TGIF: The Phony Trade-off Between Privacy and Security

Sheldon Richman of The Future of Freedom Foundation (FFF) has written a brilliant essay today in his The Goal is Freedom (TGIF) series. That article is "The Phony Trade-off Between Privacy and Security" I urge you all to read it and to send it to your friends and relatives.

I will close this post with a relevant quote from Richman:

"...you can’t trade off privacy against security becausethey’re exactly the same thing. Anyone who reads dystopian novels knows that government access to personal information about people serves to inhibit and control them. That’s insecurity."

Revisiting the Classics: First Edition

Today, dear readers, I will decide to revisit the classics on libertarianism by some of our best voices in the liberty movement, from past to present.

I will be doing this every Thursday, and I will be collecting them from old reprints, old magazines, and other sources. This edition will even include excerpts from books on libertarianism.

And not only that, this edition will contain some instant modern-day classics, including from our very own year: 2013.

Today's edition to revisiting classic articles on libertarianism is here:

"Myth and Truth About Libertarianism" by Murray N. Rothbard: Originally a 1979 paper presented at the national meeting of the Philadelphia Society in Chicago, and then a 1980 article in Modern Age, this classic article is vitally important for those who want to understand the whole idea of libertarianism, the myths surrounding it, and the defenses given by libertarians.

"Why Be Libertarian?" by Murray N. Rothbard: Originally published in the Autumn 1966 issue of Left and Right, this classic article explains the true purpose of libertarianism in today's world: a commitment to the abolition of injustice through radical means.

"The Miraculous Market" by Leonard E. Read: A classic defense of free-market capitalism from one of the twentieth century's greatest minds, Leonard E. Read. It was originally published in The Free Market and Its Enemies. It is an excellent companion article to the masterpiece that is "I, Pencil." The Mises Institute has compiled many of Leonard Read's books for free download.

"Freedom of the Press" by Ludwig von Mises: An excerpt from his book The Anti-Capitalist Mentality (which is available for free PDF download at Mises.org), Mises defends the freedom of the press as a fundamental freedom and as a fundamental program of classical liberalism.

"Is Libertarianism Compatible with Religion?" by Laurence M. Vance: Based on a lecture Laurence Vance gave at the 2011 Austrian Scholars Conference (ASC) at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, this is a riveting defense of libertarianism from a religious perspective, particularly from the Christian worldview.

"How to Advance Liberty" by Leonard E. Read: Based on a lecture from the 1960s, Read gives us the proper strategy to advance the libertarian cause. That strategy is education.

"Locking Out the Immigrant" by Jacob G. Hornberger: The classic 1991 article makes the case for free immigration from a libertarian perspective, showing how immigration not only fits into libertarianism but also into the traditional classical-liberal system that dominated America in the nineteenth century (for the most part).

"Neo-Conned" by Ron Paul: The classic speech by Ron Paul on the nefarious group known as the neoconservatives.

"A Wise Consistency" by Ron Paul: A classic 2004 speech on liberty and how the principle of consistency is abused by statists.

"Just War" by Murray N. Rothbard: An article based on a 1994 lecture for the seminar The Costs of War. Rothbard argues that there were two, and only two, just wars in America's history: the American Revolution and the War for Southern Independence. Rothbard not only focuses on these two wars, but shows them as a framework for what a truly just war is.

"Killers-in-Chief" by John V. Denson: an excerpt from chapter 5 of Denson's book A Century of War.

"Hiroshima and Nagasaki" by Ralph Raico: Ralph Raico, in a modern classic, exposes the war criminal Harry Truman and opposes the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

"The Obligatory Post on Romans 13" by C. Jay Engel: This post deals with the issue of Romans 13 that is brought up by non-libertarian Christians seeking to smear libertarianism.

Capitalism vs. Imperialism

Professor Stephen Davies at the Institute for Humane Studies gives us a lesson on how to distinguish between capitalism and imperialism. The former is based on voluntary exchange while the latter is based on exploitation. The conflict is seen as capitalism vs. imperialism, liberty vs. power, productive classes vs. exploitative classes. This was the conflict that animated the classical-liberal theory of class conflict.

