Come, Holy Spirit come,
With energy divine,
And on this poor, benighted soul,
With beams of mercy shine.Melt, melt this frozen heart;
This stubborn will subdue;
Each evil passion overcome,
And form me all anew.Mine will the profit be,
But Thine shall be the praise;
And unto Thee will I devote
The remnant of my days.
Secession lagniappe
Groundskeeper Willie would like a word:
Here’s Ewan Watt over at TheDC on why free-marketers should support Scottish independence.
Sort of related, what if journalists covered Scotland like they cover the Middle East? And why are these Tibetans playing bagpipes?
National Journal on how American secessionists in Cascadia, Vermont, and Dixie are rooting for an “aye” in Scotland.
The New York Times on how Texans, Basques, Kurds, and other minorities are watching the referendum closely.
Pro-union parties are panicking.
David Boaz is for it.
John Harris in the Guardian:
In the broadcast media in particular, there is an implied assumption that “the Scotland moment” is something confined to that country. But the reality across the UK suggests something much deeper and wider, and a simple enough fact: that what is happening north of the border is the most spectacular manifestation of a phenomenon taking root all over – indeed, if the splintering of politics and the rise of new forces on both left and right across Europe are anything to go by, a set of developments not defined by specific national circumstances, but profound social and economic ruptures. …
What with every conceivable threat being thrown at the pro-independence side, let us assume Scotland narrowly decides to remain in the UK, that the three main parties stumble through their conferences and we get to May next year. Whoever wins will do so with only the flimsiest of mandates and, particularly in the case of a Labour party uncertain of its mission and committed to austerity, the backlash would set in early; indeed, mid-term blues might arrive well inside the first year. Ukip could easily end up on yet another roll, while the consequences of increased powers for Holyrood ripple through the whole of the UK, with unpredictable results, as evidenced by increasing interest in the kind of nationwide devolution floated today by Nick Clegg. …
In short, nothing is going back in its box. Anxiety and excitement abound in equal measure, which is what happens when uncertainty takes over almost everything. Only one thing seems clear: politics as usual suddenly seems so lost as to look completely absurd.
What to do about Ted Cruz: Insist that he speak to possible American complicity in genocide
Ted Cruz is now raising money off his appearance deliberately provoking a crowd of Arab Christians. He is raising money off a speech that insulted the leaders of persecuted Middle Eastern churches, and Washington’s Cardinal Wuerl, by suggesting they don’t know how to follow Christ.
If you haven’t been following along, here are some links:
- Tristyn at TheDC broke the story.
- Jon Coppage with the transcript and a longer write-up.
- Another account from the room.
- Michael Brendan Dougherty and Pascal Emmanuel-Gobry at The Week; Dougherty touches on what at least appears to be coordination with the Free Beacon. Cruz attended a breakfast with Free Beacon reporters and his national security advisor earlier that morning, just before Alana Goodman’s story smearing some of the clerics in attendance as “pro-Hezbollah.” She also got the interview right after Cruz got offstage. It’s been alleged that the neocons have stage-managed stunts like this before.
- And my great thanks to David Benkof, an Orthodox Jew and strong supporter of Israel, for writing this for us, and adapting his piece for the Times of Israel.
- Update: Here’s Ross Douthat
The senator must think his constituents and donors are stupid; that his remarks are playing well with the evangelicals back home, and this will all be glossed over in time, with anyone who brings it up being treated as disloyal and possibly anti-Semitic. Here’s what to do to make sure that doesn’t happen.
Cruz is officially against arming the Syrian opposition, but you’d think a supposed conservative firebrand like him wouldn’t hesitate to mention the fact that we already are, and have been since probably 2012. As covered here last week, it is far from a remote possibility that weapons collected in Benghazi and transferred to Syria by way of Turkey have ended up in the hands of ISIS, meaning the United States are complicit in the genocide of Middle Eastern Christians.
This has the added bonus of undermining the neocon argument, which in spite of the chaos engulfing the region they have largely stuck to, that Assad must be toppled above all else, because it shows the consequences of that kind of monomania. Look at how the Free Beacon chides these persecuted people for daring to side, out of sheer necessity, with the autocrat who might at least keep them safe.
This should be Obama’s Iran-Contra, but sadly I think neither Cruz nor Trey Gowdy’s Benghazi Select Committee have any interest in investigating what we were doing there; they’d rather establish timelines about the night of the attack and continue to build a case for the administration’s mismanagement. Ted Cruz should not be allowed to get through a single interview without being asked about what he’s going to do to get to the bottom of whether American-trafficked weapons have ended up in the hands of ISIS. The constituents of Cruz, Gowdy, et al, and conservative groups must be prepared to hold their feet to the fire on this question. If it is true, and Cruz et al are uninterested in talking about it so as not to undermine the case for further involvement in the region, that demonstrates a moral obtuseness that even CUFI might be able to see through.
