WEBVTT

NOTE The Most Illiberal Living Thinkers

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:29.000
When I mention illiberal thinkers, I'm of course using illiberal in the, not in the modern sense, I mean by liberal, classical liberal, meaning one who defends individual liberty and wants to drastically limit or do away with government, not as it's used today as a defender of government programs.

2
00:00:29.000 --> 00:00:36.120
When I talk about most illiberal thinkers, I mean those who were most opposed to individual

3
00:00:36.120 --> 00:00:37.120
liberty.

4
00:00:37.120 --> 00:00:45.520
Now, there's a good deal of competition for the most illiberal thinkers, but the ones

5
00:00:45.520 --> 00:00:53.040
I'm going to be talking about today, we heard yesterday evening from Judge Napolitano and

6
00:00:53.040 --> 00:01:06.840
Professor Higgs, we heard a very cogent indictment of the war policies of the current administration,

7
00:01:06.840 --> 00:01:12.200
how the policy is destroying individual liberty.

8
00:01:12.200 --> 00:01:21.960
Now when we have a government that's assaulting liberty, there must be, there almost always

9
00:01:21.960 --> 00:01:29.040
Those intellectuals who are defending the government, who are offering a justification

10
00:01:29.040 --> 00:01:36.360
for the government's policies, for these illiberal policies, these policies destructive of liberty.

11
00:01:36.360 --> 00:01:43.600
Murray Rothbard liked to call these people the court intellectuals, he was here I think

12
00:01:43.600 --> 00:01:51.680
influenced by the historian Harry Elmer Barnes, who after World War I criticized what he called

13
00:01:51.680 --> 00:02:01.200
Court Historians, people who were supporting the official line on war propaganda.

14
00:02:01.200 --> 00:02:11.240
So the court intellectuals I have in mind are principally certain neoconservative writers

15
00:02:11.240 --> 00:02:20.120
such as Norman Podoritz, Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan and others who were supporting very

16
00:02:20.120 --> 00:02:45.120
and the very aggressive foreign policy and also certain lawyers and legal theorists such as Judge Robert Posner and John C. U. who have come up with justifications for the very severe limits on civil liberties that have been imposed by the current administration in its policy.

17
00:02:45.120 --> 00:02:57.400
Now, we find, for example, in Norman Padoritz's recent book, World War Four, which I just

18
00:02:57.400 --> 00:03:11.880
reviewed with somewhat less than complete enthusiasm, we find here what are the ways that the neoconservatives

19
00:03:11.880 --> 00:03:21.360
in his attempt to justify President Bush's invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and his other

20
00:03:21.360 --> 00:03:25.160
very aggressive foreign policy move.

21
00:03:25.160 --> 00:03:37.720
Well, one of the main points that is raised is they will take various threats or various

22
00:03:37.720 --> 00:03:43.840
of Dangers Facing the United States and lump them all together as if they were part of

23
00:03:43.840 --> 00:03:52.840
a single threat against us, a single entity that is threatening us. For example, Fedorits

24
00:03:52.840 --> 00:04:00.200
in his book starts off with a description of various terrorist incidents going back to

25
00:04:00.200 --> 00:04:10.200
in the 1970s, such as the bombing of the Munich Olympics and the hijacking of planes. Some

26
00:04:10.200 --> 00:04:17.760
of these were by the Palestine Liberation Organization, the PLO. There was some Libyan

27
00:04:17.760 --> 00:04:23.200
government was involved in, although the extent to which they were involved in some of these

28
00:04:23.200 --> 00:04:30.720
There are various terrorist attacks, of course, culminating in the World Trade Center and

29
00:04:30.720 --> 00:04:33.120
Pentagon assaults of 9-11.

30
00:04:33.120 --> 00:04:41.840
Now, to Podoritz and those who think like him, these are all part of a single plot against

31
00:04:41.840 --> 00:04:42.840
us.

32
00:04:42.840 --> 00:04:45.120
He doesn't give any evidence for it.

33
00:04:45.120 --> 00:04:54.440
What he does is he takes these various assaults by different groups, each one of which had

34
00:04:54.440 --> 00:05:01.040
its own purposes behind it, and he said, well, this is all part of a war on terror being

35
00:05:01.040 --> 00:05:07.560
directed at us.

36
00:05:07.560 --> 00:05:11.400
So we have this United War on Terror.

37
00:05:11.400 --> 00:05:21.400
Now, that would be bad enough, but he says it's even worse because we have the large parts of the Muslim religion,

38
00:05:21.400 --> 00:05:31.400
the large parts of Islam, which at least numbers hundreds of millions of adherents,

39
00:05:31.400 --> 00:05:38.400
have a radical ideology by which they want to destroy the Western world.

40
00:05:38.400 --> 00:05:43.000
They Believe in Holy War Against the West.