Here is the video. Enjoy

Who Is A "Racist?"

"Who Is A 'Racist?': Food for Thought that We've Never Tried" by Jack Kerwick

This is an excerpt from an article at Jack Kerwick's blog at Beliefnet.

If, as Eric Holder claims to want, we have ourselves an honest discussion of race, then we should determine, or at least try to determine, what it means for one to be a “racist.”

Is a “racist” one who has certain kinds of thoughts?    

“Thoughts” aren’t necessarily beliefs.  Fantasies, sensations, emotions—in short, perceptions of all kinds, are thoughts. To experience thoughts isn’t automatically to believe in those thoughts.

That a person’s thoughts are an insufficient basis for judging his character can easily be gotten from an infinite number of examples from everyday life.  A person who fantasizes about being a hero is no hero until he actually acts heroically—and even then, as Aristotle would be quick to note, the true hero isn’t just one who acts heroically; the hero is he who habitually acts heroically.  In any case, there is all of the difference between imagining oneself a hero and acting like one. Conversely, one who only thinks about ripping off the head of the person who cuts him off on the highway, or, say, imagines himself killing the lowlife who raped and murdered one of his loved ones is no killer until he actually kills.

Similarly, whatever a “racist” thought might be, he who has such thoughts is no more a “racist” than is the person a killer who merely has thoughts of killing another.

Is a “racist” one who holds certain kinds of beliefs?

For the same reason that thoughts generally can’t establish character, neither can thoughts that are beliefs do so.  A person is what he does. The familiar objection that beliefs are the basis of actions can be met by one very simple reply: it simply ain’t so.

First, it is not at all uncommon for the average person to have any number of beliefs that he never acts upon. As even his star pupil Plato recognized, Socrates was wide of the mark when he sought to account for wrongdoing in terms of ignorance of the good.  All too frequently, we act wrongly in spite of knowing that we are acting wrongly.  We act contrary to our beliefs, for the old Enlightenment fiction notwithstanding, human beings are not logic-chopping machines.

Second, even if it was true that our beliefs are always the bases of our actions, any belief can lead to more than one possible kind of action.

For instance, the belief that animals are inferior to humans need not motivate its holder to treat animals unkindly.  It could—and, as we know from experience, it more frequently than not does—drive the believer to go to great lengths to make sure that animals are protected.  The believer in animal inferiority could be an “animal lover” or an “animal hater.” For that matter, his belief could lead him to be altogether indifferent toward animals.

Similarly, a white person who believes in, say, the inferiority of blacks could support or oppose “affirmative action,” Jim Crow, slavery, reparations for slavery and Jim Crow, “historically” black colleges and universities, etc. Such a person could believe that while blacks are inferior to whites, it is precisely because of this that whites have a responsibility to care for blacks, to provide them with opportunities that they otherwise wouldn’t have left to their own resources.

Or a white person who believes in, for instance, the moral superiority of blacks may be moved to either a murderous envy or an admiration that propels him to seek out the company of blacks for instruction (or redemption).

But notice, in all of these examples, it is the actions that follow from the beliefs, not the beliefs themselves, that elicit opprobrium or approval.  Actions are praiseworthy or blameworthy, while beliefs are true or false.  If one is immoral for holding a false belief, then all of us are immoral, for there isn’t one among us who hasn’t entertained false beliefs. But if all of us are immoral for holding false beliefs, then we are still left wondering what is so distinctively objectionable about false beliefs that are “racist.”

Of course, one may contend that only some false beliefs, say, those beliefs of a moral nature, are immoral.  “Racist” beliefs could fall into this category.  And one could further argue that such false beliefs are the function of a corrupt character.

This, sadly, will not do.

In fact, it even proves the point that it is not beliefs, but actions, that are moral or immoral, for a corrupt character is nothing other than a vicious character, i.e., a character that is the product of acting viciously.

