lewrockwell--2020-03-25--Beyond the NAP: Rothbard’s Full Case for Liberty

So writes Murray Rothbard as the first sentence of the preface of his book , The Ethics of Liberty .
Rothbard has written and spoken on many topics , much broader than libertarianism , yet his work revolved around this central question .
As Hans Hoppe puts it , in addition to being a great economist : “ [ Rothbard ] was also a great philosopher , sociologist , and historian , and as such became the creator of a grand , integrated intellectual system.
” Let ’ s examine that system .
Human liberty is a much broader topic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( NAP ) .
Liberty is impotent when all that we consider is the political theory of the NAP ; Rothbard did not and could not limit himself to this in his quest .
Libertarianism is thin ; the question of human liberty is not .
Rothbard wrote a report to the Volker Fund in 1960 , on their Symposium on Relativism .
This report addressed a paper delivered by Ludwig von Mises at that Symposium .
Rothbard offered the following : Rothbard is after a full case for liberty grounded on natural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ libertarianism as the term is thinly understood .
He is pointing to an ethic of liberty , as well as other values needed to establish this full case – values that focus on the health and development of the individual .
The non-aggression principle is completely neutral on such topics .
The non-aggression principle says nothing of the relative merits of eating spinach vs. snorting cocaine , or reading Shakespeare vs. watching porn – yet who can deny that such choices speak directly to the health and development of the individual .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after all , it is his case that I am developing .
I will also offer a brief survey of natural law philosophy stretching from Plato to C. S. Lewis .
My intention with this lecture and discussion is to re-introduce what seems to be a relatively neglected aspect of Rothbard ’ s work .
Now before moving ahead , natural law means many things to many people ; it is not my intent here to resolve all such issues , although I will do a good amount of nudging along the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pick and choose snippets from any author or source to make any case one wishes ; so , let ’ s first see how seriously Rothbard takes this matter : It is clear from the context of this Volker Fund report that Rothbard is after more than the absolutism of the NAP .
As we have seen , he has indicated that the natural law and other values are needed if one is to make a full case for liberty .
Continuing with Rothbard : Yes , Rothbard said “ only.
” Further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I would say that Rothbard is pretty serious about this idea of natural law and liberty .
All other forms or means of critiquing or challenging the government leave us playing the game by their rules : politics and policy , beltway think tanks , a meaningless vote every four years .
As C. Jay Engel has pointed out , politics has consumed society , and the libertarian movement , such as it is , has been sucked into the same black hole .
Where is one to find this natural law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As Rothbard notes , this truth is to be discovered .
To discover is “ to see , get knowledge of , learn of , find , or find out ; gain sight or knowledge of ( something previously unseen or unknown ) .
” This as opposed to create : “ to cause to come into being , as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes ; to evolve from one ’ s own thought or imagination , as a work of art or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to originate or create as a product of one ’ s own ingenuity , experimentation , or contrivance ; to produce or create with the imagination ; to make up or fabricate ( something fictitious or false ) .
” Natural law is to be discovered – it is something that exists ; it is not something that comes out of our imagination , something for us to make up or fabricate .
Natural law is to legislation as gold is to fiat currency : we discover natural law and gold ; we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I think the analogy is actually quite appropriate , and for all of the same ethical and liberty-supporting reasons .
Per Rothbard , we do not get to arbitrarily choose our ends .
The ends are inherent in our nature , for us to discover .
“ Anything peaceful , ” as one can describe the thinnest of libertarianism , makes for fertile ground for Hume ’ s “ slave to the passions.
” This does not conform to reason in ends , as Rothbard suggests .
If the ends are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basis – or to what standard – are we to choose them ?
Rothbard offers : What is “ right reason ” ?
From Cicero : Right reason is reason in agreement with our nature , resulting in discovery of true law .
This right reason summons us to duty .
We use right reason to discover proper ends , as Rothbard notes ; ends are not arbitrarily chosen .
Ends are not something to be selected from a universe of “ anything peaceful.
” We are , of course , also not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our proper ends .
All of this accords with right reason and is in agreement with our nature .
But why must we be so bound regarding our ends ?
After all , for many libertarians and for much of the modern West this sure doesn ’ t sound much like liberty !
Rothbard answers : Are we really to believe that the most complex creature on earth is the one being that does not have a specific nature , with ends to be defined by its nature ?
The only being on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the possibility that life might have meaning or purpose is also the only being that has no inherent meaning or purpose – no telos ?
Not likely .
And this must be expanded .
For this , Rothbard points to the foundational philosopher of natural law , Thomas Aquinas ; from Rothbard : Rothbard leans on Thomas Aquinas – as one must when one is introducing natural law .
Aquinas plays a central role in any moral theory of natural law .
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy : As Rothbard notes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we consider these divinely inspired or given to us by nature – a point that makes such a construct perfectly functional for believers and non-believers alike .
It isn ’ t a Christian thing or a Catholic thing or a God thing .
It is a natural law thing .
One can not discuss natural law without leaning on Aquinas .
So , let ’ s not get hung up on any “ God ” or “ divine ” stuff .
After all , many of the Christian scholars of natural law did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the necessity and validity of natural law even absent leaning on Christianity .
What of some specifics of natural law ?
What are some details of the ethic ?
We will intentionally not get an answer from Rothbard : Rothbard offers that the case is well-developed by others .
So , it may not have been Rothbard ’ s intention to elaborate a natural law ethic , but I will not go away so quietly .
Rothbard opened the door , and I intend to walk through it .
I offer a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law for the purpose of adding some depth to the ethical theory being advocated by Rothbard .
Plato : from Plato we learn that the good for a thing is determined by its essence or Form .
It has nothing to do with what we might desire ; the good is entirely objective .
This is as true for human beings as it is for triangles .
Aristotle : Aristotle places the Form in the substance – it is not disembodied , as Plato would have it .
Aristotle identified the Four Causes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cause , the Efficient Cause , and the Final Cause .
Of these , the important cause in the context of this discussion is the Final Cause – the end or telos , the purpose for which a thing or being exists .
Aquinas : Aquinas adds to Aristotle in order to make Aristotle compatible to Christianity .
He adds Augustine ’ s exemplarism : the view that Forms are exemplars or archetypes in the mind of the logos .
Aquinas identifies several Basic Goods .
These can be considered in the context @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purposes , of man .
These goods come with both a prohibition and a positive obligation : a “ do not do ” – which sounds fine for libertarians – and a “ do ” – which is a problem if one believes an entire ethical system can be based on a thin theory of violence .
According to Aquinas , these Basic Goods can be known and investigated even by those without the Christian faith .
Every being has its own nature ; every being has its own telos or ends .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ends-based , ends-derived .
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy : Now , some clarification is in order .
Happiness doesn ’ t mean a Lamborghini in the driveway or a good drunk on a Friday night .
Dr. William H. Marshner offers that the best translation we have to describe beatitudo is not happiness , but fulfillment .
But how is one to understand fulfillment – the best ideal to pursue ?
He sees this through enlightened fulfillment , and the enlightened live a life of Virtue – the Four Natural ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Virtues .
Professor Jennifer Frey offers some further clarification regarding what Aquinas means by happiness : She sees the last feature is most important – involvement with others .
This can be best identified and realized , just as Dr. Marshner sees it , by living a life of Virtue .
Aquinas would concur : But what was at the core ?
What was the common concept for all of these virtues ?
Aquinas ties all of this together under the rubric of Love , as Dr. Arthur Holmes of Wheaton College explains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessary for all possible good ends , one characteristic that is common for the necessary virtues behind fulfillment , or beatitudo , is Love : other-regarding action .
From Aquinas : Even setting aside the Three Theological Virtues , it is difficult to see how one can achieve the ideal good of the Four Natural Virtues ( Prudence or Wisdom , Courage , Temperance , and Justice ) without considering other-regarding action .
Across the four , it is the one common characteristic of well-developed virtue .
We certainly understand the benefit of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to economics , entrepreneurship , and the market .
Ludwig von Mises had no difficulty with this concept of serving others ; from The Causes of the Economic Crisis : Of course , the “ good ” being sought by any one given entrepreneur might not be serving others – it might be found instead in the Virtue of Selfishness , so to speak .
Yet this doesn ’ t discount the reality that he is , in fact , serving others .
Just as we don ’ t run from other-regarding action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic market , perhaps we should not cringe so quickly at other-regarding action when it comes to liberty more broadly considered .
So , what then of free will ?
Aquinas sees free will in the context of final causes – these final causes pull us in a direction .
Human beings are end-oriented , just as is all of nature – each according to its kind .
Free will is exercised and freedom is found in gladly pursuing the proper end or telos .
The second table of the Decalogue gives us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nature : family and parental authority , protection of human life , the person in the sense of husband and wife , property , honor , the forbidding of illicit longing for goods and covetousness .
This is a good start .
