Politics

Analysis of political policies, legal decisions, Supreme Court decisions

by

Frank Chodorov – The Individualist

Introduction

I am posting a blog article that I wrote several years ago (January 2009 to be exact) from a different blog site that I had set up at the time. That site no longer exists. Over the years, I have stated more than once that my political leanings align with libertarianism. I rarely discuss politics on this site, and I never support a political candidate on this webpage. The reason for that stance is not to come across as neutral or apolitical. I am not neutral, and I for sure embrace a political philosophy. That philosophy is neither progressive nor neoconservative. Given the rise of saber rattling neoconservatism and the hazardous emergence of the warmth of collectivism, I wanted to restate my libertarian principles here. In the midst of cleaning out my files, I came across this article I had written in 2009. I see no reason not to restate it here. One of my favorite libertarian (Classical Liberal) writers is Frank Chodorov. His thought underpins this article

Chodorov the Individualist

Frank Chodorov explicated the idea of individualism as passionately and rationally as anyone I have read to date. And I believe that the individualist spirit that contributed to what was once the freest country in the world is waning, and has been for sometime. At 60-years old, I come to this conclusion late in life. And I wish I could have learned the lessons about living much earlier in life. All the data, experiences, people, and facts existed for me to learn solid lessons about life. But like so many others, I passed them by, paid them no mind, and even in a period of my life, demeaned what they stood for. Well, I hope the old adage, it’s never too late to learn, is in fact an accurate assessment. I know difficult times are ahead for me because I didn’t learn the lessons early in life that I should have, lessons I want to explore in this essay. I am going to have to change a lot of old patterns, much wrong thinking, and sloppy ways of living. and I hope that those of you who happen upon this webpage and are reading this blog are willing to journey with me, bearing with me as I seek to carve out ideas where much greater minds than mine have already tread. If I use as a compass the thoughts and ideas of von Hayek, von Mises, Rothbard, or Chodorov, hopefully that will keep me from going too awry.

As Chodorov so insightfully claimed, the road to collectivism is an easy path for most to follow, and today its siren song loudly wails. I established this website [humanaction.us at the time; today my thoughts have not changed but rather deepened regarding Classical Liberal principles] to espouse principles of individualism, a much maligned notion in today’s postmodern thinking [note the conflation of individualism with what is thrown around as rugged individualism]. I wish I could claim that I have always lived in line with the values I wish to propagate through Analysis of Power [the subtitle of the webpage I published at the time], however, I have not. Only in recent years have I come across the writings of F. A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and more recently, Frank Chocorov. I have dedicated my website and E-Journal to Chodorov [today, what undergirds what I delineate on this page are my Christian spiritual beliefs]. His writings resonated with me in a way that is both inspiring and challenging. I am far from the destination that Chodorov designates as the individual. Yet I hope to reach that destination and live there. Both the URL and the title of my E-Journal reflect my beliefs in Austrian economics and individualism.

Frank Chodorov was the consummate individualist. In this inaugural issue, I want to highlight some of the themes that Chodorov developed more fully in his writings. So I inaugurate Analysis of Power with an apropos essay that outlines what is to be an individualist. Several themes stand out in Chodorov’s writings. I survey them below; any misstatements of Chodorov’s ideas are solely due to my ignorance.

The Right to Live

With everything under the sun today pronounced by the public-at-large as a right, I hate throwing around the concept of rights. But properly understood, it is a powerful, and more importantly, a truthful concept. There is nothing more basic to the individual than the right to live. For whatever reason, apparently the spirit to live has been poured into each one us. (Today I would more strongly point to the Imago Dei as that reason, and the only reason). If there are those among us who do not want to live, then we conclude rather quickly that something is drastically wrong with them. But the right to live is nothing more than an abstraction if we just stop at the phrase, the right to live. What does such a right actually entail? First of all, it is important to recognize that the right pertains to each individual. It is axiomatic, a given. It is not a right that belongs to me but not to you. It is not a right that belongs to some but not to others. It is not a right that belongs to the collective but not to specific individuals. Such a statement on a collectivist level would be meaningless. As an abstraction, however, a dangerous extension is inherent in the notion of the right to live. The right is not carte blanche. So we need to understand what is inherent in the right to live.

Liberty from Government

We talk about many forms of freedom today. You hear politicians wax eloquently about freedom, oppression, injustice, and social justice. However, when we listen closely to what they mean, we get a clearer understanding of what they are trying to sell. We hear such phrases as freedom from poverty, freedom from illness, or freedom from economic injustice. The sales pitch from demagogues who spew forth these phrases is that government is in place to provide all of us with these espoused freedoms (particularly if we vote for those spewing forth these platitudes). However, I have come to believe that such freedoms have little to do with what our Founders meant by liberty, a term that I prefer to freedom because the latter has been tainted by collectivist rhetoric. (I would add both neoconservative and progressive rhetoric). Our Founders, with all their flaws, and because they understood human flaws, established a Republic in which liberty was understood to mean, not freedom of government to make our lives for us, but but freedom from government, power, the State, (to guard against) that at its whim it would intrude upon our lives. It provides a framework within which people can pursue and carve out their lives as they see fit, so long as what they see fit to do does not prevent others from pursuing and carving out their lives.

The place of government in people’s lives is an issue that distinguishes individualists from collectivists. From an individualist perspective government is to provide a minimal rule of law that enforces contracts, protects private property among its citizens, and, on the level of the State, defends the borders from invasion. A corollary to collectivism, radical egalitarianism, has gripped the mind of the United States, and now many people look to government to educate them, provide them with health care, and to redistribute income in the name of social justice. We hear promises of politicians to make our lives better, to bring about a better society, to usher in better times, and to make us all equal. How many times have we heard the rhetoric and then come to understand that, for the most part, we have to be the ones who make our lives better? (This is not a denial of our social embeddedness and our need of working in conjunction with others.) I believe an important question regarding all these promises hinges on the notion of hubris: How can one person or one group of people actually know what is better for everyone else? For the individualist, not only is such knowledge impossible, but also it takes a sizable hubris-filled ego for someone to believe that he or she possesses such knowledge. If people believe such things about themselves and the knowledge they possess, then why shouldn’t they want power?