Read the rest of the article here.

Rothbard and the Libertarian Populists

Rothbard and the Libertarian Populists—Mises Daily

David S. D'Amato

Recent weeks have seen much speculation by pundits about the nature of “libertarian populism.” For those who regard all of libertarianism as an ideological whitewash for plutocracy, libertarian populism is clearly a matter of pulling the wool over the eyes of the common man. To those on the other side of the debate, who are no less chronically obsessed with electoral politics, libertarian populism is the GOP’s pathway back to relevance and viability. Here, however, I would like to offer a compendious introduction to a libertarian populism very different from both of these variants, and one informed instead by the insights of Austrian School libertarians such as Murray Rothbard.

The pivot point of libertarian populism is its hostility toward the cronyism that presently characterizes the political economy of the United States. Relationships between powerful elites in government and industry have, libertarian populists argue, cemented into an immovable and perennial force that creates privilege for the few at the expense of the many — hence, libertarianpopulism. This populism addresses itself to everything from lobbyists to bailouts and to the Federal Reserve System. In point of fact, the “End the Fed” movement, the germ of which was Ron Paul’s stout emphasis on the issue, was arguably among the prime movers and mainsprings of the particular moment of libertarian populism that we’re witnessing right now. Those influenced by the Austrian School and Rothbardian libertarians, contrary to the empty jeremiads of our critics, have always called attention to the often-incestuous relationships between all things big, irrespective of whether they are found in the “public” or the “private” sector. We have been on the forefront of demonstrating the causal link that connects misallocation to corporate welfare in all of its myriad embodiments that show why government intervention in the economic sphere is profoundly harmful, particularly for ordinary working people. The seeming fixation on the Federal Reserve then, is not a randomly chosen fetish of libertarians, but a recognition of the sweeping, harmful implications of Fed policy. Were more Americans to understand the Fed’s role in, for instance, American wars and economic instability, they might see that real libertarian populism is anything but a calculated political rebranding. Rather, libertarian populism simply is genuine, radical libertarianism, the kind that takes the state for what it is — a small criminal class that has successfully institutionalized economic spoliation.

Read the rest of of the article

Three Articles on Common Core

Dave Hodges of The Common Sense Show has written several articles exposing Common Core.

"Common Core Is Soviet-Style Centralization"

"How Your Child Is Being Dumbed Down"

"This Bridge Should Be Burned"

Please do take the time to read these, as they give much insight into this new fad that is Common Core, or "Obamacore" as some call it.

Film Review: BEN-HUR (1959)

Ben-Hur (1959)

*****

Director: William Wyler
Producer: Sam Zimbalist
Story/Screenplay: Karl Tunberg; Christopher Fry (uncredited), Gore Vidal (uncredited), Maxwell Anderson (uncredited), S. N. Behrman (uncredited)
Basis: Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ by General Lew Wallace
Cinematography: Robert L. Surtees, A.S.C.
Editor: John D. Dunning, Ralph E. Winters
Music: Miklos Rosza
Cast: Charlton Heston, Haya Harareet, Stephen Boyd, Jack Hawkins, Hugh Griffith, Sam Jaffe, Finlay Curray (narrator and Balthasar), Martha Scott, Cathy O'Donnell, Claude Heater (as Jesus)
MPAA Rating: G; original 1959 certificate: Approved

Run Time: 212 minutes

Distributor: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (theatrical), Warner Bros. (home video)

In November 1959, people were lining up to see the hot new movie that just came out. It was supposed to be the biggest and best epic of all time, not to mention the fact that it was shot in a super-wide ratio (2.76:1) using high-quality anamorphic lenses and top-notch 65mm film to capture these images. It was supposed to show both drama and action, particularly in the famed chariot race scene. The film was to beat Cecil B. DeMille's The Ten Commandments and others as the greatest epic movie of all time. The movie was Ben-Hur. Praised by moviegoers and critics of the day (and even of today), Ben-Hur does stand the test of time, and it is one of the greatest epics of all time. It set the stage for other epics such as Spartacus, Lawrence of Arabia, Braveheart, and Gladiator. It was recognized both in 1998 and 2007 by the American Film Institute as one of the 100 greatest American movies of all time, as well as being one of the top ten epic movies of all time in AFI's 10 Top 10. It famously won 11 out of 12 Academy Awards, including Best Picture (though it didn't win Best Screenplay due to issues over who should receive credit for it; it did receive a nomination, though).