The Late Scholastics : Spaniards such as Vittoria , Suarez , and Vasquez ; the School of Salamanca .
They were foundational not only for many economic concepts that we hold dear , they also would work to overcome Occam ’ s moral positivism , in which Occam placed the will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ S. Lewis : perhaps the most powerful short book on this subject of natural law ( and the consequences of running from it ) is Lewis ’ s The Abolition of Man .
It is all of three chapters and an appendix .
Yet , every line on every page can be underlined ; one can read it ten times and each time uncover something not noticed or understood before .
So , forgive my extensive cites .
From Lewis : This sounds like Rothbard .
But why can ’ t we exercise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Well , this leaves someone to decide the value system…and it won ’ t be you doing the deciding !
Continuing with Lewis : This could also be from Rothbard .
It also is a concept similar to how law was understood during much of the medieval period : neither Church nor king were sovereign ; if anything was “ sovereign , ” it was the law .
Lewis expands on this point : Rothbard could easily have written this sentence as well .
Lewis continues : Lewis is rather objective and uncompromising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all value judgements must come from outside of human reach – these are premises , to be discovered .
If we do not take the law as coming from our nature , then the law is free to come from any basis whatsoever .
Which option provides for a better possibility of liberty ?
Rothbard certainly knew the answer .
Unless we accept these premises and the resultant objective values without question , we are like clay to be molded in the hands of what Lewis calls The Conditioners – those who will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ condition you into whatever formless and causeless blob they desire ; this is just as Rothbard saw it as well .
As Lewis notes , many of both the rulers and ruled , of course , are satisfied with such a state : If a man is no longer to aim at what he ought to be , we need not consider him human any longer as he does not even bother to consider himself as such .
We need not concern ourselves with human liberty if we are not considering human beings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What if this is all true – as these writers , including Rothbard , all suggest – that it is in our nature to aim at given ends , and to act in a certain manner when working toward those ends ?
That this is the only means by which to keep the State – or the Conditioners – at bay ?
And what if that nature and the necessary virtues lead us to beatitudo – fulfillment , including other-regarding action ?
If this is from our nature , can we describe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freeing ourselves from this nature ?
Would we describe a lion freed from living according to its nature to be in liberty ?
To ask the question is to answer it ; for the lion freed from living according to his nature , we call such a condition a zoo .
Sure , its material needs are fully met .
But is it still a lion ?
Does it enjoy “ lion-liberty ” ?
As to humans , Lewis has answered the question – we are no longer men at all .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like the material from which liberty will spring forth .
Alexandr Solzhenitsyn would call the zoo for the lion a gulag for man ; from A World Split Apart , his 1978 Harvard University commencement address : Can you think of a better definition of liberty than that which allows for human beings to reach their highest level of human possibilities – and a law and objective value regime that is supportive of this ?
So now , returning to Rothbard – to demonstrate that I have not gone too far afield : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who equate liberty with the economic efficiency of free markets , Rothbard has rained on your parade .
Values for markets are subjective ; other values necessary for liberty are objective .
Perhaps solely using economic justifications and economic efficiency to defend and define liberty is logically faulty .
Putting an exclamation point on the necessity for objective values in ethics , Rothbard offers : By this , of course , Rothbard is not suggesting anything about punishment .
To relieve you of any concern that Rothbard was ( or I am @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he suggests : Rothbard has been criticized for not advocating some laws that would turn what we call victimless crimes into actual crimes – contrary to libertarian theory , and , in my opinion , contrary to proper morality as I do not believe physical punishment for non-violent acts is moral .
This criticism does not demonstrate a shortcoming in Rothbard , but rather a shortcoming in the one offering the criticism .
Rothbard is writing of a positive ethical system , not a positive legal system .
This is a perfectly reasonable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ logically independent ; one need not make the two identical .
From The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy : It seems to me that one must do this if one is after a meaningful and sustainable liberty .
First of all , Rothbard is presenting an ethical system beyond the non-aggression principle – the non-aggression principle , by itself , is not an ethical system sufficient for liberty .
Second , he is not proposing a legal system – he is not suggesting a legal system where all violations of the natural law justify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ physical punishment .
As I noted in my lecture here last year , Hans Hoppe made a similar point during his Property and Freedom Society conference in 2018 .
Walter Block has also recently offered : What I take from Rothbard , Hoppe , and Block seems to me a perfectly reasonable approach .
Separating the concepts of proper ethical behavior for liberty and concepts for when punishment is justified deserves to be further developed , just as Rothbard ’ s views on natural law and liberty must be .
But this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not to suggest that I find Rothbard infallible on this topic .
But I do not want to sidetrack this conversation – such disagreements are best worked out on the foundation built here by Rothbard .
For now , my intent is merely to re-start this conversation that Rothbard started sixty years ago .
It is on natural law where the only firm foundation will be found to challenge the aggression of the state and to build a community not of libertarian theoreticians but a community of human beings living in liberty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a value-free analysis in a political , ethical , economic , and legal theory as conceivably possible .
“ Anything peaceful ” is about as value-free a concept of human action as can be conceived .
It was insufficient for Rothbard , because he rightly found it insufficient for liberty .
It has been sixty years since Rothbard wrote his paper addressing Mises ’ s utilitarian , relativist approach to ethics .
Libertarianism has spun off in every imaginable direction since then , such that the idea of a libertarian movement has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it means anything to the larger population , it has a farcical meaning .
It is because the movement has no foundation in natural law , as Rothbard knew was required .
If liberty is to have a future , Rothbard believed that it must be built on this foundation .
If we are after liberty , let ’ s follow Rothbard ’ s lead : integrate an understanding of natural law with the non-aggression principle in order to come to a full case for liberty .

All of my work has revolved around the central question of human liberty. – The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard
So writes Murray Rothbard as the first sentence of the preface of his book, The Ethics of Liberty. Rothbard has written and spoken on many topics, much broader than libertarianism, yet his work revolved around this central question. As Hans Hoppe puts it, in addition to being a great economist: “[Rothbard] was also a great philosopher, sociologist, and historian, and as such became the creator of a grand, integrated intellectual system.”
Let’s examine that system. Human liberty is a much broader topic than a focus on the non-aggression principle (NAP). Liberty is impotent when all that we consider is the political theory of the NAP; Rothbard did not and could not limit himself to this in his quest. Libertarianism is thin; the question of human liberty is not.
Rothbard wrote a report to the Volker Fund in 1960, on their Symposium on Relativism. This report addressed a paper delivered by Ludwig von Mises at that Symposium. Rothbard offered the following:
What I have been trying to say is that Mises’s utilitarian, relativist approach to ethics is not nearly enough to establish a full case for liberty. It must be supplemented by an absolutist ethic — an ethic of liberty, as well as of other values needed for the health and development of the individual — grounded on natural law, i.e., discovery of the laws of man’s nature. – On Mises’s Ethical Relativism, Murray Rothbard
Rothbard is after a full case for liberty grounded on natural law, not merely a theory of libertarianism as the term is thinly understood. He is pointing to an ethic of liberty, as well as other values needed to establish this full case – values that focus on the health and development of the individual.
The non-aggression principle is completely neutral on such topics. The non-aggression principle says nothing of the relative merits of eating spinach vs. snorting cocaine, or reading Shakespeare vs. watching porn – yet who can deny that such choices speak directly to the health and development of the individual.
I will offer extensive quotes from Rothbard; after all, it is his case that I am developing. I will also offer a brief survey of natural law philosophy stretching from Plato to C. S. Lewis. My intention with this lecture and discussion is to re-introduce what seems to be a relatively neglected aspect of Rothbard’s work.
Now before moving ahead, natural law means many things to many people; it is not my intent here to resolve all such issues, although I will do a good amount of nudging along the way. Further, it is easy to pick and choose snippets from any author or source to make any case one wishes; so, let’s first see how seriously Rothbard takes this matter:
Philosophically, I believe that libertarianism — and the wider creed of sound individualism of which libertarianism is a part — must rest on absolutism and deny relativism. – On Mises’s Ethical Relativism, Murray Rothbard
It is clear from the context of this Volker Fund report that Rothbard is after more than the absolutism of the NAP. As we have seen, he has indicated that the natural law and other values are needed if one is to make a full case for liberty. Continuing with Rothbard:
…only forms of natural or higher law theory can provide a radical base outside of the existing system from which to challenge the status quo… – Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, Murray Rothbard (from the essay “Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty”)
Yes, Rothbard said “only.” Further:
…the natural law provides the only sure ground for a continuing critique of governmental laws and decrees. – For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, Murray Rothbard
There, he said it again. I would say that Rothbard is pretty serious about this idea of natural law and liberty.
All other forms or means of critiquing or challenging the government leave us playing the game by their rules: politics and policy, beltway think tanks, a meaningless vote every four years. As C. Jay Engel has pointed out, politics has consumed society, and the libertarian movement, such as it is, has been sucked into the same black hole.