As a radical (I might drop this adjective today because of its conflation among people with so-called rugged individualism.) individualist, I believe that government not only lacks the ability to make people’s lives better, but also, even it could by some stretch of the imagination fulfill such a mandate, it lacks both the Constitutionality and moral authority to do so. Once someone provides a life for someone else, the provider has taken from the providee all sense of dignity that constitutes a free human being – unless the provider is an all-powerful being.

Limited Government

Liberty from government logically dictates what the Founders meant by the idea of limited government. Individualism is opposed to collectivism in all its forms. The only legitimate collective activities are those in which individuals freely choose to involve themselves. For an individualist, government in any form is coercion. Hence, an individualist tends to view government with suspicion and believes it should be severely restrained in all its activities, carrying out its minimal roles of protecting life and private proper, enforcing contracts, and protecting against fraud, all minimal activities that contribute to people’s ability to carry on commerce and trade. Beyond these activities, government begins to encroach on individual liberty. From the Classical Liberal perspective, government is granted limited power to protect citizens and to establish a framework whereby they carry out the pursuit of carving out a life for themselves. Government provides no guarantee that individuals will find such pursuits successful. It cannot guarantee that individuals will not encounter hardships and fail at their endeavors. It cannot guarantee that people can have the kind of lives they desire. Government, at its whim, cannot provide a life for an individual. To carry out such guarantees, government would have to use the very rewards of people’s labor it is called upon to protect. The Welfare State (and I would add the Warfare State) represents a prime example of such coercion, where property is taken (confiscated) to provide secure retirement, medical benefits, education, and a host of other so-called rights. Government – power – the State – possesses nothing by which to make such guarantees. Government, to make such guarantees, must take (confiscate) from those who produce. Consequently, such guarantees are fraudulent from the start.

Laissez-Faire Economics

Liberty from government and severely restricted or restrained government obviously dictates that government remove itself and stay out of everyday human affairs, particularly the free exchange of ideas, goods, and service. If an individual is to reap from his efforts and secure some type of living, then he should not turn to government to direct his steps in the endeavors he chooses to pursue. If he does, he forfeits the fruit of his labor to the power that so directs him. People choose their affairs, act in accordance with their desires, and do business and commerce with one another to obtain their desired ends. Their business plans, their business decisions, and what they acquire through their efforts are not submitted to the State for approval. The only say that the State has over such efforts regards fraudulent activities and the protection of property accrued through mutually beneficial commerce. Those who carve out their existence in this life do not owe government for such a privilege. Nor do they owe the collective in the name of some fabrication called the common good. Entrepreneurs by their very activities of producing, providing services, creating jobs, contributing to people’s standard of living impact the community for the good. That they carry out such activities for profit motive does not detract from the fact their work impacts society for the good. And they owe no one an apology for their profit motive.

In today’s climate taxes are viewed as the price that businesses must pay for their success and wealth. Never mind that such wealth and profit create jobs and a higher standard of living for people. Never mind that entrepreneurial capitalism has created a standard of living heretofore unknown throughout history for an enormous population of people. Those who complain about high taxes are labeled selfish, not caring about society, and not wanting to contribute their fair share to the community. The collectivist mentality (I would also label this the Statist mentality) is seen at its fullest in empowering the State to intrude upon business activities in the name of the common good.

The individualist says to the State, hands off. The State is to keep its parasitic hands off what people have produced for their own welfare. The State is to stay out of the way of entrepreneurs who best can decide to carry out their affairs, even when those decisions may not work out the way entrepreneurs desire. And when and if those decisions do turn sour, the one who is an entrepreneur to his core does not cry and whine to government for a bailout. When times are lean, tough, and difficult, the individualist shouts as loud as when times or bountiful and fat – Laissez Faire!

Personal Liberty and Responsibility

If I may choose a phrase from the existentialist’s handbook, an individualist defends personal liberty and responsibility. As free individuals, we can choose to carve out our lives as we see fit. There is a fine distinction, however, inherent in the right to carve out a life versus the right to a life I think I should have. The distinction turns upon the difference between opportunity and results. No other person can guarantee me that I will achieve in life what I want to achieve. In a free society, a rule of law allows me the right to give it a shot. But it does not promise me that the results I want will be forthcoming.

We live today in a culture populated by people bathed in a sense of entitlement and work life by playing the victim card. We blame everyone and everything for our plight, for not having the kind of life that we want. This mindset in turn sets us up for silver-tongued orators who guarantee us that they have the promise hand-in-hand. We vote for presidents like we are searching for a messiah. We expect to hear and see all the sweet and honey-filled promised morsels we hope to find in life. If we don’t have all the money we want, then we blame those who do have the amount of money we would like to have. Somehow or another they took it from us. It is inconvenient to get sick, but it is unfair to have to pay for getting well. And so we hear and are drawn like Odysseus to the sweet siren call of nationalized health care. People want an education, but it is unfair to have to pay for it. Nirvana in learning is straight ahead in subsidized education. A nice comfortable retirement is a dream, but it is unfair to have worked all one’s life and not have it, whether one had the foresight and fortitude to save for it or not. So now we will increase that magnanimous blessing called Social Security. What a deal! (Of course, our omniscient and omnipotent orators who know what we need and have the power to bring it all about for us are not retiring on Social Security. Do I smell demagoguery here?)