Why is it so? Because it has character, drama, action, violence, redemption, hope, color, and intelligence in it; it is one of the best (and maybe THE best) of the biblical epics of Hollywood's Golden Age, in the vein of classic epic masterpieces such as The Ten Commandments, Spartacus, Lawrence of Arabia, Braveheart, and Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy (the adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's masterpiece of the same name).

I figure that most people will know the general outline; however, I feel the need to refresh readers who might have forgotten about the plot. At its most basic level, the story is about two former friends who split up because of political and religious differences, with one betraying the other, laying the ground for future enmity that will result in one of the greatest cinematic sequences of American film history and film history in general.

Now, get back to the story: In first century (A.D., that is) Judea, the Jewish prince Judah Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston) meets his former friend Messala (Stephen Boyd), who has now become a Roman tribute. At first, it seems that they will be friends again. However, when Messala demands that Judah reveal the names of militants who oppose the Roman Empire, Judah breaks with Messala, and vice versa. This event spills over when Judah is falsely accused of attempting to assassinate the Roman governor after a tile accidentally falls from the palace balcony, and he and his family are captured. Judah begs Messala to vindicate him and his family, but the hardened Roman refuses. Judah is condemned to the galleys, but not before he promises vengeance on Messala when he returns. At the galleys, he saves the life of the general Quintus Arrius (Jack Hawkins) and is rewarded by being named Arrius's son. However, Judah feels haunted by the memory of Judea, and returns, only to meet Sheik Ilderim (Hugh Griffith) and Balthasar (Finlay Currie), who happened to be one of the three wise men who saw the baby Jesus, and to enter into a chariot race in which he will compete with Messala in the arena. The ensuing events will make for an exciting, grand piece of cinema.

Did the movie deserve the glowing reputation it has received among esteemed film critics and cinephiles? Or is it just an average epic that is dated and insignificant? Or is it a really awful, bloated and overrated piece of fluff? I agree with the first opinion. It is an intelligent piece of filmmaking that keeps you in your seat for more than three and a half hours, even with the occasional flaws that may exist in the movie.

William Wyler does a wonderful job in directing the film, and the movie is guided by his skilled hand. Epic film producer Sam Zimbalist (King Solomon's Mines, Quo Vadis) did a great job in his production; however, he died in 1958 before it could be completed, making him the only posthumous person to win a Best Picture Oscar. Karl Tunberg's excellent script is helped with uncredited contributions from British playwright Christopher Fry, American playwrights Maxwell Anderson and S. N. Behrman, and the late great controversialist Gore Vidal, who also happened to write Broadway plays. The fact that the uncredited contributions come from playwrights clears things up a bit as to why this film is so grand, epic, and magnificent. The script should be studied by film buffs and aspiring filmmakers as an excellent example of epic filmmaking. And not only that, Lew Wallace's classic, on which the film is based, should be read also in conjunction with the film script. Miklos Rozsa's music, Robert Surtees's cinematography and Yakima Canutt's stunts all have their share in elevating this already wonderful film.