Where is one to find this natural law ethic? Rothbard answers the question:
The absolutist believes that man’s mind, employing reason (which according to some absolutists is divinely inspired, according to others is given by nature), is capable of discovering and knowing truth: including the truth about reality, and the truth about what is best for man and best for himself as an individual. – On Mises’s Ethical Relativism, Murray Rothbard
As Rothbard notes, this truth is to be discovered. To discover is “to see, get knowledge of, learn of, find, or find out; gain sight or knowledge of (something previously unseen or unknown).”
This as opposed to create: “to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes; to evolve from one’s own thought or imagination, as a work of art or an invention.”
Or invent: “to originate or create as a product of one’s own ingenuity, experimentation, or contrivance; to produce or create with the imagination; to make up or fabricate (something fictitious or false).”
Natural law is to be discovered – it is something that exists; it is not something that comes out of our imagination, something for us to make up or fabricate. Natural law is to legislation as gold is to fiat currency: we discover natural law and gold; we create or invent legislation and fiat currencies. I think the analogy is actually quite appropriate, and for all of the same ethical and liberty-supporting reasons.
Continuing with Rothbard:
In natural-law philosophy, then, reason is not bound, as it is in modern post-Humean philosophy, to be a mere slave to the passions, confined to cranking out the discovery of the means to arbitrarily chosen ends. – The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard
Per Rothbard, we do not get to arbitrarily choose our ends. The ends are inherent in our nature, for us to discover. “Anything peaceful,” as one can describe the thinnest of libertarianism, makes for fertile ground for Hume’s “slave to the passions.” This does not conform to reason in ends, as Rothbard suggests. If the ends are not to be arbitrarily chosen, on what basis – or to what standard – are we to choose them? Rothbard offers:
For the ends themselves are selected by the use of reason; and “right reason” dictates to man his proper ends as well as the means for their attainment. – The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard
What is “right reason”? From Cicero:
True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions…It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. – Marcus Tullius Cicero
Right reason is reason in agreement with our nature, resulting in discovery of true law. This right reason summons us to duty. We use right reason to discover proper ends, as Rothbard notes; ends are not arbitrarily chosen. Ends are not something to be selected from a universe of “anything peaceful.” We are, of course, also not free to choose any means to achieve our proper ends. All of this accords with right reason and is in agreement with our nature.
But why must we be so bound regarding our ends? After all, for many libertarians and for much of the modern West this sure doesn’t sound much like liberty! Rothbard answers:
…if apples and stones and roses each have their specific natures, is man the only entity, the only being, that cannot have one? – The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard
Are we really to believe that the most complex creature on earth is the one being that does not have a specific nature, with ends to be defined by its nature? The only being on earth that has the ability to consider the possibility that life might have meaning or purpose is also the only being that has no inherent meaning or purpose – no telos?
Not likely. And this must be expanded. For this, Rothbard points to the foundational philosopher of natural law, Thomas Aquinas; from Rothbard:
For the Thomist or natural-law theorist, the general law of morality for man is a special case of the system of natural law governing all entities of the world, each with its own nature and its own ends. – The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard
Rothbard leans on Thomas Aquinas – as one must when one is introducing natural law. Aquinas plays a central role in any moral theory of natural law. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
If any moral theory is a theory of natural law, it is Aquinas’s. (Every introductory ethics anthology that includes material on natural law theory includes material by or about Aquinas; every encyclopedia article on natural law thought refers to Aquinas.) It would seem sensible, then, to take Aquinas’s natural law theory as the central case of a natural law position…
As Rothbard notes, these laws are open to us whether we consider these divinely inspired or given to us by nature – a point that makes such a construct perfectly functional for believers and non-believers alike.
It isn’t a Christian thing or a Catholic thing or a God thing. It is a natural law thing. One cannot discuss natural law without leaning on Aquinas.
So, let’s not get hung up on any “God” or “divine” stuff. After all, many of the Christian scholars of natural law did not. Per Rothbard, many pointed to the necessity and validity of natural law even absent leaning on Christianity.
What of some specifics of natural law? What are some details of the ethic? We will intentionally not get an answer from Rothbard:
It is not the intention of this book to expound or defend at length the philosophy of natural law, or to elaborate a natural-law ethic for the personal morality of man. – The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard
Rothbard offers that the case is well-developed by others. So, it may not have been Rothbard’s intention to elaborate a natural law ethic, but I will not go away so quietly. Rothbard opened the door, and I intend to walk through it. I offer a brief survey of the history of natural law for the purpose of adding some depth to the ethical theory being advocated by Rothbard.
Plato: from Plato we learn that the good for a thing is determined by its essence or Form. It has nothing to do with what we might desire; the good is entirely objective. This is as true for human beings as it is for triangles.
Aristotle: Aristotle places the Form in the substance – it is not disembodied, as Plato would have it. Aristotle identified the Four Causes: The Material Cause, the Formal Cause, the Efficient Cause, and the Final Cause. Of these, the important cause in the context of this discussion is the Final Cause – the end or telos, the purpose for which a thing or being exists.
Aquinas: Aquinas adds to Aristotle in order to make Aristotle compatible to Christianity. He adds Augustine’s exemplarism: the view that Forms are exemplars or archetypes in the mind of the logos.
Aquinas identifies several Basic Goods. These can be considered in the context of Aristotle’s ends, or purposes, of man. These goods come with both a prohibition and a positive obligation: a “do not do” – which sounds fine for libertarians – and a “do” – which is a problem if one believes an entire ethical system can be based on a thin theory of violence. According to Aquinas, these Basic Goods can be known and investigated even by those without the Christian faith.
Every being has its own nature; every being has its own telos or ends. Natural law for Aquinas is teleological – ends-based, ends-derived. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Thomas argues that there is one single end for all human beings, and that it is happiness. …There is one single ultimate human good that provides an ordering of all other human goods as partial in relation to it, namely, happiness or better in the Latin beatitudo.
Now, some clarification is in order. Happiness doesn’t mean a Lamborghini in the driveway or a good drunk on a Friday night. Dr. William H. Marshner offers that the best translation we have to describe beatitudo is not happiness, but fulfillment. But how is one to understand fulfillment – the best ideal to pursue? He sees this through enlightened fulfillment, and the enlightened live a life of Virtue – the Four Natural (Cardinal) Virtues and the Three Theological Virtues.
Professor Jennifer Frey offers some further clarification regarding what Aquinas means by happiness:
It is common to you given your human nature; it is not a competitive good, it is non-rivalrous; finally, it is never the sole possession of an individual, it is a participatory good – it is shared in common with others and can only be brought about in common with others.
She sees the last feature is most important – involvement with others. This can be best identified and realized, just as Dr. Marshner sees it, by living a life of Virtue. Aquinas would concur:
Happiness is secured through virtue; it is a good attained by man’s own will. – Thomas Aquinas
But what was at the core? What was the common concept for all of these virtues? Aquinas ties all of this together under the rubric of Love, as Dr. Arthur Holmes of Wheaton College explains it. While it isn’t necessary for all possible good ends, one characteristic that is common for the necessary virtues behind fulfillment, or beatitudo, is Love: other-regarding action. From Aquinas:
No man truly has joy unless he lives in love. – Thomas Aquinas
Even setting aside the Three Theological Virtues, it is difficult to see how one can achieve the ideal good of the Four Natural Virtues (Prudence or Wisdom, Courage, Temperance, and Justice) without considering other-regarding action. Across the four, it is the one common characteristic of well-developed virtue.
We certainly understand the benefit of “other-regarding action” when it comes to economics, entrepreneurship, and the market. Ludwig von Mises had no difficulty with this concept of serving others; from The Causes of the Economic Crisis:
The market processes give meaning to the capitalistic economy. They place entrepreneurs and capitalists in the service of satisfying the wants of consumers. – The Causes of the Economic Crisis, Ludwig von Mises
Of course, the “good” being sought by any one given entrepreneur might not be serving others – it might be found instead in the Virtue of Selfishness, so to speak. Yet this doesn’t discount the reality that he is, in fact, serving others. Just as we don’t run from other-regarding action when it comes to liberty in the economic market, perhaps we should not cringe so quickly at other-regarding action when it comes to liberty more broadly considered.
So, what then of free will? Aquinas sees free will in the context of final causes – these final causes pull us in a direction. Human beings are end-oriented, just as is all of nature – each according to its kind. Free will is exercised and freedom is found in gladly pursuing the proper end or telos.
The second table of the Decalogue gives us the norms that follow from our essential nature: family and parental authority, protection of human life, the person in the sense of husband and wife, property, honor, the forbidding of illicit longing for goods and covetousness. This is a good start.
The Late Scholastics: Spaniards such as Vittoria, Suarez, and Vasquez; the School of Salamanca. They were foundational not only for many economic concepts that we hold dear, they also would work to overcome Occam’s moral positivism, in which Occam placed the will higher than reason and intellect.