Private Property

If we have the right to live and the liberty and responsibility to make choices and try to bring about the life we want for ourselves, then we must have an avenue to accrue something from what we produce. Whether this accrual be pay, goods, property, or all three, what we have accrued is ours because we have worked for it. (Actually all three are private property – privately owned through personal effort.) Such accrual is the product of our labor; thereby, it is our private property. If I have the right to live, then I work, and my production is the means by which I carve out my living, preparing a life for myself. Although I do not believe that I have a right to a job (a confusion of today’s entitlement mindset), or the right to a particular results (a confusion of today’s radical egalitarianism), I work for what I earn or produce. And I can accrue the production of my labor and create property for myself. The very basis of my freedom – my right to live – is my private property. If it is confiscated from me, then the thief has robbed me, not only of my private property, but also of my right to live. The Founders of this country understood property in these terms, and were particularly leery of the government becoming a thief. Hence, they warned the populist about the power (dangers) of taxation. Since 1913, the government holds first rights to our property, carried out by a procedure called the income tax. From the viewpoint of an individualist, the income tax, as well as all taxes, is seen as confiscation. Income tax is legalized thievery, power – the State – stepping in to claim a part of one’s labor for its purposes. And one had best tow the line and fork it over. There are many forms today by which private property is constantly under assault by the State: eminent domain, inheritance taxes, professional licenses, property licenses such as car tags and inspection stickers. All these devices are legalized ways by which the State has step-by-step encroached upon citizens’ private property. To the degree that we lose control of our private property, we begin to lose the grip on our individual liberty.

Noninterventionist

Isolationism in foreign affairs is a term that carries negative connotations today. However, I proudly accept the label. Other libertarians prefer the term noninterventionist, but to me they mean virtually the same thing as long as one understands that these terms refer to government activities. Isolationism does not mean that individuals cannot freely choose to carry on commerce and do business around the globe, or Mars if they find someone there and can get the goods to and from them. Such activities emerge from inalienable rights that go into the pursuit of living. Isolationist or noninterventionist strategies refer, instead, to becoming entangled in the political controversies and conflicts of other nations. In his Farewell Address, George Washington warned us of such meddlesome activities. Yet in the 20th Century and into this one, America has found itself engaged in conflict after conflict around the globe, spending billions of taxpayer dollars in the process (as well as the countless loss of life). Our military is ensconced all over the globe from the Middle East to Germany. Our military is positioned as a standing army for some countries, such as South Korea. It is one thing to make friends and develop respect for other countries and cultures on the basis of mutual exchange and commerce; it is another thing altogether for a government to become the policemen of the world. If our allies relish the kind of liberty we possess, then somewhere along the line, they need to stand up and be prepared to defend themselves from those who would take such liberties from them. A Biblical Proverb speaks poignantly to misguided interventionism:

Like one who takes a dog by the ears,/Is he who passes by and meddles with strife not belonging to him. (1)

We need to rethink our understanding of national defense and not emotionally load galavanting around the globe with notions of patriotism. The true patriot does not allow the State to willy-nilly define defense or our national interests in a way that places brave men and women in harm’s way based on political expediency, nation building, and government power-broker deals that tend to always produce more international problems than they ever solve. We have witnessed these events over and over again in the billions of dollars we spend defending countries that refuse to defend themselves, and the more billions of dollars of so-called foreign aid that have disappeared into no-telling whose pockets – power begetting power.

Entrepreneurial Spirit: Personal Wisdom

If people are to carve out a life for themselves, then it behooves them to develop the kind of skills they need to get the job done. The problem with collectivism and the types of reformers it produces is that such crusaders become too meddlesome in other people’s affairs. I am drawn to the idea that the best way to any general reform is for one to embrace self-development (2). What skills do you need to establish the kind of life that you want? If you desire to achieve a certain lifestyle, then what do you need to develop in yourself so as to achieve what you desire? More to the point, what values do you hold? Are you living in alignment with those values? If not, what do you need to change? Do you truly value what you say you do?

Entrepreneurs are people who pursue a fulfilling life by putting their ideas to work. They know what they want in life, they know what they value about living, and they know what they need to obtain from life what they desire. They are honest with themselves about what skills they possess and which ones they do not possess. When it comes to what they lack, they find ways to fill in the gaps and develop their needed skill set so they can produce and benefit from their labor. They don’t play at being successful. They work at it with everything they have in them. If they do not do these things, then they are not successful, and they probably are not meant to be entrepreneurs.

Being an entrepreneur is something to which I aspire. However, I am not sure I have what it takes to become the kind of person I have described here. Many of us want to play the entrepreneurship game, but we do not want to do what it takes to succeed the way entrepreneurs succeed. We want the results that come to good entrepreneurs. But we do not want the process or effort that goes into making a good entrepreneur and producing the kind of results we desire. The process is hard, difficult, fraught with setbacks, disappointments, and sometimes failures so that one has to pick up and begin again. And above all, it takes vision that many people may not have and risks that others do not want to take. To aspire to entrepreneurship means asking difficult questions as to whether or not one has what it takes to be an entrepreneur.

Today achievement is something that is belittled, demeaned, and viewed as an idea that is elitist. Radical egalitarianism has won the day. Entrepreneurs are punished for their successes by the tax code and the attitude the culture at large has toward them. They achieve because they are exploitive cries the collectivist. They achieve and continue to achieve because they are privileged rages the egalitarian.

Only when individuals come to understand that they are responsible for their lives and must develop the skills they need to live, will they truly become individuals. Otherwise, we fall into the mediocre thinking that dreams and pursuits are not worthwhile. Or worse, we walk with our hands out, our palms up, our dignity emaciated to receive a life that someone else promises us. One may not be an entrepreneur, but that doesn’t mean that one cannot be an individual and claim his or her place in life. We may work for entrepreneurs, benefit from them in a myriad of ways, and find our place in life in a way that suits who we are, what skills we possess, and what desires we have. In the end, we have one thing to do: live (3). We need to choose how best to live for ourselves. To do otherwise is to forfeit who we are and what we are all about as individuals.

Conclusion

On a personal note, I penned this blog article in January of 2009. For years I struggled as I turned my back on my faith as a Christian. Close to the time I wrote this article, God had begun working on me to get me back on track with my faith and what it truly means to have faith in the atoning work of Christ and to have a personal relationship with God through Christ. Although I would change very little about this article if I were to write it now, I want to highlight a couple o f things, one pertaining to the concept of individualism, and second pertaining to my faith in Christ.