If Cruz were to demonstrate a good-faith effort to investigate this matter, then perhaps he could be forgiven for the unspeakable insult to the church that he delivered this week. He was on the warpath over weapons trafficking to Mexican gangs, and this should be no different. But pressure will need to be brought to bear: Texans who are concerned about the possibility that America, however covertly or inadvertently, aided ISIS savagery, now is the time to stand up.
Sometimes smaller is worse
While I am a huge fan of decentralization, it is important to be cognizant of the potential negative effects. Proponents of decentralization argue that local governments are more responsive to the needs of people. However, local governments can be dominated by local special interests, restricting the overall level of freedom.
This tension was apparent during the drive to Burning Man. Many towns would pull over cars, ticketing them for any perceived traffic violation. This would have no negative effect on the elected officials as out of towners don’t vote. A more insidious example is Ferguson and the broader St. Louis area. They weren’t ticketing one time passers through, but oppressing an entire population, keeping them impoverished.
Zoning restrictions are another example. Japan decides zoning policy on a national level, and as such, Tokyo has cheaper housing prices than San Francisco. This is because the property owners in Tokyo are unable to effectively lobby the national government, while San Francisco property owners are much closer to the relevant decision making body.
This point can be brought back the the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries and the building of the nation state. One of the primary advantages of the modern nation state was its ability to crush local monopolies. Rivers which previously had tolls every mile for a different fiefdom would be traveled at much lower cost. By crushing the local monopolies the modern nation state created a free trade zone within its borders. This allowed Britain to experience the industrial revolution, overtaking the rest of Europe, despite having higher tariffs than France.
The question advocates of political decentralization must ask is, under what circumstances will the benefits of local governments outweigh their costs? Moving cities is already much cheaper now than previously, increasing the elasticity of demand for local governments. Trade, rather than plunder, is also a far greater part of wealth today. Another option is a shareholder state, one where the incentives of the population are more closely aligned with the ruling class than most forms of government.
Ruminations and persuasion
Around this time 73 years ago, the Prime Minister of Japan, Fumimaro Konoe, had been in constant talks with the Emperor, at the time the head of state and military. While Konoe was no squish in terms of nationalism, he also saw the then-developing idea from the Imperial Japanese Army of a preemptive strike against the United States as a bad idea: They did not have the resources to conduct a three-front war over China/Korea, southeast Asia, and the Pacific, especially with the third front being opposed by an enemy not bound to any war and having far more manpower and materials to use against them. It is in fact the reason they avoided war with Soviet Union at the time, even when the latter was invaded by the Third Reich the same year.
The American government was predictably angry at the time of the “southern strategy” being used by the IJA and Imperial Japanese Navy, and wanted attacks against Dutch and British colonies to cease, or they would move to war. Konoe did not want that, but, as the fall turned colder, it seemed nobody in the Japanese government was particularly interested in what he had to say, despite being the head of the government. The Showa Emperor was initially on his side, even arguing against his chiefs of staff over the fact that despite predictions of finishing up in three months, it had been four years since the invasion of China began with little headway against the united Nationalist-Communist army. But then he too began ignoring Konoe. In October, the last shot at negotiations failed, possibly sabotaged by certain military figures, and Konoe resigned. Six weeks later, the Empire of Japan began its slow demise with the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Asked to explain what happened, Konoe said this to his secretary:
“Of course His Imperial Majesty is a pacifist and he wished to avoid war. When I told him that to initiate war was a mistake, he agreed. But the next day, he would tell me: ‘You were worried about it yesterday, but you do not have to worry anymore.’ Thus, gradually he began to lead to war. And the next time I met him, he leaned even more to war. I felt the Emperor was telling me: ‘My prime minister does not understand military matters. I know much more.’ In short, the Emperor had absorbed the view of the army and the navy high commands.”
I think of this in the speech I heard last night.
At a time when the anticapitalist left and the traditionalist/libertarian right are in agreement on not having any further involvement in the Levant, knowing fully well the consequences of what will happen, it seems like nobody inside the Beltway seems particularly interested in listening to them, or the American people. And just as well: Neither side, due to pure ideological spite, seems to have been persuaded not to join forces for risk of being “tainted” by the other side. Thus, the Beltway gets further insulated from any outside opposition to this madness.
So then…who exactly are these people listening to?
Introduction to proprietary cities
The Freeman was kind enough to publish a short introduction to the intellectual history of proprietary cities, by yours truly. Here’s an excerpt.
There has been a lot of discussion about what Tyler Cowen calls shareholder states. A shareholder state is a territorial governance structure where the decision-makers have a monetary incentive for performance: Decision-makers would be rewarded for decisions leading to long-term growth. This system contrasts with democracy, where decision-makers rarely think past the next election cycle.
But the discussion has been missing an understanding of the intellectual history of proprietary communities, the “purest” type of shareholder state. A proprietary community is a territorial governance structure under a single owner. This structure more closely approximates private property, giving it an advantage over other governance structures. In a proprietary community, there is a single decision-maker with an interest in property values, which are highly correlated with economic development.