41
00:05:43.000 --> 00:05:47.120
Now, it's certainly true, and I don't mean to minimize

42
00:05:47.120 --> 00:05:50.560
any danger from radical Islam.

43
00:05:50.560 --> 00:05:54.400
It's certainly the case that there are some Muslims

44
00:05:54.400 --> 00:05:59.400
who believe that their religion is going to dominate

45
00:06:00.140 --> 00:06:05.140
the world and that eventually everyone is going to be

46
00:06:05.200 --> 00:06:07.600
converted to that religion.

47
00:06:07.600 --> 00:06:09.600
The Theory of Money and Credit

48
00:06:37.600 --> 00:06:47.280
how again linked to various terrorist incidents we have now ideology supported by hundreds

49
00:06:47.280 --> 00:06:58.800
of millions of people that is now going to destroy us so we have he's conjured up a whole

50
00:06:58.800 --> 00:07:05.720
threat to us of gigantic proportions it's not only there are a few terrorist groups

51
00:07:05.720 --> 00:07:17.720
that have had incidents at various times in the past that have damaged us, but there are now hundreds of millions of people supporting these terrorists.

52
00:07:17.720 --> 00:07:23.720
He doesn't provide any evidence for that and neither do any of the other conservatives.

53
00:07:23.720 --> 00:07:32.720
Now, this is further connected with the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

54
00:07:32.720 --> 00:07:43.720
It's odd that the neoconservatives do this because the Saddam Hussein regime was a largely secular regime.

55
00:07:43.720 --> 00:07:52.720
Saddam Hussein was himself, of course, a Muslim, but this was perhaps the countries of the Middle East, the Muslim countries.

56
00:07:52.720 --> 00:08:02.720
in Western Countries. This was the one in which there was the sharpest separation between religion and state.

57
00:08:02.720 --> 00:08:18.720
But nevertheless, according to Podoritz and the other neoconservatives, Saddam Hussein was connected with this radical Islamic threat to us,

58
00:08:18.720 --> 00:08:21.880
which is also connected to the terrorists.

59
00:08:21.880 --> 00:08:26.880
So we have, we get from this what Hedoric considers

60
00:08:29.120 --> 00:08:33.520
World War Four, World War Three was the Cold War,

61
00:08:33.520 --> 00:08:38.520
World War Four is this big terrorist plot against us

62
00:08:39.960 --> 00:08:44.960
embracing millions of people and the invasion of Iraq

63
00:08:44.960 --> 00:08:52.960
was a counter move on our part against this radical threat.

64
00:08:53.960 --> 00:09:04.960
So even though Saddam Hussein had nothing in particular to do with the radical Islamic system of belief,

65
00:09:04.960 --> 00:09:13.960
it's alleged to be the threat against us, somehow the attack on him was supposed to be part of this whole endeavor.

66
00:09:13.960 --> 00:09:35.960
Now, of course, he refers to how did he get around this point that Saddam Hussein didn't believe in the radical Islamic ideology and had no connection to the 9-11 attacks.

67
00:09:35.960 --> 00:09:57.960
He said, this is just a two-headed monster, so by his metaphor, he is supposed to answer to the case, the whole case that he's constructed an artificial entity and sort of this radical threat to us, Saddam Hussein is included,

68
00:09:57.960 --> 00:10:20.960
It's really a whole series of different things that are just being lumped together, and this is called, and he further calls this Islamo-fascism, even though it has, the Islamic countries have no particular connection with the fascists and the Nazis,

69
00:10:20.960 --> 00:10:41.960
What's the Ba'ath Party that rules in both Syria and also Iraq under Saddam Hussein was influenced by the Nazis in the 1940s, but that has nothing to do with radical Islam today.

70
00:10:41.960 --> 00:10:50.460
Now, supposing then we, let's put this aside, supposing we do have this gigantic threat against us,

71
00:10:50.460 --> 00:10:53.460
what are we supposed to do about it?

72
00:10:53.460 --> 00:11:05.460
According to the neoconservatives, what we need to do is to establish democracy in all the countries of the Middle East.

73
00:11:05.460 --> 00:11:10.460
If we did that, then these countries wouldn't threaten us.

74
00:11:11.960 --> 00:11:22.600
Now there's an obvious problem here is that according to the way that the neoconservatives

75
00:11:22.600 --> 00:11:29.240
set up and portrayed events in the mid-east in these countries, there are millions of

76
00:11:29.240 --> 00:11:36.520
people who accept this radical Islamic ideology and they're wanting to destroy us.

77
00:11:36.520 --> 00:11:42.880
Now what would happen if we established democracies in these countries, then wouldn't be likely

78
00:11:42.880 --> 00:11:50.200
that these millions of people would vote for governments that promoted that ideology, so

79
00:11:50.200 --> 00:11:56.960
it's not immediately obvious why establishing democracies in these countries would help

80
00:11:56.960 --> 00:12:13.960
to help us out, how would that aid us in countering this alleged threat that radical Islam is supported by millions of people.