C. S. Lewis: perhaps the most powerful short book on this subject of natural law (and the consequences of running from it) is Lewis’s The Abolition of Man. It is all of three chapters and an appendix. Yet, every line on every page can be underlined; one can read it ten times and each time uncover something not noticed or understood before. So, forgive my extensive cites. From Lewis:
This thing which I have called for convenience the Tao, and which others may call Natural Law or Traditional Morality or the First Principles of Practical Reason or the First Platitudes, is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It is the sole source of all value judgements. If it is rejected, all value is rejected. If any value is retained, it is retained.
This sounds like Rothbard. But why can’t we exercise our liberty to pick and choose? Well, this leaves someone to decide the value system…and it won’t be you doing the deciding! Continuing with Lewis:
Either we are a rational spirit obliged for ever to obey the absolute values of the Tao, or else we are mere nature to be kneaded and cut into any new shapes for the pleasures of masters who must, by hypothesis, have no motive but their own ‘natural’ impulses. Only the Tao provides a common human law of action which can over-arch rulers and ruled alike.
This could also be from Rothbard. It also is a concept similar to how law was understood during much of the medieval period: neither Church nor king were sovereign; if anything was “sovereign,” it was the law. Lewis expands on this point:
A dogmatic belief in objective value is necessary to the very idea of a rule which is not tyranny or an obedience which is not slavery.
Rothbard could easily have written this sentence as well. Lewis continues:
Unless you accept these without question as being to the world of action what axioms are to the world of theory, you can have no practical principles whatever. You cannot reach them as conclusions; they are premises. …If nothing is self-evident, nothing can be proved. Similarly, if nothing is obligatory for its own sake, nothing is obligatory at all.
Lewis is rather objective and uncompromising on this point: this source of all value judgements must come from outside of human reach – these are premises, to be discovered. If we do not take the law as coming from our nature, then the law is free to come from any basis whatsoever. Which option provides for a better possibility of liberty? Rothbard certainly knew the answer.
Unless we accept these premises and the resultant objective values without question, we are like clay to be molded in the hands of what Lewis calls The Conditioners – those who will make the law for you, to condition you into whatever formless and causeless blob they desire; this is just as Rothbard saw it as well.
As Lewis notes, many of both the rulers and ruled, of course, are satisfied with such a state:
It is not that [the rulers] are bad men. They are not men at all. … Nor are their subjects necessarily unhappy men. They are not men at all: they are artefacts. Man’s final conquest has proven to be the abolition of man.
If a man is no longer to aim at what he ought to be, we need not consider him human any longer as he does not even bother to consider himself as such. We need not concern ourselves with human liberty if we are not considering human beings as human.
Enough of the survey. What if this is all true – as these writers, including Rothbard, all suggest – that it is in our nature to aim at given ends, and to act in a certain manner when working toward those ends? That this is the only means by which to keep the State – or the Conditioners – at bay?
And what if that nature and the necessary virtues lead us to beatitudo – fulfillment, including other-regarding action? If this is from our nature, can we describe our condition as living in liberty by freeing ourselves from this nature? Would we describe a lion freed from living according to its nature to be in liberty?
To ask the question is to answer it; for the lion freed from living according to his nature, we call such a condition a zoo. Sure, its material needs are fully met. But is it still a lion? Does it enjoy “lion-liberty”?
As to humans, Lewis has answered the question – we are no longer men at all. He offers:
We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings to be fruitful.
It doesn’t sound like the material from which liberty will spring forth.
Alexandr Solzhenitsyn would call the zoo for the lion a gulag for man; from A World Split Apart, his 1978 Harvard University commencement address:
A society which is based on the letter of the law and never reaches any higher is taking very scarce advantage of the high level of human possibilities.
Can you think of a better definition of liberty than that which allows for human beings to reach their highest level of human possibilities – and a law and objective value regime that is supportive of this?
So now, returning to Rothbard – to demonstrate that I have not gone too far afield:
Value in the sense of valuation or utility is purely subjective, and decided by each individual. This procedure is perfectly proper for the formal science of praxeology, or economic theory, but not necessarily elsewhere. – The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard
Note what Rothbard just did: for those who equate liberty with the economic efficiency of free markets, Rothbard has rained on your parade. Values for markets are subjective; other values necessary for liberty are objective. Perhaps solely using economic justifications and economic efficiency to defend and define liberty is logically faulty.
Putting an exclamation point on the necessity for objective values in ethics, Rothbard offers:
For in natural-law ethics, ends are demonstrated to be good or bad for man in varying degrees; value here is objective – determined by the natural law of man’s being, and here “happiness” for man is considered in the commonsensical, contentual sense. – The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard
By this, of course, Rothbard is not suggesting anything about punishment. To relieve you of any concern that Rothbard was (or I am) interested in establishing a theocracy, he suggests:
…the great failing of natural-law theory – from Plato and Aristotle to the Thomists and down to Leo Strauss and his followers in the present day – is to have been profoundly statist rather than individualist. This “classical” natural-law theory placed the locus of the good and of virtuous action in the State, with individuals strictly subordinated to State action. – The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard
Rothbard has been criticized for not advocating some laws that would turn what we call victimless crimes into actual crimes – contrary to libertarian theory, and, in my opinion, contrary to proper morality as I do not believe physical punishment for non-violent acts is moral. This criticism does not demonstrate a shortcoming in Rothbard, but rather a shortcoming in the one offering the criticism.
From Rothbard:
Political judgements are necessarily value judgments, political philosophy is therefore necessarily ethical, and hence a positive ethical system must be set forth to establish the case for individual liberty. – The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard
Rothbard is writing of a positive ethical system, not a positive legal system. This is a perfectly reasonable distinction, as the two concepts are logically independent; one need not make the two identical. From The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
As an empirical matter, many natural law moral theorists are also natural law legal theorists, but the two theories, strictly speaking, are logically independent. One can deny natural law theory of law but hold a natural law theory of morality.
It seems to me that one must do this if one is after a meaningful and sustainable liberty. First of all, Rothbard is presenting an ethical system beyond the non-aggression principle – the non-aggression principle, by itself, is not an ethical system sufficient for liberty. Second, he is not proposing a legal system – he is not suggesting a legal system where all violations of the natural law justify violence in response or are deserving of physical punishment.
As I noted in my lecture here last year, Hans Hoppe made a similar point during his Property and Freedom Society conference in 2018. Walter Block has also recently offered:
A more sophisticated understanding of libertarianism does not say, with the NAP: “Thou shalt not murder, initiate violence against innocent persons or their legitimate possessions.” Rather, it states, that if you do, you will be punished in accordance with libertarian punishment theory.
What I take from Rothbard, Hoppe, and Block seems to me a perfectly reasonable approach. Separating the concepts of proper ethical behavior for liberty and concepts for when punishment is justified deserves to be further developed, just as Rothbard’s views on natural law and liberty must be. But this is for another day.
All of this is not to suggest that I find Rothbard infallible on this topic. But I do not want to sidetrack this conversation – such disagreements are best worked out on the foundation built here by Rothbard.
For now, my intent is merely to re-start this conversation that Rothbard started sixty years ago. It is on natural law where the only firm foundation will be found to challenge the aggression of the state and to build a community not of libertarian theoreticians but a community of human beings living in liberty.
Conclusion
From Rothbard:
…I at no time believed that value-free analysis or economics or utilitarianism (the standard social philosophy of economists) can ever suffice to establish the case for liberty. – The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard
The non-aggression principle comes as close to a value-free analysis in a political, ethical, economic, and legal theory as conceivably possible. “Anything peaceful” is about as value-free a concept of human action as can be conceived. It was insufficient for Rothbard, because he rightly found it insufficient for liberty.
It has been sixty years since Rothbard wrote his paper addressing Mises’s utilitarian, relativist approach to ethics. Libertarianism has spun off in every imaginable direction since then, such that the idea of a libertarian movement has lost all meaning – and, if it means anything to the larger population, it has a farcical meaning.
It is because the movement has no foundation in natural law, as Rothbard knew was required. If liberty is to have a future, Rothbard believed that it must be built on this foundation. If we are after liberty, let’s follow Rothbard’s lead: integrate an understanding of natural law with the non-aggression principle in order to come to a full case for liberty.
The Best of Daniel Ajamian


lewrockwell--2020-03-25--A Pandemic Movie as ‘Predictive Programming’

The book National Security Cinema : The Shocking New Evidence of Government Control in Hollywood detailed the authors ’ “ astonishing findings from trawling through thousands of new US military and intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act .
The documents reveal for the first time the vast scale of US government control in Hollywood , including the ability to manipulate scripts or even prevent films too critical of the Pentagon from being made — not to mention influencing some of the most popular film franchises in recent years.
