Power & Market

Václav Klaus on Nation-States: They're Better than a Global State

03/29/2018Ryan McMaken

Gregoire Canlorbe, who interviews Mark Thornton here, has posted a new an interesting interview with former Czech President Václav Klaus. 

Klaus describes himself as a defender of the "Nation-State," but in an interesting way. 

For Klaus, the Nation-State acts as a bulwark against further centralization at the continental or the — god forbid — global level. 

In other words, it's a decentralist view:

I would return the issue to the defense of the Nation-State. I truly believe in the Nation-State, therefore I am so critical of the continental ambitions of many European officials. I do not believe in the European Union or the European integration. This is for me the starting point.

For me, the Nation-State is the only possible way to have democracy. Democracy simply cannot exist at a higher level, as in continents, let alone global democracy in the world. So, my starting point is the Nation-State, the defense of the Nation-State, and the fighting continental integration.

Klaus's position reminds me of Jeff Deist's article "Brexit: Individualism > Nationalism > Globalism," which notes that real individual sovereignty is always preferable to false state "sovereignty." Nevertheless, in principle a local state is preferable to a remote global state:

Ludwig von Mises understood that self-determination is the fundamental goal of liberty, of real liberalism. It’s true that libertarians ought not to concern themselves with “national sovereignty” in the political sense, because governments are not sovereign kings and should never be treated as worthy of determining the course of our lives. But it is also true that the more attenuated the link between an individual and the body purporting to govern him, the less control — self-determination — that individual has.

To quote Mises, from his 1927 classic (in German) Liberalismus:

If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done.

Ultimately, Brexit is not a referendum on trade, immigration, or the technical rules promulgated by the (awful) European Parliament. It is a referendum on nationhood, which is a step away from globalism and closer to individual self-determination. Libertarians should view the decentralization and devolution of state power as ever and always a good thing, regardless of the motivations behind such movements. Reducing the size and scope of any single (or multinational) state’s dominion is decidedly healthy for liberty.

Critics of this notion will no doubt say that "a state is a state." If this were true, however, then why not have just one giant state? The disaster that would be for human liberty is fairly obvious, which is why even the "state is a state" crowd don't often support the creation of mega-states. 

[RELATED: "We Need More Borders and More States"]

Moreover, it may very well be that Klaus is imagining a world of fairly small states — a situation that would allow for far greater choice for the citizens themselves. 

After all, just how big one of these Nation-States needs to be to gain the benefits Klaus imagines remains unclear. Klaus comes from a Nation-State of 10.6 million people — 1/30th the size of the United States. 

[RELATED: "Why a Small State Is More "Voluntary" than a Big One"]

Devolving each large nation state to something this size would certainly be a step in the right direction. 

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

Vox Gets it Wrong: the Left is Abandoning Free Speech

03/19/2018Tho Bishop

Last week Matt Yglesias over at Vox tried his best to deflate the notion that America was becoming increasingly hostile to free speech. Unfortunately, as Daniel Bier over at Skeptical Libertarian noted, Yglesias's own charts indicate that support for free speech among "Liberal" and "Slightly Liberal" Americans is at the lowest point in over 40 years. 

Utilizing data from the General Social Survey, Yglesias shows that the US as a whole has demonstrated a growing willingness to defend the freedom of homosexuals, communists, militarists, and anti-theists to speak freely. Of course none of this should be particularly surprising. Prominent politicians on the left have actively praised communist leaders, militarism has received bipartisan support for decades, and social trends have become increasingly more tolerable for homosexuals and atheists.

Screen_Shot_2018_03_09_at_11.22.24_AM.png

Meanwhile, the GSS data shows a drastic drop in support for the free speech rights of racists. 

It should go without saying that defending the rights of racists to speak is not the same thing as defending those ideas. In fact, one's commitment to free speech matters most when it involves ideas you strongly oppose. As Andrew Syrios wrote for the Mises Wire:

Discerning what exactly free speech is can sometimes be challenging, as in cases of libel, slander, and direct threats. But these are really not the issues at heart here. The vast majority of speech being “regulated” today is simply that of an unpopular opinion. Yes, many ideas are bad. And they should be refuted. Moreover, resorting to the use of political force to silence adversaries is a sign of the weakness of one’s own position. But, in using force to silence others, anti-speech crusaders are making another argument. They’re arguing that political force can and should be used to silence people we don’t like. What idea could be worse than that?

By this measure, the support for using force to silence the thoughts of others is growing in this country. In fact, if we use Vox's own data, they are declining most dramatically among those who identify as "Liberal" and "Slightly Liberal." 

Screen_Shot_2018_03_09_at_11.29.46_AM.png

In conclusion, Vox gets everything wrong, in their article titled "Everything we think about the political correctness debate is wrong."

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here

Vermont Senate Votes to Legalize Recreational Marijuana

01/10/2018Ryan McMaken

The Hill reports today that the Vermont Senate has voted to approve the legalization of recreation marijuana for users over 21 years of age.

With its passage in the Senate, the law proceeds to the governor's desk where he is expected to sign. 

While eight states (AlaskaCaliforniaColoradoMaineMassachusettsNevadaOregon, and Washington) have already legalized recreational marijuana, Vermont will be the first state to legalize via action of the state legislature. All other states that have legalized have done through statewide referenda or voter initiative. 

Since 2012, when Colorado voters approved recreational marijuana, state-level voters have repeatedly shown indifference toward federal drug law — which, of course, is in violation of Article I of the Constitution, and the Tenth Amendment. 

But now, for the first time, a state legislature and governor have joined the movement. This comes, we might note, mere weeks after US Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced he plans to ratchet up the Drug War against marijuana users. 

Apparently, Vermont legislators are happy to disregard him. 

When commenting, please post a concise, civil, and informative comment. Full comment policy here
Shield icon power-market-v2