81
00:12:13.960 --> 00:12:24.960
So the remedy of the neoconservatives is, well, we establish a democracy in which we then have these millions of people vote for governments

82
00:12:24.960 --> 00:12:50.960
that support their ink. Now, perhaps the argument is supposed to be, well, if we had this radical ideology flourishes only under undemocratic conditions, if we had people voting, then they would become converted immediately to a pro-Western way of thinking, but there's no argument presented to think that's true.

83
00:12:50.960 --> 00:13:06.640
There is another argument that is often advanced in favor of having worldwide democracies imposed

84
00:13:06.640 --> 00:13:10.720
on these countries of the mid-east.

85
00:13:10.720 --> 00:13:17.840
The argument is that democracies don't go to war with each other, so that if we were

86
00:13:17.840 --> 00:13:36.840
The best thing we can do then if we want to promote world peace is to overthrow all the dictatorial governments and have democratic governments replace them.

87
00:13:36.840 --> 00:13:48.840
Now, well, for one thing we can ask, is it the case that democracies don't go to war with each other?

88
00:13:48.840 --> 00:13:52.840
How well supported is that generalization?

89
00:13:52.840 --> 00:13:58.840
The problem with it is that, of course it depends on how one defines a democracy,

90
00:13:58.840 --> 00:14:04.840
there weren't all that many democracies around until fairly recently,

91
00:14:04.840 --> 00:14:14.840
So it's not clear even if the generalization is true, it's supported by very much, very many examples.

92
00:14:14.840 --> 00:14:25.840
Now, it's not clear even though if we just restrict ourselves to a few examples, it's not clear that the generalization is true.

93
00:14:25.840 --> 00:14:36.840
for example, in the American Civil War, there was arguably both sides were reasonably democratic,

94
00:14:36.840 --> 00:14:44.840
at least by the standards of the time, but it was one of the largest wars of the 19th century was the American Civil War,

95
00:14:44.840 --> 00:14:51.840
so democracy didn't prevent them from being a war in that circumstance.

96
00:14:51.840 --> 00:14:59.800
And then in the 20th century, again, depending on how we define democracy, certainly in World

97
00:14:59.800 --> 00:15:10.160
War I, Germany had a voting system, it wasn't the government was, to some extent, could

98
00:15:10.160 --> 00:15:19.880
act independently of the diet of the parliament, but still we had voting in franchise, so Germany

99
00:15:19.880 --> 00:15:49.880
was certainly at war with other countries and even World War II we very often will see references to the Japanese military dictatorship but the Japanese government wasn't a military dictatorship it was the parliamentary system and the prime minister was replaced in I think in 1943 because he was out he couldn't get a majority in parliament so here certainly

100
00:15:49.880 --> 00:15:57.200
We have another case where a democratic regime, at least if we define democracy as one where

101
00:15:57.200 --> 00:16:03.400
we have the government is put in by voting, then that would be another case where we don't

102
00:16:03.400 --> 00:16:07.160
have democracies leading to peace.

103
00:16:07.160 --> 00:16:16.360
There are many other problems with the argument such as supposing it were true that there

104
00:16:16.360 --> 00:16:46.360
There's various, it's always been the case that democracies don't go to war with each other, that wouldn't be, make it into a scientific law, because remember scientific law is one that has so-called counterfactual forces, it isn't just the case, say, that if I drop this glass of water, it'll fall, it isn't just the case that this has happened a number of times in the past, if it's based on scientific

105
00:16:46.360 --> 00:16:54.360
If I were to drop it, then it would fall. I'm not going to try it. That would create more trouble than it was worth.

106
00:16:54.360 --> 00:17:10.360
If the democratic peace theory, for it to have any basis, would have to be safe, not only is the case that democracies haven't gone to war with each other in the past,

107
00:17:10.360 --> 00:17:20.360
that if it would be the case in the future, if we were to establish democracy, they wouldn't go to war with each other.

108
00:17:20.360 --> 00:17:28.360
And that doesn't fall at all just from the fact that we have the generalizations that have held in the past,

109
00:17:28.360 --> 00:17:33.360
even though, of course, they haven't held in the past, so this theory is really no good.

110
00:17:33.360 --> 00:17:49.360
And, of course, one thing I believe when one's attacking theory, it's not enough just to give an objection. You have to just keep stomping the theory until you've really driven it completely, killed it completely.

111
00:17:49.360 --> 00:18:16.360
Yes, I'll, but let's see, you know, further problem is that even if the democracies don't go to war with each other, they certainly go to war with non-democratic states with great, you know, regularity, they're democracies by no means peace-loving, and I'd say the worst problem for the last, if in order to get to this state of universal peace, where we have all democratic states,

112
00:18:16.360 --> 00:18:20.220
and Peace, where we have all democratic systems.