” I bring up that important book because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ popular movies being streamed now , during the COVID-19 “ pandemic.
” I question whether this eleven year old film on a viral pandemic was itself a co-creation or influenced by direct government control ; certainly the creators admit to working with government experts .
That film is Contagion , and it is currently undergoing an online viewing resurgence in light of the COVID-19 pandemic as millions are “ sheltering in place ” at home , without work , confused and afraid .
National Security Cine ... Matthew Alford , Tom ` ... @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 6.98 The Independent headline reads , “ Contagion becomes one of most-watched films online in wake of coronavirus pandemic.
” The New York Post article ’ s headline on the film ’ s recent popularity is titled , “ How the movie ‘ Contagion ’ perfectly predicted the 2020 coronavirus crisis ” but my question is there a more sinister agenda in play in what the film portrays ?
The site Vigilant Citizen wrote a prescient article published on March 8th , 2012 , when the film was released and the author @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and its implicit messages in an article “ Contagion ” : How Disaster Movies “ Educate ” the Masses .
The first paragraph states an obvious truth : Most people watch movies to be entertained .
Well , I for one can say that there was absolutely nothing entertaining about Contagion .
In fact , the only difference between this movie and state-sponsored educational movies shown in schools is that with Contagion you actually have to pay to be indoctrinated … and to see Matt Damon .
During the cold war , students @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Duck and Cover ” in case of a nuclear attack .
Contagion conditions the masses to expect martial law and to throw themselves at the first available vaccine in case of a crisis .
Readers of LewRockwell.com have read the very useful and potentially life saving advice offered by Bill Sardi on COVID-19 .
Recently , Lew posted this surprising Fox News piece on Political Theater from a Fox News story , “ Former CDC Chief : Coronavirus infection risk may be reduced by Vitamin D. ” I have no idea how long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , science based evidence to remain on its website and I ’ m sure Bill ’ s writings aren ’ t easily found using Big Tech search engines .
The site Orthomolecular.org has featured news of how use of IV C seems to aid greatly in treating COVID-19 patients .
Yet in the film Contagion , the alternative press is depicted as not only incompetent but corrupt and any suggestion of action other than vaccination and following orders that result in surrender of liberty is held in contempt .
As Vigilant Citizen noted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identified by the movie as “ competent ” and “ trustworthy ” , other groups get a very different treatment , namely alternative media .
Personified by a blogger named Alan Krumwiede ( played by Jude Law ) , alternative media are presented as unreliable sources bent on sensationalism and profit .
In other words , the movie implies that information that does not come from “ official ” sources is invalid and potentially dangerous .
Not exactly a pro-free-speech message… The character of Alan Krumwiede and the way he is portrayed is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he reflects the growing influence of blogs and alternative websites on public opinion – a recent phenomenon that does not sit well with the elite that seeks to have a monopoly of information .
By depicting this character as dishonest , corrupt and even dangerous to the public , the movie justifies the shunning of such writers and even their arrest .
Nobody in the movie seems to mind that all of this is in direct violation of the First Amendment .
Fire TV Stick streamin ... Best Price : null Buy New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine was released in 2009 and mass vaccination campaigns were organized , many citizens and authoritative figures including public health officials , doctors and specialists spoke against it .
They claimed that the vaccine was unnecessary , insufficiently tested and that it had negative side-effects .
By associating the corrupt figure of Alan Krumwiede with the “ anti-vaccine movement ” , the movie discredits all of those who question the necessity of mass vaccination campaigns .
If another virus should strike , viewers of Contagion might be more prone to ignore these movements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says : “ Conspiracy theorists are corrupt liars that are dangerous to public safety and they should be arrested .
Do not listen to them .
They make money off phony cures .
However , those who make even more money off phony vaccines are good .
Listen to authorities and get the vaccine … or you ’ ll die… ” After months of horror and hundreds of millions of deaths , a final solution emerges and saves humanity : Mass vaccination..
Contagion may be presented as a work of fiction , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need the public to accept .
To do so , the movie defines a specific problem that has actually occurred in the past , it identifies the agencies that have the right to take charge of the situation and proposes the only solution required to fix the problem .
That solution is not pretty : The dissolution of the government , the imposition of martial law , the creation of civilian camps , forced vaccination campaigns and the suppression of free speech .
Democracy and civil rights are summarily suspended and we witness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monitored society ( using barcodes ) .
Pandemic Check Amazon for Pricing .
The question is the film a prediction of our future or wishful thinking for the authoritarian oligarchy ?
Most recently , Vigilant Citizen provided an updated article , How the Movie “ Contagion ” Laid the Blueprint for the Coronavirus Outbreak .
Of course , legacy media is almost hysterical in its praise of the film and its relevance .
The writer of the screenplay , Scott Z. Burns , ( whose prior credits include an Al Gore ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Slate , where he opines , “ I think the gravest mistake is not giving the space and the microphone and all of the support to the public health officials who can help guide us through this .
We have really good people in this country .
They need to get together and be allowed to speak to us clearly and not be filtered .
I have read accounts in the press that Dr. [ Anthony ] Fauci isn ’ t really allowed to speak until Mike Pence has approved his messaging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If we are going to get through this in the best version , it is by empowering those people and giving them the resources that they need.
” Most likely , readers might be aware or be interested in watching Contagion .
My concern is that the film ’ s purpose is not benevolent but as usual , Hollywood serves their masters ’ agenda , an agenda of fear , control , misinformation and authoritarianism .
As the saying goes , “ Caveat emptor.
” Contagion ( 2011 ) Buy New $ 9.99 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yvonne Lorenzo Buy New $ 12.00 The Cloak of Freya : Th ... Yvonne Lorenzo Buy New $ 14.00 The Well of Mimir : The ... Lorenzo , Yvonne Buy New $ 4.95 The Best of Yvonne Lorenzo

The book National Security Cinema: The Shocking New Evidence of Government Control in Hollywood detailed the authors’ “astonishing findings from trawling through thousands of new US military and intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
The documents reveal for the first time the vast scale of US government control in Hollywood, including the ability to manipulate scripts or even prevent films too critical of the Pentagon from being made — not to mention influencing some of the most popular film franchises in recent years.”
I bring up that important book because of its relevance to one of the most popular movies being streamed now, during the COVID-19 “pandemic.” I question whether this eleven year old film on a viral pandemic was itself a co-creation or influenced by direct government control; certainly the creators admit to working with government experts. That film is Contagion, and it is currently undergoing an online viewing resurgence in light of the COVID-19 pandemic as millions are “sheltering in place” at home, without work, confused and afraid. National Security Cine... Matthew Alford, Tom ` ... Best Price: $4.50 Buy New $6.98 (as of 05:55 UTC - Details)
The Independent headline reads, “Contagion becomes one of most-watched films online in wake of coronavirus pandemic.” The New York Post article’s headline on the film’s recent popularity is titled, “How the movie ‘Contagion’ perfectly predicted the 2020 coronavirus crisis” but my question is there a more sinister agenda in play in what the film portrays?
The site Vigilant Citizen wrote a prescient article published on March 8th, 2012, when the film was released and the author discussed the potential motives of the creators and its implicit messages in an article “Contagion”: How Disaster Movies “Educate” the Masses. The first paragraph states an obvious truth:
Most people watch movies to be entertained. Well, I for one can say that there was absolutely nothing entertaining about Contagion. In fact, the only difference between this movie and state-sponsored educational movies shown in schools is that with Contagion you actually have to pay to be indoctrinated … and to see Matt Damon. During the cold war, students were shown videos instructing them to “Duck and Cover” in case of a nuclear attack. Contagion conditions the masses to expect martial law and to throw themselves at the first available vaccine in case of a crisis.