Charlton Heston plays his role as the Jewish prince with dignity, spectacularity, and humanity, even though he may have his occasions of stiltedness and woodenness. However, there is a difference from the book and the movie; whereas in the book Ben-Hur is shown to be joining a guerrilla force with the Galileans against the Roman government, and he even kills a Roman soldier in a duel, while the movie shows none of this. It does deal with Ben-Hur's hatred of the Roman government, though, and how it nearly blinds him to the need to love his enemies. Another difference is that in the book Ben-Hur is depicted to be much younger in the beginning, whereas in the movie he is a grown man. Stephen Boyd brilliantly portrays the villainous Messala, who is desirous of power, glory, and pomp. However, unlike the novel's character, Messala is not very cynical, though he is laden with hubris. The Israeli actress Haya Harareet fits well into the role of the beautiful Esther, and Hugh Griffith's portrayal as Sheik Ilderim provides us some comic relief throughout the epic tale. And Jack Hawkins's role as Arrius is compelling as well.

And let us not forget the brilliant and electric chariot race. The race is constructed entirely without CGi and without any phony trickery; it is all real. The sets are huge, magnificent and epic. And it entirely relies on the suspense of the event rather than Miklos Rozsa's music (which is wonderful in its own right). It not only focuses on epic-ness but rather the conflict between Ben-Hur and Messala, and in this way it contributes to the story and doesn't detract from it.

The most important part of the epic, however, is the story of Christ, as the subtitle of the original book (and the movie) says it is "A Tale of the Christ." Claude Heater plays the role here. In the film, Christ's face is not shown, and yet His power infuses the whole movie both indirectly and directly, particularly in the famous scene where Jesus gives water to a thirsty Judah Ben-Hur, who is on his way to the galleys. When He faces a Roman soldier who commands that no water be given to Judah, Jesus' look has such strength that the soldier stops himself from whipping Jesus. The Christian core is shown throughout the film by contrasting the power of true love as exemplified by Christ Jesus and the hatred that Messala shows and that Judah succumbs to before his salvation. 

The late film critic Bosley Crowther, in his 1959 review of the movie, was right: this movie transcends its wonderful spectacle and presents a gripping and powerful human drama. Recommended to all film buffs, epic film fans, and Christians of all backgrounds. This film is epic, human, and wonderful. I give it five out of five stars.

Addendum Conclusion

I would like to note that there is a 1925 silent version of the movie directed by Fred Niblo (The Mask of Zorro), starring Ramon Novarro (The Arab, Scaramouche, The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse) as the title protagonist and Francis X. Bushman (His Friend's Wife, The Masked Bride, David and Bathsheba, The Bad and the Beautiful, Sabrina) as Messala. I haven't seen this movie, so I can't judge which version is superior: the 1925 Niblo version or the 1959 Wyler version.

This version of Ben-Hur would come out with the 2006 DVD edition of the 1959 film, as well as the 2011 DVD and Blu-ray editions.

And speaking of Blu-ray, I strongly recommend that you buy the Blu-ray edition of the movie, particularly the three-disc ultimate collector's edition, which contains a collectible 64-page book with rare images, as well as a replica of Charlton Heston's journal and sketches. It is expensive, but trust me, it is worth your time and money. The picture is restored majestically from the original 65mm camera negative (which was in not-really-that-good condition) at a stunning 8K resolution and mastered at a beautiful 1080p resolution.

There is beautiful contrast, and there are deep blacks, which is what every great film restorationist starts with, and rich colors that don't go too rich and still preserve the natural filmic nature of its source material.

And the folks at Warner Bros. used the original audio negatives to their advantage, as their 5.1 DTS HD Master Audio track is clean and powerful. As the Blu-ray.com review of the Blu-ray states, "M-G-M has obviously kept the original stems and mag tracks of this film in more or less pristine condition, and it shows throughout this stunning lossless presentation. From the first boisterous moments of Rózsa's incredible Overture, the difference, especially with regard to the low end frequencies, is instantly audible and incredibly fulsome. The 5.1 track is gorgeously spacious, with excellent use of side and rear channels, especially in some of the film's most famous set pieces, including the galley scenes and of course the iconic chariot race, which is awash in LFE and incredible panning effects."

Still not convinced? I would like to refer you to the Blu-ray.com review, the DVD Talk review, the WhatCulture review, the Sound and Vision Magazine review, the IGN review, and my own review on Amazon.com.