113
00:18:20.220 --> 00:18:23.000
The proposal is to have all sorts of wars

114
00:18:23.000 --> 00:18:26.600
to overthrow the non-democratic regime.

115
00:18:26.600 --> 00:18:31.440
So we would have what Charles Beard, I think,

116
00:18:31.440 --> 00:18:34.800
called Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace.

117
00:18:34.800 --> 00:18:39.120
That was the title of a very valuable anthology

118
00:18:39.120 --> 00:18:44.120
of essays on World War II edited by Harry Elmer Barnes.

119
00:18:46.360 --> 00:19:03.360
for Perpetual War, for Perpetual Peace, and the little time remaining, I want to turn to justifications for attacks on civil liberties that were very well described last night by Judge Napolitano.

120
00:19:03.360 --> 00:19:14.000
As you know, the Bush administration has claimed quite radical powers such that in order, since

121
00:19:14.000 --> 00:19:24.320
we're facing this war, this big war, universal plot against us, this radical Islamic terrorist

122
00:19:24.320 --> 00:19:30.720
plot against us, well, isn't the government justified in taking any measures at all to

123
00:19:30.720 --> 00:19:37.280
To counter it, we're facing an existential threat so the normal civil liberties don't

124
00:19:37.280 --> 00:19:45.800
apply and the Bush administration has claimed that in pursuit of this policy, it can detain

125
00:19:45.800 --> 00:19:53.280
anyone at once, even American citizens, as an enemy combatant and if someone is detained

126
00:19:53.280 --> 00:20:01.080
and that way they don't have to be subject to the normal court procedures, they can be,

127
00:20:01.080 --> 00:20:10.520
they can just be held by the military and also the military when it takes prisoners

128
00:20:10.520 --> 00:20:19.160
isn't bound to the Geneva Convention but can engage in very harsh methods of interrogation

129
00:20:19.160 --> 00:20:24.160
that certainly fulfill many definitions of torture.

130
00:20:25.720 --> 00:20:30.720
Pedora, in his book, bemoans effort to define torture down

131
00:20:30.720 --> 00:20:34.720
so that we couldn't get the information we need.

132
00:20:35.960 --> 00:20:40.960
It seems to be a problem with this sort of argument

133
00:20:41.880 --> 00:20:46.880
is it's assuming that if one is,

134
00:20:49.160 --> 00:20:54.600
is, again, assuming that the neoconservative portrayal of threat is right,

135
00:20:54.600 --> 00:21:03.800
and it's assuming that if one's acting in defense, one can do anything morally one wants to stop that threat,

136
00:21:03.800 --> 00:21:07.880
but this seems like a false principle.

137
00:21:07.880 --> 00:21:18.760
I'm supposing I had good reason to think that someone in this room intended to shoot me during the lecture

138
00:21:18.760 --> 00:21:48.760
I hope that's not true, but let's assume my lecture is not that bad, but let's assume that's true, it wouldn't follow that I could simply take out a machine gun and annihilate the entire audience just because I had good reason to think someone was going to kill me, so you see, this is exactly the rationale of the administration supporters that they say, such as Judge Posner, they say, well,

139
00:21:48.760 --> 00:22:01.760
Since we have a threat against us, we can act with any measures we need to counter that threat.

140
00:22:01.760 --> 00:22:06.760
Posers gone further, he said, well, supposing we're not that convinced there's a threat,

141
00:22:06.760 --> 00:22:11.760
but there's only a small probability of a threat against us.

142
00:22:11.760 --> 00:22:14.760
We shouldn't disregard small probabilities.

143
00:22:14.760 --> 00:22:30.260
We should do what we can, because after all, sometimes very unlikely events could turn out to be true, so we're justifying there's just a small probability of a terrorist attack, we can suspend civil liberty.

144
00:22:30.260 --> 00:22:38.460
Now, I think what he's disregarded here is the very real assault that, or not just small

145
00:22:38.460 --> 00:22:45.260
probability, the very real assault on actual civil liberties that have been enacted.

146
00:22:45.260 --> 00:22:50.980
And further, his own argument would apply against him in that he would have to admit

147
00:22:50.980 --> 00:22:57.060
there's a small probability that the policies he favors could lead to a totalitarian dictatorship.

148
00:23:27.060 --> 00:23:32.460
and I ask that certain talents and we don't deserve those, therefore we don't deserve anything we produce.

149
00:23:32.460 --> 00:23:39.260
It seems to me that it's these neoconservatives who pose the main threat to us today,

150
00:23:39.260 --> 00:23:42.260
they're the most illiterate thinkers. Thank you very much.