Readers of LewRockwell.com have read the very useful and potentially life saving advice offered by Bill Sardi on COVID-19. Recently, Lew posted this surprising Fox News piece on Political Theater from a Fox News story, “Former CDC Chief: Coronavirus infection risk may be reduced by Vitamin D.” I have no idea how long Fox will allow such good common sense, science based evidence to remain on its website and I’m sure Bill’s writings aren’t easily found using Big Tech search engines. The site Orthomolecular.org has featured news of how use of IV C seems to aid greatly in treating COVID-19 patients. Yet in the film Contagion, the alternative press is depicted as not only incompetent but corrupt and any suggestion of action other than vaccination and following orders that result in surrender of liberty is held in contempt. As Vigilant Citizen noted:
If specific groups and organizations are identified by the movie as “competent” and “trustworthy”, other groups get a very different treatment, namely alternative media. Personified by a blogger named Alan Krumwiede (played by Jude Law), alternative media are presented as unreliable sources bent on sensationalism and profit. In other words, the movie implies that information that does not come from “official” sources is invalid and potentially dangerous. Not exactly a pro-free-speech message… The character of Alan Krumwiede and the way he is portrayed is interesting for several reasons. First, he reflects the growing influence of blogs and alternative websites on public opinion – a recent phenomenon that does not sit well with the elite that seeks to have a monopoly of information. By depicting this character as dishonest, corrupt and even dangerous to the public, the movie justifies the shunning of such writers and even their arrest. Nobody in the movie seems to mind that all of this is in direct violation of the First Amendment. Fire TV Stick streamin... Buy New $39.99 (as of 11:14 UTC - Details) Second, when the H1N1 vaccine was released in 2009 and mass vaccination campaigns were organized, many citizens and authoritative figures including public health officials, doctors and specialists spoke against it. They claimed that the vaccine was unnecessary, insufficiently tested and that it had negative side-effects. By associating the corrupt figure of Alan Krumwiede with the “anti-vaccine movement”, the movie discredits all of those who question the necessity of mass vaccination campaigns. If another virus should strike, viewers of Contagion might be more prone to ignore these movements. In other words, the movie says: “Conspiracy theorists are corrupt liars that are dangerous to public safety and they should be arrested. Do not listen to them. They make money off phony cures. However, those who make even more money off phony vaccines are good. Listen to authorities and get the vaccine … or you’ll die…” The Ultimate Solution After months of horror and hundreds of millions of deaths, a final solution emerges and saves humanity: Mass vaccination.. Contagion may be presented as a work of fiction, but it communicates several important messages that authorities need the public to accept. To do so, the movie defines a specific problem that has actually occurred in the past, it identifies the agencies that have the right to take charge of the situation and proposes the only solution required to fix the problem. That solution is not pretty: The dissolution of the government, the imposition of martial law, the creation of civilian camps, forced vaccination campaigns and the suppression of free speech. Democracy and civil rights are summarily suspended and we witness the establishment of a highly controlled and monitored society (using barcodes). Pandemic Check Amazon for Pricing.
The question is the film a prediction of our future or wishful thinking for the authoritarian oligarchy? Most recently, Vigilant Citizen provided an updated article, How the Movie “Contagion” Laid the Blueprint for the Coronavirus Outbreak. Of course, legacy media is almost hysterical in its praise of the film and its relevance. The writer of the screenplay, Scott Z. Burns, (whose prior credits include an Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth) was recently interviewed in Slate, where he opines, “I think the gravest mistake is not giving the space and the microphone and all of the support to the public health officials who can help guide us through this. We have really good people in this country. They need to get together and be allowed to speak to us clearly and not be filtered. I have read accounts in the press that Dr. [Anthony] Fauci isn’t really allowed to speak until Mike Pence has approved his messaging. That is concerning to me. If we are going to get through this in the best version, it is by empowering those people and giving them the resources that they need.”
Most likely, readers might be aware or be interested in watching Contagion. My concern is that the film’s purpose is not benevolent but as usual, Hollywood serves their masters’ agenda, an agenda of fear, control, misinformation and authoritarianism. As the saying goes, “Caveat emptor.”
Contagion (2011) Buy New $9.99 (as of 11:58 UTC - Details) Son of Thunder: The Sp... Yvonne Lorenzo Buy New $12.00 (as of 04:45 UTC - Details) The Cloak of Freya: Th... Yvonne Lorenzo Buy New $14.00 (as of 04:45 UTC - Details) The Well of Mimir: The... Lorenzo, Yvonne Buy New $4.95 (as of 01:46 UTC - Details)
The Best of Yvonne Lorenzo


lewrockwell--2020-03-25--Coronavirus: What Newsweek Failed To Mention About ’Continuity of Government’

WASHINGTON DC ( The Last American Vagabond ) — Last week , Newsweek published a report entitled “ Inside The Military ’ s Top Secret Plans If Coronavirus Cripples the Government , ” which offers vague descriptions of different military plans that could be put into effect if the civilian government were to be largely incapacitated , with a focus on the potential of the current novel coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) pandemic to result in such a scenario .
The article ’ s author , William Arkin , largely frames these plans as new , though — buried deep within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such contingency plans can be traced back to the Eisenhower administration ( though they were in place before ) and have since been developed and updated by most subsequent administrations , largely through the issuance of executive orders .
Arkin also points out that some of these “ Continuity of Government ” , or COG , plans include the “ devolution ” of leadership and Constitutional authority , which he notes “ could circumvent the normal Constitutional provisions for government succession , and military commanders could be placed in control around America.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COG and its development that Arkin leaves out .
For instance , in his timeline on how such plans have developed in the post-World War II era , he conveniently fails to mention any of the Reagan administration ’ s major changes to COG , including the Reagan-era Executive Order on which all current COG programs are based .
Indeed , many of the “ extra-Constitutional ” aspects of COG that Arkin mentions began during the Reagan administration , when these plans were redrafted to largely exclude members of Congress , including the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plans and even moved to essentially eliminate Congress in the event of COG being implemented , with near total power instead being given to the executive branch and the military .
It was also during this time that the “ devolution ” aspect of COG was hammered out , as it created three president-cabinet “ teams ” to be stationed in different parts of the country outside of the nation ’ s capital .
Arkin ’ s decision to not mention how COG was a major focus of the Reagan administration is striking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions of dollars annually into COG planning and development and also conducted COG drills on a regular basis .
Homemade Hand Sanitize ... Smith , Rebecca Buy New $ 8.99 Furthermore , the Miami Herald revealed in 1987 , that the COG programs of that era were deeply connected to what the Herald termed “ a virtual parallel government outside the traditional cabinet departments and agencies ” that began operating “ almost from the day Reagan took office ” and included military and intelligence operatives as well as many of Reagan ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Casey .
The Herald further claimed that this “ parallel government ” had been responsible for the Iran-Contra scandal ( i.e .
“ involved in arming the Nicaraguan rebels ” ) as well as “ the drafting of martial law plans for national emergencies , ” i.e .
COG , as well as “ the monitoring of U.S. citizens considered potential security risks.
” This “ parallel government ” planned to use COG to install itself as the ruling power of the country and to detain potential opponents of a U.S. war with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration moved to invade the country .
Other key players in those Reagan-era COG developments , such as former Vice President Dick Cheney , former CIA Director James Woosley and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld , are also left unmentioned in Arkin ’ s article .
Not mentioning Cheney and Rumsfeld are particularly glaring omissions given that they were involved in the implementation of aspects of those COG plans that went live in the wake of the September 11 attacks , when both men were serving in key posts in the George @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s omission of the role of the Reagan administration and leading neoconservatives in the development and use of COG is significant , arguably more significant is his failure to mention one of COG ’ s major components , one that has gone essentially unmentioned by well-known media outlets for well over a decade – Main Core .
When Reagan issued Executive Order 12656 , he created COG plans that could be implemented during “ any national security emergency , ” which the E.O .
loosely defines as “ any occurrence , including natural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or other emergency , that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States.
” E.O .
12656 also put the National Security Council ( NSC ) in charge of developing and administering COG policies .
The NSC official placed in charge of this “ secret ” COG program was Oliver North , whose name would later become infamous for the key role he played in the Iran-Contra Scandal .
During the Iran-Contra hearings in the late 1980s , then-Representative Jack Brooks ( D-TX ) attempted to ask the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ North , in your work at the NSC , were you not assigned at one time to work on plans for the continuity of government in the event of a major disaster ?
” Brooks , however was immediately cut off by Senator Daniel Inouye ( D-HI ) , who stated ” I believe that question touches upon a highly sensitive and classified area , so may I request that you not touch upon that , sir.
” Brooks protested , but North was ultimately not required to give an answer .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and planning during the Reagan administration , North oversaw the creation of a controversial database that later became known simply as “ Main Core.
” The Main Core database , first built using the stolen PROMIS software ( more information on PROMIS here and here ) , was essentially a list of American dissidents and “ potential troublemakers.
” A senior government official with a high-ranking security clearance and service in five presidential administrations described the database to journalist Chris Ketcham in 2008 as follows : Main Core is the aspect of COG @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on these types of plans , with Arkin ’ s article being just a more recent example .
While most of the rare mentions of COG in the mainstream touch on how those plans would result in the implementation of martial law and the suspension of the Constitution , they even more rarely — if ever — mention Main Core .
Indeed , the last “ mainstream ” reports on Main Core were written over a decade ago — all in 2008 — by Chris Ketcham in Radar , by Scott Horton in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Salon .
Given that COG is now creeping back into mainstream reporting , revisiting Main Core is essential as the database still exists and has grown considerably since Oliver North first oversaw its creation in the early 1980s .
In Ketcham ’ s 2008 article on the subject , he quotes then-senior government officials who said that , at the time , the number of “ unfriendly ” Americans on that database was approximately 8 million .
Ketcham further notes that , in the event COG is implemented , these individuals could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heightened surveillance and tracking to direct questioning and possibly even detention.
