of other nations at the Montevideo Conference (December 1933); the Platt Amendment, which sanctioned U.S. intervention in Cuba, was abrogated (1934); and the U.S. Marines were withdrawn from Haiti (August 1934)." Trump's is a Bad Neighbor Policy.

He said at his new conference, "The American armada remains poised in position, and the United States retains all military options until United States demands have been fully met and fully satisfied." He later said that the U.S. government would run Venezuela for more than a year. VP Vance posted that sales of Venezuelan oil must serve U.S. interests, as defined by the Don, of course. That's good old American Gunboat Diplomacy. Trump's threats against Colombia, Cuba, Mexico, and Denmark over Greenland demonstrate his complete embrace of this dark side of American history.

TGIF: Warm Individualism or Cold Collectivism?

Newly inaugurated New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani promises to "replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism."

Funny that he chose those words.

In Europe, where collectivist anti-fossil-fuels "green" policies have been enacted in the name of combating a conjured-up climate emergency, many people get dangerously cold in the winter. So far, this hasn't happened on a large scale in America, where the climate collectivists have not been as adept in imposing their lethal program as their European counterparts. Freer markets keep people warmer in winter.

Zero-sum thinking, which is at the heart of socialism, also has a knack for creating a frigid attitude toward one's fellow man. When you believe that one person's gain is another's, perhaps your loss, you don't view your successful neighbor with warmth. The victims of Stalin's collectivist famine in Ukraine in the 1930s, some of whom were driven to cannibalism to survive, probably did not regard their neighbors or even their family members benevolently. Envy, suspicion, and hostility were characteristic of other places where ostensibly well-meaning rulers condemned selfishness and imposed various forms of collectivism. The death toll beggars belief. Some remain in denial about it. We can be certain that those catastrophes did not befall those tens of millions of innocent victims because they were deprived of a chance to vote on which clueless bureaucrats would administer society's central plan, as Mamdani and his "democratic" socialist followers suggest.

On the other hand, individualism in ethics and politics fosters benevolence—warmth—among individuals, who, mindful of their own rights and struggles to achieve values, respect the rights and struggles of others. Solidarity among individualists is no more a contradiction than the solidarity of members of a jazz band. 

Note that Mamdani uses the adjective rugged. Why? It is part of the ages-old smear campaign against the "selfish" pursuit of happiness. Jefferson's Locke-inspired inclusion of that phrase in the Declaration of Independence did not, unfortunately, admit egoism back into respectability. (It had some respectability in ancient Greece.)

Capitalism's detractors deploy the adjective rugged to suggest a system of myopic and short-sighted persons "greedily" stepping on and over one another in a mad free-for-all grab for material wealth. But aside from a relative few, that's not what typically happens when people are free. They quickly observe the gains from trade, the division of labor, and other market-based social cooperation, such as partnerships and corporations. (Ludwig von Mises nearly titled Human Action, his magnum opus, Social Cooperation.)

The benefits of free exchange to mutual advantage—win-win—were too obvious to ignore. The unprecedented and enduring increase in per-capita wealth that began around 1800 in the West was blindingly clear to all who were not determined to pretend it was not occurring. But what Deirdre McCloskey calls "the Great Enrichment" had another payoff besides hitherto-unknown widespread affluence: the fostering of benevolence. The gains from trade had to foster a goodwill that went beyond "mere" justice. Adam Smith famously pointed out that in the marketplace, one best serves one's own interests by attending to the interests of others. Such attention inevitably fosters warm acquaintanceships, friendships, and much more. (On the relationship between egoism and goodwill, see David Kelley's Unrugged Individualism: The Selfish Basis of Benevolence.)

Capitalism's detractors hate that feature of the marketplace. In effect, they say, "That doesn't count as benevolence because it's done out of self-regard!" How silly. How childish. What could be more worthwhile than a social arrangement in which the interests of diverse individuals—each with his or her own dreams,  aspirations, and values— fundamentally align? It's an arrangement in which, unlike in the animal kingdom, the arena of competition is not consumption, but production. Consequently, the limits of nature's scarcity have been progressively loosened to a point where most of the eight billion people alive today live better than the one billion lived in 1800. (The lagging remainder continues to be victimized by collectivism. Liberalism has yet to come to town.)

You have some studying to do, Mr. Mayor. Too bad you didn't do it before embarking on your political career. Lives would have been spared.

TGIF: "Due Process" under Anarcho-Capitalism

Libertarian advocates of minimal government, such as the late Robert Nozick (Anarchy, State, and Utopia, 1974), have feared that individuals in a stateless libertarian society would face corrupt or careless protection firms that used "risky" rights-enforcement procedures to determine guilt or liability. Innocent people might be held responsible for offenses they did not commit, while guilty individuals avoid paying restitution to their victims. Obviously, that would be undesirable. 

Without a minimal monopoly state to prohibit such abuse and protect "procedural rights," how could innocent people pursue their happiness securely? Nozick speculated that in an anarcho-capitalist society, a protection agency using reliable procedures would emerge as dominant, properly preempt risky competitors (while compensating them for putting them out of business), and eventually become a monopoly minimal government. All this would happen through a nonaggressive invisible-hand process. Nozick's innovative theory drew critiques from the biggest names in the libertarian anarchist world, especially Murray Rothbard, Roy A. Childs Jr., and Randy Barnett. (See the Journal of Libertarian Studies 1, No. 1, Winter 1977).

The late George H. Smith, one of the premier libertarian philosophers of modern times, also provided an answer to the minarchist's concern about risky procedures in "Justice Entrepreneurship In a Free Market" (Journal of Libertarian Studies 3, No. 4, 1979). This neglected article is well worth examining. (Also see Smith's reply to critics.)

Back on The Rational Egoist

 Michael Liebowitz invited me back to talk about whether we should have a government.

Latest Interview

 I sat down recently with LiquidZulu to talk about anarcho-capitalism, Objectivism, and other things.

TGIF: Notes on Anarcho-Capitalism

I'm pretty sure I won't be around long enough to see anarcho-capitalism—or what I call market-ordered anarchism—prevail in the United States. I'm just as sure that I won't see government strictly limited to protecting individual rights and never violating them (if that's coherent).

So that's a wash.

But it doesn't follow that discussing individualist, pro-property, free-market alternatives to the current, virtually out-of-control political system in America is time wasted. Far from it! If we want to progress toward liberty, we'd better get a move on. The only proper way to proceed is through discussion. No name-calling—no shouting Statist! or Tyrant! or Fascist! or Oppressor! or Psychopath! or Warmonger! Just discussion. (I almost said "civilized discussion," but that is redundant.) People can be badly wrong with the best of intentions. We all know how the road to hell is paved. Nevertheless, don't insult. Rebut. Refute. Don't go for the jugular. Be patient. You once did not know the case you're making today.

Marx Corrected

From each according to his freely undertaken contribution to the creation of wealth. To each according to the same.