As I alluded to in the article, the notion of individualism has been much maligned, more so today than when I wrote this article in 2009. So I want to say a quick word about what individualism is not. First, the notion of individualism as put forth by those such as Chodorov, libertarians in general, and Classical Liberals, in no form or fashion claims that an individual is totally independent of others, not socially embedded or connected, or does not rely on the social fabric and interconnection with others. There is no such reality as pulling oneself up by one’s boot straps by which one is totally isolated from and independent from others. Embracing the philosophy of individualism does not mean that one does not ask for help from others when such help is needed. Nor does it mean that one does not offer help where help is needed. Individualism means that one is responsible for ones own choices and actions as well as for ones self-development. Self-development is never done in total isolation. Whatever rugged individualism happens to mean by those who throw around such caricatures, it has nothing to do with the Classical Liberal understanding of the sanctity of ones individual life. Such caricatures are nothing more than gaslighting and conflation, creating a false dichotomy seeking to provide an argument against nothing that the concept of individualism ever claimed in the first place. Those who have spewed forth such claims have been taken to task by individualists themselves.

Regarding my faith in Christ, if I were to write this article today, I would focus more on the providence of God in our lives and the spiritual gifts with which He blesses us. Psalm 139 speaks to how God intimately knows us and that He has made us who we are. A large part of discovering our skills involves coming to know how He made us and resting in that understanding. Additionally, life is played out by increasing our wisdom, as well as the pursuit of wisdom through diligence, which many of the Psalms address pointedly. In seeking to become diligent, we must also rest in the truth of God’s providence (Psalm 46:10). We must, by God’s grace, be honest about who we are as we gain in wisdom of how He made and gifted us. Since the time I authored this article in 2009 until now, I’ve come to realize that I do not, in fact, have what it takes to be an entrepreneur. That is not who God made me to be. When we realize such truths about ourselves, we can either kick at the goads against them, or by God’s grace embrace them, seeking to live as God would have us live. I am truly thankful for the gifted individuals by and through whom God has blessed the world. If you possess the skills of an entrepreneur, then I hope you follow your calling out with every ounce of energy you possess. Above all, I hope and pray that you will be called by God to believe in Christ as your Savior.

References

(1) “Proverbs 26:17.” In the Holy Bible NASB, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan

(2) Chodorov, F. (1980). “The Articulate Individualist.” In C. H. Hamilton (ed.), Fugitive Essays, (pp. 317-322). Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Press. (Originally published in Analysis, August 1946).

(3) Chodorov, F. (1980). “Henry David Thoreau.” In C. H. Hamilton (ed.), Fugitive Essays, (pp. 309-316). (Originally published in Analysis, November 1945 & February 1949).

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D/ February 14. 2026

ANALYSIS/Analysis of Power

by

Face of the Nation I

Introduction

We find ourselves in that four-year cycle where we are faced with an election once again. Although I delineate below the concerns that I believe the nation faces, and that therefore we should closely attend to what politicians specifically say about these concerns, I have come to believe that for whom we vote in elections will have little effect on these concerns that I delineate in this blog article. Neither political party has demonstrated that it cares nor even understands how major concerns we face in this nation are transforming this republic into a Statist authoritarian rule of political elites. There are few, if any, individuals running for office who claim as their passion to rid people’s lives of an ever encroaching State into every nook and cranny of individuals’ personal pursuits. What the nation faces is a constitutional crisis. Does any particular politician call for a constitutional cure that will restore the republic form of government under which we are supposed to live? I have categorized ten concerns that I believe the nation faces. I will discuss five of those ten concerns on this month’s blog article. The remaining five I will discuss for September’s blog entry.

The Economics of Inflation

The economic stability of the nation has been in the forefront of peoples’ thinking since the debacle of 2008 and the absurd quantitative easing that followed. Simultaneously and unfortunately people continue to look to the government for livelihood and security. Following the 2008 recession the governmental response to the pandemic of 2020 led to numerous business failings with drastic effects for the economy from which the country is yet to recover.

Inflation and Hyperinflation

The major threat to our economy simply put is government spending. The notion of a $34-trillion dollar debt doesn’t appear to concern either party as promises from government to provide health, wealth, and security continue to flow from D. C. The Federal Bank’s printing machine continues to print money so as to stimulate the economy. Keynesianism is on overdrive in the government’s response to insure the economy will flourish. And increased taxation becomes a threat to all forms of wealth and property while the middle class continues to carry the burden of the country’s woes. These monetary and fiscal policies continue to negatively hammer the value of the dollar for which people work. On top of that we are fed the nonsense by government officials that there is no inflation. One wonders if such bearers of economic news have ever gone to the grocery store, noticed the price of automobiles, or have sought lately to purchase a home.

History is replete with the lessons of the dangers of government spending, particularly that of the Weimar Republic in 1923. The printing machine mentality cannot continue without ushering the nation’s economy into a hyperinflation mode, which is the very sign of an economy on the verge of collapse. Presently, small businesses are treading deep water. The hurtles for small business startups are difficult due to expenses, taxes, and the shrinking value of the dollar. Unfortunately, corporations who are in bed and partnered with government have become what supposedly defines capitalism. Hence people call on a more powerful State to fix things. In an economy ensconced in hyperinflation, no politician wants to proffer the necessary solutions because the remedy would frighten people beyond fathoming. Four books that speak to the deadly concerns of hyperinflation are: The Fuhrer (Konrad Heiden); Waste Paper: The German Hyperinflation of 1923 (Simone Ricci); Germany 1923: Hyperinflation, Hitler’s Putsch, and Democracy in Crisis (Volker Ullrich); and When Money Dies: The Nightmare of Deficit Spending, Devaluation, and Hyperinflation in Weimar Germany (Adam Fergusson). The U.S. economy faces an unfathomable government debt and the devaluation of the dollar, and it is on the precipice of destructive hyperinflation. Listen for any discussion of this economic reality from would-be presidential candidates for the 2024 election. Then listen even closer for any stated remedies.