” 10PCS Disposable Mask ... Buy New $ 9.99 Tim Shorrock , in his coverage of Main Core , noted that the database was seen in use at the White House following the September 11 attacks and there is strong evidence pointing to it having been used by the George W. Bush administration to guide its domestic surveillance activities in the post-9/11 era .
A government official who had told a reporter about having seen the database operational at the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sheet ” when the reporter mentioned the name “ Main Core ” specifically .
Shorrock ’ s reporting also details how Main Core includes vast amounts of information on those “ unfriendly ” Americans , including the fruits of the vast domestic surveillance programs of the NSA and other U.S. federal agencies that continue today and are now set to be expanded due to the current coronavirus crisis .
In a report written last year on the involvement of U.S. and Israeli intelligence and their private sector allies in pushing for new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Main Core is not only available to U.S. intelligence but also Israel ’ s intelligence apparatus and that Israeli intelligence was involved in the creation and expansion of Main Core .
That report also detailed how Main Core was used by members of Reagan ’ s NSC to blackmail members of Congress , a practice that is likely to have continued under subsequent administrations .
It also noted how Main Core today likely involves the same software now used by every U.S. intelligence agency and numerous other federal agencies that is marketed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owned by Trump ally Peter Thiel .
Palantir ’ s software boasts “ predictive policing ” capabilities and tracks a category of person using the label “ subversive , ” very much in keeping with the spirit of Main Core .
Though Main Core was reportedly in use after September 11 to target “ unfriendly ” individuals for increased domestic surveillance , concern that COG plans in the age of coronavirus could take a more drastic turn and involve the detention of Americans included in that database now seems more plausible than ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Department of Justice has demanded new “ emergency powers ” during the current pandemic and these powers include being able to indefinitely detain Americans without trial .
Politico also noted that the DOJ ’ s controversial new requests “ span several stages of the legal process , from initial arrest to how cases are processed and investigated.
” Per the DOJ ’ s requests , indefinite detention would emerge through a new ability whereby the Attorney General or a judge could pause court proceedings whenever courts are “ fully or partially closed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civil disobedience , or other emergency situation.
” What Politico did not include in its report is that current Attorney General William Barr has spent the past several months fine-tuning and implementing a “ pre-crime ” program .
Officially known as the “ National Disruption and Early Engagement Program ” ( DEEP ) , it aims to “ identify , assess and engage ” potentially violent individuals “ before they strike.
” Barr first announced this program last October in an official memorandum and therein stated that the program was to be implemented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would involve “ an efficient , effective and programmatic strategy to disrupt individuals who are mobilizing towards violence , by all lawful means.
” A training conference for that program took place this past December and involved members of the Department of Justice , Federal Bureau of Investigation and “ private sector partners.
” One recent DOJ statement regarding an arrest made last year in Nevada , claimed that that specific case was part of the DOJ ’ s “ National Disruption and Early Engagement Program , ” suggesting that this program is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some parts of the country .
In his memorandum , Barr further notes that the program ’ s “ early engagement tactics ” were “ born of the posture we adopted with respect to terrorist threats ” following the September 11 attacks , essentially stating that this pre-crime program will utilize methods from the “ War on Terror ” domestically and on a massive scale .
Given the context of the current coronavirus crisis , the DOJ ’ s recent request for sweeping new powers and the role of Main Core in COG @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s pre-crime memorandum stands out .
In the part of the document where Barr outlines what actions will be taken once an individual is deemed potentially violent or threatening , he writes that those individuals will be subject to detention , court-ordered mental health treatment and electronic monitoring , among other measures .
The possibility of pre-crime detention was also present in the DOJ ’ s recent request for new “ emergency powers ” in light of the coronavirus crisis , as it specifically asks that those new powers apply to “ any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pre-arrest , post-arrest , pre-trial , trial , and post-trial procedures in criminal and juvenile proceedings and all civil process and proceedings.
” Norman L. Reimer , executive director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers , told Politico that the inclusion of the term “ pre-arrest ” likely means that “ you could be arrested and never brought before a judge until they decide that the emergency or the civil disobedience is over .
I find it absolutely terrifying.
” Thus , if DOJ is granted these new powers it has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice will not only be authorized to indefinitely detain Americans without trial , it will be able to detain them without any proof of those detainees having committed a crime or even having plans or the intent to commit a crime .
Instead , the DOJ only needs to argue that the individual was “ mobilizing towards violence , ” an extremely vague phrase that could potentially be used against anyone who expresses discontent with the government or government policy .
20pcs Face Mouth Cover ... Buy New $ 6.00 ( $ 0.30 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBI having recently flagged “ conspiracy theorists ” ( and by extension those who distrust or question government narratives of both past and present ) as a “ domestic terror threat , ” the DOJ could even make the case that failure to blindly trust government narratives presents a threat to the public order .
Given that the Main Core database in its current form contains bulk surveillance gathered from social media , phone conversations/messaging apps and even financial information ( i.e .
purchasing history , etc . )
on Americans deemed unfriendly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trivial reason , ” this unprecedented power grab by the DOJ has an authoritarian and Orwellian potential to target legitimate dissent like never before .
With the specter of COG now snaking its way into mainstream discourse during the coronavirus crisis , it is essential that Americans stay vigilant , as these Orwellian and dystopian “ solutions ” to allegedly protect us from the current pandemic have been in place long before COVID-19 made its appearance on the world stage or landed on U.S. shores .
It is also essential to remember that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s pre-crime program were all created and are currently controlled by extremely corrupt and fundamentally untrustworthy individuals who have not only been involved in innumerable scandals over the years , but have also installed and supported some of the most authoritarian , savage and horrific dictators the world has ever seen .
To trust them with such unprecedented and dangerous powers in a period of national confusion and panic is tantamount to beckoning the horrors of those dictatorships — past and present — to come home to roost .
The views expressed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s own and do not necessarily reflect MintPress News editorial policy .

WASHINGTON DC (The Last American Vagabond) — Last week, Newsweek published a report entitled “Inside The Military’s Top Secret Plans If Coronavirus Cripples the Government,” which offers vague descriptions of different military plans that could be put into effect if the civilian government were to be largely incapacitated, with a focus on the potential of the current novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic to result in such a scenario.
The article’s author, William Arkin, largely frames these plans as new, though — buried deep within the article — he eventually mentions that such contingency plans can be traced back to the Eisenhower administration (though they were in place before) and have since been developed and updated by most subsequent administrations, largely through the issuance of executive orders. Arkin also points out that some of these “Continuity of Government”, or COG, plans include the “devolution” of leadership and Constitutional authority, which he notes “could circumvent the normal Constitutional provisions for government succession, and military commanders could be placed in control around America.”
Yet, there are key aspects of COG and its development that Arkin leaves out. For instance, in his timeline on how such plans have developed in the post-World War II era, he conveniently fails to mention any of the Reagan administration’s major changes to COG, including the Reagan-era Executive Order on which all current COG programs are based. Indeed, many of the “extra-Constitutional” aspects of COG that Arkin mentions began during the Reagan administration, when these plans were redrafted to largely exclude members of Congress, including the Speaker of the House, from succession plans and even moved to essentially eliminate Congress in the event of COG being implemented, with near total power instead being given to the executive branch and the military. It was also during this time that the “devolution” aspect of COG was hammered out, as it created three president-cabinet “teams” to be stationed in different parts of the country outside of the nation’s capital. Arkin’s decision to not mention how COG was a major focus of the Reagan administration is striking given that that administration poured hundreds of millions of dollars annually into COG planning and development and also conducted COG drills on a regular basis. Homemade Hand Sanitize... Smith, Rebecca Buy New $8.99 (as of 09:37 UTC - Details)
Furthermore, the Miami Herald revealed in 1987, that the COG programs of that era were deeply connected to what the Herald termed “a virtual parallel government outside the traditional cabinet departments and agencies” that began operating “almost from the day Reagan took office” and included military and intelligence operatives as well as many of Reagan’s closest advisers, including then-CIA Director William Casey. The Herald further claimed that this “parallel government” had been responsible for the Iran-Contra scandal (i.e. “involved in arming the Nicaraguan rebels”) as well as “the drafting of martial law plans for national emergencies,” i.e. COG, as well as “the monitoring of U.S. citizens considered potential security risks.” This “parallel government” planned to use COG to install itself as the ruling power of the country and to detain potential opponents of a U.S. war with Nicaragua in the event that the Reagan administration moved to invade the country.
Other key players in those Reagan-era COG developments, such as former Vice President Dick Cheney, former CIA Director James Woosley and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, are also left unmentioned in Arkin’s article. Not mentioning Cheney and Rumsfeld are particularly glaring omissions given that they were involved in the implementation of aspects of those COG plans that went live in the wake of the September 11 attacks, when both men were serving in key posts in the George W. Bush administration.
While Arkin’s omission of the role of the Reagan administration and leading neoconservatives in the development and use of COG is significant, arguably more significant is his failure to mention one of COG’s major components, one that has gone essentially unmentioned by well-known media outlets for well over a decade – Main Core.
