Ron Paul Schools American Conservatives

Conservatives Against Liberty

By 

Ron Paul Institute

July 16, 2019

Recently several prominent social and populist conservatives have attacked libertarianism. These conservatives, some of whom are allies in the fight against our hyper-interventionist foreign policy, blame libertarianism for a variety of social and economic ills. The conservative attack on libertarianism — like the attack on the freedom philosophy launched by leftists — is rooted in factual, economic, and philosophical errors.

Libertarianism’s right-wing critics claim libertarianism is the dominant ideology of the Republican establishment. This is an odd claim since the Republican leadership embraces anti-libertarian policies like endless wars, restrictions on civil liberties, government interference in our personal lives, and massive spending increases on welfare as well as warfare.

Anti-libertarian conservatives confuse libertarianism with the authoritarian “neoliberalism” embraced by both major parties. This confusion may be why these conservatives blame libertarians for the American middle class’s eroding standard of living. Conservatives are correct to be concerned about the economic challenges facing the average American, but they are mistaken to place the blame on the free market.

The American people are not suffering from an excess of free markets. They suffer from an excess of taxes, regulations, and, especially, fiat money. Therefore, populist conservatives should join libertarians in seeking to eliminate federal regulations, repeal the 16th Amendment, and restore a free-market monetary system.

Instead of fighting to end the welfare-regulatory system that benefits economic and political elites at the expense of average Americans, populist conservatives are promoting increased economic interventionism. For example, many populist conservatives support increased infrastructure spending and tariffs and other forms of protectionism.

Like all forms of central planning, these schemes prevent goods and services from being used for the purposes most valued by consumers. This distorts the marketplace and lowers living standards — including of people whose jobs are temporally saved or created by these government interventions. Those workers would be better off in the long term finding new jobs in a free market.

Anti-free-market conservatives ignore how their policies harm those they claim to care about. For example, protectionism harms farmers and others working in businesses depending on international trade.

The most common complaint of social conservatives is that libertarianism promotes immorality. These conservatives confuse a libertarian’s opposition to outlawing drugs, for example, with moral approval of drug use. Many libertarians condemn drug use and other destructive behaviors. However, libertarians reject the use of government force to prevent individuals from choosing to engage in these behaviors. Instead, libertarians support the right of individuals to use peaceful means to persuade others not to engage in destructive or immoral behaviors.

Libertarians also support the right of individuals not to associate with, or to subsidize in any way, those whose lifestyles or beliefs they find objectionable. Social conservatives object to libertarians because social conservatives wish to use government power to force people to be good. This is the worst type of statism because it seeks to control our minds and souls.

Most people accept the idea that it is wrong to initiate force against those engaging in peaceful behaviors. Libertarians apply this nonaggression principle to government. Making government follow the nonaggression principle would end unjust wars, income and inflation taxes, and the destruction caused by the use of force to control what we do with our property, how we raise our children, who we associate with, and what we put into our bodies. Making governments abide by the nonaggression principle is the only way to restore a society that is free, prosperous, and moral.

From Lewrockwell.com, here.

Eilu V’Eilu: What It Means, What It Doesn’t Mean

An excerpt from Rabbi Herschel Schachter:

The Talmud, as well as later rabbinical literature, is replete with halachic disputes. The halacha has had to decide which opinion should be followed. Should we assume that the rejected view was mistaken and simply incorrect? The Gemara (Eruvin 13b) states regarding the many disputes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel that, “eilu v’eilu divrei Elokim Chaim – both opinions are the words of the Living G-d.” although in the overwhelming majority of cases we have not accepted the views of Beis Shamai, this does not mean that they were wrong; one who spends time learning the views of Beis Shamai is in fulfillment of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah. Beis Shamai were also basing their opinions on middos she’ha’Torah nidreshes bohein; they were following the principles and the rules of the Torah She’b’al Peh, just that they came to a different conclusion than Beis Hillel. Therefore learning their opinions would also constitute a proper fulfillment of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah. To use the terminology of Rav Soloveitchik, their views also constitute a cheftza shel Torah.

The Ritva (ibid) explains as follows: when Moshe Rabbeinu was on Har Sinai and received the Torah from Hashem, he asked the Ribbono Shel Olam what the din would be in various cases, and in some Hashem told him the din is assur, in some He told Moshe muttar, and in some Hashem told him that the case had elements of issur and elements of hetter and He leaves the matter up to the Torah scholars of each generation to determine whether – according to their perspective – the elements of issur outweigh the elements of hetter, or the reverse; and since different people can each have different perspectives even though they are looking at the same thing, more than one can be correct. This is the meaning of the idea that, “eilu v’eilu divrei Elokim Chaim.”

This concept does not always apply in all cases. Rashi and Tosafos (Kesubos 57a) point out that sometimes we must assume that one of the opinions is clearly incorrect. Sometimes we see a dispute among the later rabbinic authorities where one of the opinions simply overlooked a passage in the Talmud, or sometimes even an explicit passuk in the Chumash. In such a case we clearly will not apply the idea of eilu v’eilu.

Even when we do apply “eilu v’eilu divrei Elokim Chaim” it does not mean that halacha l’ma’aseh one has the right to follow whichever opinion he wishes. The original statement in the gemara regarding eilu v’eilu was with respect to the many disputes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel and nonetheless the gemara (Berachos 36b) states that, “Beis Shamai b’makom Beis Hille eina Mishna“, i.e. we totally ignore the opinions of Beis Shamai with respect to psak Halacha, and unlike other minority views that were also not accepted, we don’t even consider the views of BeisShamai as creating even the slightest safeik (safeik kol-d’hu.) Regarding Hilchos Aveilus and Orla b’chutz la’aretzm, even when dealing with a d’oraysa issue, the halacha says that in the presence of any slight safeik we go l’hakeil, even if the probability of the doubt is nowhere near 50%. A minority opinion which was not accepted constitutes a slight safeik. But because the views of Beis Shamai were outvoted by Beis Hillel when they met together and debated their issues, their opinions are totally ignored halacha l’ma’aseh. (See my sefer, B’Ikvei Hatzon, siman 38, for more on this topic.)

…

Even in an instance where we do apply eilu v’eilu, for example regarding the views of Beis Shamai, one may not follow their opinion. Eilu v’eilu means that one who spends time delving into the understanding of the views of Beis Shamai is fulfilling the mitzvah of Talmud Torah, but it does not mean that it has ramifications halacha l’ma’aseh.

See the rest on Torah Web here.

אני תומך בלגליזציה – למרות שהמדינה תרויח מזה

ציטוט מדברי הכלכלן הקיינסיאני אמיר כהנוביץ:

“לגליזציה – ממנה ישראל יכולה לצפות למיסים בהיקף של כמיליארד שקל בשנה. לאור הצהרות מפלגות רבות בעד לגליזציה, ייתכן שכבר בקרוב האוצר יוכל להתחיל לצפות למקור נוסף של הכנסה ממיסים על לגליזציה. מדינת קולורדו עשתה לגליזציה ב- 2014, ובשנת 2018 היא גבתה מיסים בהיקף של 266.5 מיליון דולר – כמעט מיליארד שקל. מצד אחד, אמנם קולורדו אופיינה ביותר תיירים מישראל, אך מצד שני, האוכלוסייה בישראל גדולה יותר (8.7 מיליון תושבים בישראל מול 6 מיליון בקולורדו). כך שאפשרי שגם בישראל יהיה מדובר בהיקפי גבייה דומים, מה שיוכל לחסוך הטלת מסים אחרים”.