Foreign Policy

No doubt Israel’s conflict in the Gaza and the Ukraine war will be discussed in vague rhetorical terms among Democrat and Republican debate strategists. Although Hamas started this latest war with Israel via the butchery that Hamas is known for, it will be interesting to see if any politician addresses the reaction from Israel that has led to much more than is alluded to by the phrase collateral damage. Likewise, will any questions and/or discussion arise regarding the limit to which the U.S. should support Zelensky in the Ukraine under the rubric that he is a democrat? More importantly, will any presidential candidate touch on the historical position whereby the U.S. has sought not be entangled in foreign affairs? (This last notion may appear totally rhetorical, given this nation’s involvement in foreign conflicts since Korea to the present.) But do we, as a nation, have a principled foreign policy by which we seek to live?

Having stated the above, our foreign policy appears to be a muddled mess, given our position on Russia, while the nation’s politicians play soulmates with China. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been, and is, one of the most vicious collectivist regimes for over seven decades. Although there might be some nod to supporting Taiwan, is the U.S. truly supporting Taiwan with its friendliness toward mainland China and the CCP? June 4th, 2024 marked the thirty-fifth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. The elder Bush, rather than supporting those who were butchered by the tanks and guns of the CCP, sought friendly relations with China. Given that China is purchasing land in the U.S. in warp speed, what is our Foreign Policy toward the regime of the CCP? The annual Shangri-La Dialogue occurred on May 31, 2024. The CCP is straightforward in how it views its own position in the world, and how it sees other countries. In this latest round of dialogues, the CCP is adamant that Taiwan and the Philippines fall under what China calls the South China Sea control. The CCP offers stern warnings against Taiwan and the Philippines if they do not accept their position in the South China Sea. Likewise, they threatened the West (Europe and the U.S.) if it seeks to support either Taiwan or the Philippines [Balding, Epoch Times, June 6, 2024]. If Putin as an ex-KGB guy still represents the haunts of the Soviet regime, then the CCP is certainly not our friend. Presently, I think it has to be taken as a given that both Russia and the CCP have as their goal the collectivist control of the world. How might the U.S. build on a principled Foreign Policy that takes a strong stand against these two regimes?

Education

The homeschool movement has been in full force for several decades now. The pandemic which witnessed the closing of schools enhanced the desire of many parents to rethink public education and move toward homeschooling. The upsurge of woke ideology simultaneous with the decreased academic standards related to the three-r’s has also moved parents toward the desire for homeschooling, homeschool co-opts, and private education, thereby removing their children from government schools. Unfortunately, the teachers’ unions for public schooling are politically connected and entrenched in their ideology. Although a large number of parents desire to make moves toward homeschooling and private education, they are still forced to pay school taxes to support public education. The school voucher system has been touted as one remedy for the sad state of education in the U.S. although such a system leaves in place government control of schooling. Listen for what politicians say regarding the rights of parents to have their children exit the public education system to either homeschool them or place them in private schools. Then listen for any support for public education that compromises their position. Better yet, listen for any statement whatsoever from the politically elite on education.

Border Crisis

Since Biden and the Democrats have opened the flood gates to (and yes I’ll say it) illegal immigration, the number of immigrants crossing the southern border of the U. S. has grown exponentially. Although, libertarian in my perspective, I have come to question most libertarian stances on open borders, especially in a day when terrorists of one stripe or another can so easily gain access into the country. Moreover, our immigration policy that now extends the government dole to those entering the country lacks any common sense or basic morality when the taxpayer is on the hook for subsidizing immigrants. At the very least before we can consider a libertarian position on open borders, subsidizing of immigrants must come to an end. One wonders how many would consider the risk of sneaking across the border if there were no government subsidies waiting for them. A true libertarian society based on free market and private property values must not assess the border crisis today along mere ideological lines. The amount of taxpayer money going to illegal immigrants on top of the already wretched inflation that has hit people’s pocketbooks is asking too much for the public to support. Should we be glad that people want to emigrate to this country? By all means. But we need a solid economic policy that creates the kind of society they hope to find here. Barring that reality, we need to hear what politicians have to say about illegal immigration.

Internet Politicization

The Dot.com revolution promised people a free market where ideas could be generated and debated, providing alternative pathways to legacy media and the news offered there. Unfortunately, many who tread in the political elite class view liberty as a problem to be placed under their control. Candidates running for any political office should address the politicizing of the internet that has undermined the freedom that the Dot.com revolution promised. The internet needs to remain the freest and most wide open resource for individuals to generate and search for ideas that speak to all areas of life. The State, however, is extending its ever-growing tentacles to control what is written and stated on various websites. Youtube, Facebook, and others have negated content that doesn’t fit a particular political ideology. We witnessed this most blatantly in the censoring of website material that was critical of the government’s handling of the so-called pandemic. Not only was such information and perspectives censored, they, in turn, were labeled misinformation, and, if possible, criminalized. We also witnessed certain financial venues refuse to work with those websites that were designated as misinformation. Although I believe strongly in the right of owners of such venues as Facebook and YouTube to determine their content, they should not become an arm of the State’s desire to censor material that criticizes the State. Simply put, some individuals may post things online that are egregious in their content. A free market should determine their fate. Perspective candidates need to speak, to not how they want to see the internet operated, but to whether or not they want to let the internet continue to be the free market source of ideas and an alternative source to legacy media.

Conclusion

The nation is bitterly divided today along political ideologies that have no apparent resolution to coexist in a society that allows the free exchange of ideas, all of which should be protected by Constitutional rights that are basic such as the freedom of speech, the freedom to worship, the freedom of assembly, and the freedom to disagree openly. Presently, we face a Constitutional crisis. This nation needs to decide what the Constitution truly represents. The five concerns above should be principally addressed by perspective candidates. Come September, I will discuss an additional five concerns, beginning with our Constitutional crisis.

[Reference: Balding, C. (2024). How China Views the World. [In The Epoch Times, June 6, 2024. Online edition.]

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D./June 14th, 2024

ANALYSIS OF POWER

by

The Enemy of Liberty

For they do not speak peace/But they devise deceitful words against those who are quiet in the land (Psalm 35:20).