The government’s database of “potential troublemakers”
When Reagan issued Executive Order 12656, he created COG plans that could be implemented during “any national security emergency,” which the E.O. loosely defines as “any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States.” E.O. 12656 also put the National Security Council (NSC) in charge of developing and administering COG policies. The NSC official placed in charge of this “secret” COG program was Oliver North, whose name would later become infamous for the key role he played in the Iran-Contra Scandal. During the Iran-Contra hearings in the late 1980s, then-Representative Jack Brooks (D-TX) attempted to ask the following question to North: “Colonel North, in your work at the NSC, were you not assigned at one time to work on plans for the continuity of government in the event of a major disaster?” Brooks, however was immediately cut off by Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI), who stated ” I believe that question touches upon a highly sensitive and classified area, so may I request that you not touch upon that, sir.” Brooks protested, but North was ultimately not required to give an answer.
As the de facto leader of COG development and planning during the Reagan administration, North oversaw the creation of a controversial database that later became known simply as “Main Core.” The Main Core database, first built using the stolen PROMIS software (more information on PROMIS here and here), was essentially a list of American dissidents and “potential troublemakers.” A senior government official with a high-ranking security clearance and service in five presidential administrations described the database to journalist Chris Ketcham in 2008 as follows:
A database of Americans, who, often for the slightest and most trivial reason, are considered unfriendly, and who, in a time of panic might be incarcerated. The database can identify and locate perceived ‘enemies of the state’ almost instantaneously.”
In 1993, Wired magazine stated that:
Using PROMIS, sources point out, North could have drawn up lists of anyone ever arrested for a political protest, for example, or anyone who had ever refused to pay their taxes. Compared to PROMIS, Richard Nixon’s enemies list or Sen. Joe McCarthy’s blacklist look downright crude.”
Main Core is the aspect of COG that is most often ignored in reporting on these types of plans, with Arkin’s article being just a more recent example. While most of the rare mentions of COG in the mainstream touch on how those plans would result in the implementation of martial law and the suspension of the Constitution, they even more rarely — if ever — mention Main Core. Indeed, the last “mainstream” reports on Main Core were written over a decade ago — all in 2008 — by Chris Ketcham in Radar, by Scott Horton in Harper’s and by Tim Shorrock in Salon.
Given that COG is now creeping back into mainstream reporting, revisiting Main Core is essential as the database still exists and has grown considerably since Oliver North first oversaw its creation in the early 1980s. In Ketcham’s 2008 article on the subject, he quotes then-senior government officials who said that, at the time, the number of “unfriendly” Americans on that database was approximately 8 million. Ketcham further notes that, in the event COG is implemented, these individuals could be subject to anything ranging from “heightened surveillance and tracking to direct questioning and possibly even detention.” 10PCS Disposable Mask ... Buy New $9.99 (as of 11:41 UTC - Details)
Tim Shorrock, in his coverage of Main Core, noted that the database was seen in use at the White House following the September 11 attacks and there is strong evidence pointing to it having been used by the George W. Bush administration to guide its domestic surveillance activities in the post-9/11 era. A government official who had told a reporter about having seen the database operational at the White House following September 11th “turned white as a sheet” when the reporter mentioned the name “Main Core” specifically. Shorrock’s reporting also details how Main Core includes vast amounts of information on those “unfriendly” Americans, including the fruits of the vast domestic surveillance programs of the NSA and other U.S. federal agencies that continue today and are now set to be expanded due to the current coronavirus crisis.
In a report written last year on the involvement of U.S. and Israeli intelligence and their private sector allies in pushing for new, troubling pre-crime programs, I noted that Main Core is not only available to U.S. intelligence but also Israel’s intelligence apparatus and that Israeli intelligence was involved in the creation and expansion of Main Core. That report also detailed how Main Core was used by members of Reagan’s NSC to blackmail members of Congress, a practice that is likely to have continued under subsequent administrations. It also noted how Main Core today likely involves the same software now used by every U.S. intelligence agency and numerous other federal agencies that is marketed by Palantir, a company created and owned by Trump ally Peter Thiel. Palantir’s software boasts “predictive policing” capabilities and tracks a category of person using the label “subversive,” very much in keeping with the spirit of Main Core.
Main Core and Bill Barr’s Power Grab
Though Main Core was reportedly in use after September 11 to target “unfriendly” individuals for increased domestic surveillance, concern that COG plans in the age of coronavirus could take a more drastic turn and involve the detention of Americans included in that database now seems more plausible than ever. On Saturday, Politico reported that the Department of Justice has demanded new “emergency powers” during the current pandemic and these powers include being able to indefinitely detain Americans without trial. Politico also noted that the DOJ’s controversial new requests “span several stages of the legal process, from initial arrest to how cases are processed and investigated.” Per the DOJ’s requests, indefinite detention would emerge through a new ability whereby the Attorney General or a judge could pause court proceedings whenever courts are “fully or partially closed by virtue of any natural disaster, civil disobedience, or other emergency situation.”
What Politico did not include in its report is that current Attorney General William Barr has spent the past several months fine-tuning and implementing a “pre-crime” program. Officially known as the “National Disruption and Early Engagement Program” (DEEP), it aims to “identify, assess and engage” potentially violent individuals “before they strike.” Barr first announced this program last October in an official memorandum and therein stated that the program was to be implemented sometime over the course of 2020 and would involve “an efficient, effective and programmatic strategy to disrupt individuals who are mobilizing towards violence, by all lawful means.”
A training conference for that program took place this past December and involved members of the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation and “private sector partners.” One recent DOJ statement regarding an arrest made last year in Nevada, claimed that that specific case was part of the DOJ’s “National Disruption and Early Engagement Program,” suggesting that this program is already in use — at least in some parts of the country.
In his memorandum, Barr further notes that the program’s “early engagement tactics” were “born of the posture we adopted with respect to terrorist threats” following the September 11 attacks, essentially stating that this pre-crime program will utilize methods from the “War on Terror” domestically and on a massive scale.
Given the context of the current coronavirus crisis, the DOJ’s recent request for sweeping new powers and the role of Main Core in COG plans, one part of Barr’s pre-crime memorandum stands out. In the part of the document where Barr outlines what actions will be taken once an individual is deemed potentially violent or threatening, he writes that those individuals will be subject to detention, court-ordered mental health treatment and electronic monitoring, among other measures.
The possibility of pre-crime detention was also present in the DOJ’s recent request for new “emergency powers” in light of the coronavirus crisis, as it specifically asks that those new powers apply to “any statutes or rules of procedure otherwise affecting pre-arrest, post-arrest, pre-trial, trial, and post-trial procedures in criminal and juvenile proceedings and all civil process and proceedings.” Norman L. Reimer, executive director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, told Politico that the inclusion of the term “pre-arrest” likely means that “you could be arrested and never brought before a judge until they decide that the emergency or the civil disobedience is over. I find it absolutely terrifying.”
Thus, if DOJ is granted these new powers it has requested, the William Barr-led Department of Justice will not only be authorized to indefinitely detain Americans without trial, it will be able to detain them without any proof of those detainees having committed a crime or even having plans or the intent to commit a crime. Instead, the DOJ only needs to argue that the individual was “mobilizing towards violence,” an extremely vague phrase that could potentially be used against anyone who expresses discontent with the government or government policy. 20pcs Face Mouth Cover... Buy New $6.00 ($0.30 / Ounce) (as of 09:33 UTC - Details)
Furthermore, with the FBI having recently flagged “conspiracy theorists” (and by extension those who distrust or question government narratives of both past and present) as a “domestic terror threat,” the DOJ could even make the case that failure to blindly trust government narratives presents a threat to the public order. Given that the Main Core database in its current form contains bulk surveillance gathered from social media, phone conversations/messaging apps and even financial information (i.e. purchasing history, etc.) on Americans deemed unfriendly “often for the slightest and most trivial reason,” this unprecedented power grab by the DOJ has an authoritarian and Orwellian potential to target legitimate dissent like never before.
With the specter of COG now snaking its way into mainstream discourse during the coronavirus crisis, it is essential that Americans stay vigilant, as these Orwellian and dystopian “solutions” to allegedly protect us from the current pandemic have been in place long before COVID-19 made its appearance on the world stage or landed on U.S. shores.
It is also essential to remember that COG, Main Core and the DOJ’s pre-crime program were all created and are currently controlled by extremely corrupt and fundamentally untrustworthy individuals who have not only been involved in innumerable scandals over the years, but have also installed and supported some of the most authoritarian, savage and horrific dictators the world has ever seen. To trust them with such unprecedented and dangerous powers in a period of national confusion and panic is tantamount to beckoning the horrors of those dictatorships — past and present — to come home to roost.
The views expressed in these articles are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect MintPress News editorial policy.