Introduction

We are in the midst of ideological warfare that could have far-reaching effects for a republican form of government. Note how the mainstream media has become a mouthpiece for the left and its progressive ideology. Pay close attention to those businesses which progressive ideologues have sought to ruin because they dared adhere to their Christian beliefs. The attacks on 1st and 2nd amendment rights never cease. Progressivism is an ideology that holds that a centralized powerful State will bring about a utopia on earth through bureaucratic regulation that threatens what we have typically experienced as liberty. Couched in rhetoric touting democracy, progressivism is a collectivist ideology that views individual liberty as the problem, a problem to be cured by an all-powerful State. Hence comes the movements of Critical Theory, Social Justice, and egalitarianism.

The Rhetoric of Progressivism

The Orwellian speak from the progressive left under the guise of such words as democracy, equality, and peaceful coexistence, is nothing more than rhetoric that they use to push their ideology. First an absolute democracy not checked by a republican form of government becomes rule by the majority. Note the move to eradicate the electoral college and the desire to shift all legal matters away from the states and localized decision making to the centralized government. This was specifically played out in Biden’s move to dictate to the state of Texas its decision on how it should guard and protect its own border. Second, equality of opportunity is not the aim of the egalitarianism of the progressive left. Egalitarianism shares nothing in common with equality of opportunity. Equality of results is the goal of progressive ideology. Individuals by the power of the State will be made equal, whether it be in pay, hiring practices, or educational outcomes. The aim of progressive ideology is to empower the centralized State to force equality of results. Meritocracy is targeted as racist and the result of class privilege. Given this stance, we see the onslaught of Critical Theory and Social Justice ideologies, particularly seizing the academy in all departments. Thus, peaceful coexistence is the last thing that progressives truly desire. Although much of the ideology undergirding progressivism emerges from postmodernism and its claim that all is a relative and a social construct, the true driving force of progressivism is the mantra, everything is political. Given that presupposition progressives will drive home their ideology via political power. Again, we can see this reality in the attacks on free speech and the weaponizing of the legal system to punish businesses that do not adhere to progressive ideology.

Ideological Warfare

Joseph T. Salerno, in his pamphlet, The Progressive Road to Socialism, hammers home that given the ideological presuppositions of progressivism, there can be no peaceful coexistence with the political goals of progressives. The conclusion of everything is political is that political power makes right. Salerno points to the work of Murray Rothbard as a blueprint for how those of us who stand against progressive ideologies should wage ideological warfare. First, we have to recognize that throughout the 20th century, progressives, the academy, and corporatism (corporate cronies tied to big government and the academy) have teamed up to apologize for progressive political aims. The payoff for both the academy and corporations has been subsidies from the State at the taxpayers’ expense. Such politicizing of all avenues of life is not something with which those who stand against progressive policies should seek to coexist, especially if coexistence as defined by progressives means that those who are critical of leftist policies are deemed racist and privileged, basically a move to silence any critical dialogue of progressive policies. Again, note the attacks on free speech. Second, given the political power wielded by progressives, Salerno points out that Rothbard counsels that those on the right must wage a warfare based on ideology that shatters the disguised rhetoric of progressivism, showing that progressive policies will lead to the destruction of a republican form of government, the economic prosperity it brought about, and the end of any sense of meaning of liberty. Salerno, quotes Rothbard: We are engaged in the deepest sense . . . in a “religious war” and not just a cultural one, religious because left-liberalism/social democracy is a passionately held worldview . . . held on faith: the view that the inevitable goal of history is a perfect world, an egalitarian socialist world. . .It is a religious worldview toward which there must be no quarter; it must be oppose and combated with every fiber of our being (p. 18). Salerno, as a libertarian, throws down the gauntlet. He states, There is no middle ground. You are either a progressive or a reactionary. You either join, or acquiesce in, the forced march into socialism or you join the reaction (p.19). Salerno points out that those on the right must recapture the meaning of reactionary, not letting it be labeled as a derogatory notion. This is the game the left plays. Again, note any critique these days of leftist policies is met with the opprobriums racist and privileged.

Conclusion

For the second time in three months I have opened this monthly blog article with an epigraph taken from Psalm 35:20. The question for those of us who are born-again Christians is how we go about the ideological warfare that Rothbard calls for when we are also commanded by Scripture to love and pray for our enemies. First, as a Christian, I hold that we should do as Scripture calls for, love and pray for our enemies. Note however, that in such a commandment, there is no denial that our enemies are just that, an enemy. The progressives do not speak peace (everything is political). Instead they devise deceitful words against those who are quiet in the land. As one who is opposed to an all-powerful and centralized State, I simply want to be left alone by the State, to live quietly in the land. However, there comes a time when it no longer suffices to remain quiet, but to engage the ideological warfare that has engulfed us. As believers in Christ, we must engage that warfare in a way that doesn’t turn us into the likeness our enemy.

Reference: Salerno, J. T. (2023). The Progressive Road to Socialism. Auburn, AL: Mises Institute.

[Joseph T. Salerno received his doctorate in economics from Rutgers University. He serves on the Board of Directors of the Mises Institute where he is also academic vice president and professor emeritus.]

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D./ April 14th, 2024

ANALYSIS/Politics

by

Mis-State of the Union

Introduction

We live in a day in which everything has become politicized from health care to sexuality. The rhetorical prayer of postmodernism – everything is political – borrowed from their god, Karl Marx, for now is winning the day. Six days ago the presiding President of the U.S. declared his state of the union. This blog proffers my personal critique and response to the President’s address. I will disclose from the outset that politically I hold mostly to a libertarian viewpoint. As a Christian, I hold strongly to a Judeo-Christian ethic. The purpose of this blog is not to exalt the RNC, which I think has done nothing to counter the politicization of our culture. As a libertarian I believe that people can live a life in which very little is political. We cannot carve out a life for ourselves, however, apart from values and beliefs that form the foundation of how we live in the world. Today people in the U.S. are becoming more and more to believe that the State provides a life for them.

My response to the State of the Union Address is formed among three categories: 1) foreign policy; 2) economics; 3) political rhetoric. 

Foreign Policy

It is entertaining to listen to how Biden connects Putin’s threat to the world with the disproved charge that Trump won the election against Hilary Clinton because of Russian interference. And then he analogizes Putin’s world threat to the January 6th insurrection. To hear Biden’s claims, Putin is the most dangerous Stalinist in the history of totalitarianism. By the way, FDR, whom Biden praises, saw Stalin as an ally. Many in the military at the time saw exactly what Russia was about during those days. Is Russia about spreading totalitarianism today? Perhaps Putin may see himself as a world conqueror. 

While excoriating Russia, Biden then shows his anti-Israel colors by being soft on Hamas. Yes, he had to speak to the October 7th debauchery executed by Hamas. What else could he do? But sending money to “Gaza” is sending money to Israel’s enemies. Calling on Israel to a cease-fire with Hamas is anything but a rational foreign policy. If Putin epitomizes the evil from whom America can’t ever back down, then what is Hamas and the threat of Iran? There comes a point when the people of Gaza and Palestine must say to Hamas – no longer – no longer can you hide in innocent people’s homes, hospitals, and schools. I know that such a stance will take more courage than I can fathom. But courage is what is required to stand against such an evil as Hamas. Hamas’ evil is not limited to the gross debauchery they have perpetrated since their existence. It is also evident in their willingness to hide among civilians, placing them in extreme danger in the midst of reprisals for which Hamas’ evil deeds call forth. Israel is an ally. As such their foreign policy should not be dictated by America’s government. We may disagree at how Israel has gone about its response to Hamas; nonetheless, Israel is a sovereign country and is an ally. 

Next Biden seeks to tell everyone that China is really not rising in power and should not be considered that much of a fear factor. Tell that to the Taiwanese. Speak that nonsense to those who live in Hong Kong. If Putin is a threat to world peace, then to neglect China as such a threat, is totally irrational. In this nation we face the fact that China is buying up land and other forms of real estate throughout the country. Biden may want to claim that he and his cronies have brought to life the computer chip industry in America, but globally and economically that doesn’t make sense. China is a threat to the world as much, if not greater, than Russia. We will have to keep a close eye on Taiwan to see what happens. If China invades Taiwan, we’ll have to experience what our foreign policy is really made of. I would rather any support go to the Taiwanese than to Gaza, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. 

Failed Economic Policies

According to Biden’s speech he has made everyone better off from the poor to the wealthy. Addressing the decrease in deficit spending in the face of a $34-trillion dollar debt is like trying to irrigate a desert with a cup of water. The next government budget may very well see a fifth of its spending go simply to paying off the interest on the debt. And listening to Biden’s address doesn’t give anyone any comfort that government spending is on the chopping block. (By the way, this is as true of the RNC as it is the DNC.) Government spending is rather an oxymoron. It is actually the tax payers who are on the hook for the fiscal policies that lead to irrational spending by politicians. According to Biden, he is going to fix all problems from healthcare to education to corporate profits by the old game of tax-it-and-spend-it. Not one word did he utter regarding the government debt, what it does to the value of the dollar, and how it undermines peoples trust in economic policies. Not one word did he utter regarding the debauchery known as the Federal Reserve. End the Fed has been a shout for those who hold an understanding of economics contrary to Nobel Prize winners like Paul Krugman. The mindset that has taken hold of Washington’s fiscal and monetary policies can simply be translated as – spend our way toward utopia. 

As Biden spoke out of one corner of his mouth regarding deficit spending, out of the other side he played the old rhetorical tune of class envy, calling on the wealthy to pay their fair share. No doubt the tax burden in on the middle class. But this fact is due to both Democrat and Republican policies that uphold a so-called progressive income tax. The real question is who determined what is fair for everyone to pay in taxes. Such rhetoric is nothing more than the State being too much a part of our lives. When politicians set the tax code, then they and their IRA crony bureaucrats dictate to others what their fair share should be. There are many other pledges that Biden made that speak to what will be the continued failed economic policies put forth by Washington. Teachers will get raises, children will be forced to go into public education at earlier ages, unions will be subsidized to make America strong again. And then finally, an insult to all insults, inflation is going down. Tell that nonsense to people who are trying to buy a home, pay for an automobile, and to even those going to the grocery store. Of course all of these rises in prices will be fixed by more government spending and subsidizing of corporate cronies while the government debt continues to reach higher levels.

Everything is Political

Biden mentioned all the necessary politically-correct items from abortion to transgenderism. And then there is the border situation, which he has really tried to fix while instead trying to dictate to Texas that the state cannot string barbed wired along the Rio Grande. Literally millions of illegal immigrants have crossed the border, wreaking havoc on communities. Even schools in New York have been shut down, sending the students home while the educational facilities were used to house illegal immigrants. The border situation is a disaster. It’s remedy should be left up the each and every state that has to deal with the effects of illegal immigration. Immigration policies also effect economic policies. Those who enter the U.S. illegally are subsidized with healthcare, housing, and education. Interestingly enough, it is the very unions that Biden touts that look with scorn at immigration policies because of the jobs and inflated wage losses due to illegal immigration. I happen to believe that it is a wonderful reality that people want to move here, work, and establishing a life for themselves. But as in all countries, Mexico included, there are legal and legitimate ways to obtain that goal. Tax payers should not be subsidizing those who cross the border illegally.

Biden’s political rhetoric, which is true of Washing D.C. as a whole, was replete throughout his address. If we were to believe him, he will put forth policies that will solve all of our problems, of course at the tax payers’ expense. With every line, he had to take a jab at Trump (and I’m no Trump supporter). Of course it’s an election year. What this State of the Union puts forth is like most addresses over the last few decades, if not longer. People are to look to the beltway in D.C. for a life. Never mind the the pandemic and the policies that followed from it crushed the economy. Never mind that politicians are spending the economy into oblivion. Never mind that our foreign policy for the last decades since WWII have taken of the goal of a Pax Americana. And never mind that NATO is an organization that is at best a silent enemy of what America supposedly stands. NATO stands because of the American military and loss of American lives in foreign conflicts that we should not have engaged, from Vietnam to Iraq to Afghanistan.

Conclusion

The political rhetoric continues. Look to the politically elite for a life. They know better how we should live. The populace surely cannot carve out a life for themselves worth living. People are called to depend on the government. That is the taxpayer.

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D/March 14th, 2024

ANALYSIS OF POWER/Politics  

by

The Political Class and the Rest of Us

For they do not speak peace/But they devise deceitful words for those who are quiet in the land. (Psalm 35:20)

Introduction

I have a trick question for you: what has the political class done for you lately? It’s a trick question on several levels. First and unfortunately, many people believe that politicians do extraordinarily benevolent things for them. Second, government and its peons can do nothing for any of us unless they first take something from someone else. The only thing that politicians can truly do for “the rest of us” is find more efficient ways to extricate themselves from our lives. Ho-hum. That will never happen, and all this question and answer exercise is simply to preface that, whether we like or not, we’re in an election year where candidates will promise people all they can get away with in an election year, only to renege on the promises once in office. However, don’t blame the politicians. Making promises is how they stay in “power.” The citizens are to blame because of their view of government. Government, especially on the national level, exists to give us a life – so people have come to believe in an ever evolving mind-numbing way. There are three things on which we can focus if we really want a nation that no longer looks to the federal government for some kind of life. First , we need a refocus on the legitimate relationship between the federal level of government and the state and local levels of government. Centralization of power has gone much further than simply being an overreach to being a tyrannical threat to state and local powers. One example of this overreach is being played out in the border crisis in Texas. However, too much centralization of power is the core problem of all that will be discussed in this blog article. Second, we need to properly understand economics and, in the words of Murray Rothbard, what government has done with our money. Third, we need to take a hard look at our foreign policy, not defining every conflict in which the U.S. engages the military in patriotic colors and rhetoric about spreading democracy around the world.

Centralization of Power

The present conflict between Biden and Abbot regarding the border crisis is simply a symptom that speaks to a more pernicious issue of the loss of states’ rights in the usurpation that accompanies the centralization of power that has been accumulated in Washington D. C. The crisis of illegal immigration is another reality that the Federal Government would have people believe doesn’t exist. Illegal immigration is not merely about people crossing the border. Who can blame individuals for wanting better lives for themselves. Presently, however that “better life” is promised to illegal immigrants in terms of entitlements at the expense of the taxpayer. Free schooling, healthcare, and welfare benefits are held up like a carrot to entice people to cross the border illegally. There is also evidence that non-citizens are being allowed to vote in elections. To desire to be a citizen in this country is a good thing, and there are proper channels for doing so. The border crisis is real, but it’s simply one piece of evidence for the politicalization of everything, particularly at the expense of states rights while the federal level of government seeks to bully states into relaxing or eradicating their stance on illegal immigration. Centralization of power at the federal level of government risks more than laws regarding immigrants. We have watched over the years federal powers intrude on states rights in areas from education to now free speech and second amendment rights. One place this power struggle is being played out now happens to be at Texas’ southern border.

Understanding Economics

Wrap your mind, if you can, around the figure $34.2 trillion. This is our the present debt owed by our government on the day I’m writing this article. We are fast approaching where one-fifth (20%) of federal expenditures will go specifically to pay the interest on this debt. For a people that looks to government to take care of their needs, the simple fact that the government has no money is unfathomable. There are two basic truths about politicians. One, they want to keep promising people anything they can spew from their mouths; two, they don’t want to raise taxes. Not doing the former and doing the latter will prevent them from getting elected. If the promises that politicians make are not paid for via taxes, then the Federal Reserve simply prints the money. (Others outside the government are imprisoned for counterfeiting money). The more printed money the government infuses into the economy, the less valuable the dollar becomes. Hence, people’s purchasing power of the money they work for is destroyed. Looking at both government and our society as a whole, we have become an indebted people. We tend to define wealth by things people possess without seeing the indebtedness in which they swim. Regardless of what Paul Krugman in the New York Times spouts, the devaluing of our currency along with inflation are realities. These realties tend to hit hardest those who are on fixed incomes, such as retirees. One short paragraph will not suffice to help us understand economics. This is a topic to which I want to return time and again in the future. The basic principle to remember for now in this election year is that politicians love to make promises with other peoples’ money in mind.

Foreign Policy

In this years’ election drama, foreign policy will be a hot topic with so many points around the world embroiled in military conflict, with Russia/Ukraine, China/Taiwan, and Israel/Palestine being three of the most visible points of contention that could lead to further world conflict and war. Our foreign policy over several decades since W.W.II has been one disaster after another. We continue to embroil ourselves in the name of “American interests” in various countries around the world, spreading our use of troops to an ever-thinning layer and making poor decisions as to why we entered a conflict in the first place, and then making even poorer decisions about how to exit such conflicts. Foreign policy and the Pentagon is another example of other peoples’ money. The budget for the Pentagon contributes heavily to the U.S. debt. Although I am for a strong military and the proper role of the military in defending this country, we need to really search out why and if we need our military stationed all around the globe in a Pax Americana fashion. We are presently looking at some potential heavy conflicts that could really draw on our ability to defend this country, ranging from China to Iran to Russia. This is not a time to speak of spreading democracy around the world via the Pentagon,

Conclusion

Although in the Psalm from which the epitaph for this article is drawn the psalmist, David, is writing a prayer to God for rescue from enemies, I believe we must recognize when a government crosses the line to becoming an enemy of the people. Crises regarding the centralization of federal power hit home in the areas of fiscal/monetary policy, immigration policy, and foreign policy. While people can expect these three areas to be the foci in this election year, do not expect much discussion around the decentralization of power, not as long as the basic premise to which people hold is that the government (the State) exists somehow to take care of our needs, security, and peace of mind. Those of us who believe in a radial decentralization of power long for a government that does its minimal job of guarding our basic rights, which, by the way, do not come from the hand of the government. Otherwise we want to go about our business and be “quiet in the land.” What we will hear from political wannabes are many deceitful words about why they should live in every nook and cranny of our lives. One of the pathways to peace entails ridding ourselves of the State that presently controls our lives too much. The other and more important pathway is spiritual, praying that God awakens this nation unto Him. Government, the State, is not, never has been, and never will be a way to true peace and prosperity.

John V. Jones, Jr., Ph.D./February 14th, 2024

GENERAL ESSAY/ANALYSIS OF POWER/POLITICS