Theocrat Gary North: No ally of mine.

Miscellaneous General
1

Posted by Scott F on Feb 27, 2011

Reading Gary North’s articles at lewrockwell.com, it’s easy to think he’s a hard line anti-statist. He takes an axe to the idea of bankers and politicians all over the place. So it’s tempting, to be happy to offer him a place at the table of anarchists. However digging deeper , you’ll quickly come across his religious views. North is a Christian Reconstructionist. Hearing it described , you’ll start to worry. It sounds like authoritarian fundamentalist hell , covered by a fig leaf of liberty. You’ll feel this nagging concern. But then you might think “not to worry, Gary North’s an anarchist” right?…. right?

Well no. He’s not. And if half of the libertarians who claim to be fans of him, knew his true views they would neither like him nor associate with him. Gary North is not only NOT an anarchist he’s a thoroughgoing authoritarian. He’s in every way contrary to the spirit of anarchism or even moderate libertarianism .I will show why.

First let us look at his cultural views.

He is not just pro-patriarchy in the way a cultural conservative might be, but radically so to the extent that he runs right up against the historic anarchist opposition to patriarchy. He writes “The man is head of the household. He represents God before his wife and children. They are to obey him.”( P17 on sidebar ,THE SINAI STRATEGY )

North continues to tick all the boxes on the authoritarian front. He favours authoritarian family relations, arguing ” When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime (Ex. 21:17). The son or daughter is under the lawful jurisdiction of the family. The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death. Clearly, cursing God (blasphemy) is a comparable crime, and is therefore a capital crime (Lev. 24:16).” (P82 sidebar ,The Sinai Strategy.)

That should suffice to highlight why North is a hardcore authoritarian.

Now we turn to his political views which are much less than anarchist, nor even meeting the standards of a Ron Paulesque Minarchism.

Is North an anarchist? In The Failure of the American Baptist Culture , (THE INTELLECTUAL SCHIZOPHRENIA OF THE NEW CHRISTIAN RIGHT P41 in the sidebar), he states “The point is: freedom of religion does not, in a Christian commonwealth, involve total license. There is no such thing as legitimate Christian anarchism. The civil government is allowed to restrain public evil.”

In North’s mind ,Anarchism is equated with immorality making his work with Anarcho-Capitalisms seem strange at best.

On P45 side bar he plainly says “On the other hand, if they are proclaiming radical libertarianism as the only theoretical alternative to statism, then they are laying the foundations for an ethical and political backlash which will aid those who are seeking to expand the autononomous powers of the State. Men will not live under anarchy; libertinism (sexual and otherwise), which is necessarily a consequence of abolishing all civil laws (anar chism), creates the backlash.”

So if not anarchism, what kind of government does North favour?

Allegedly he aims at a limited government claiming “Limited civil government is one of the two political preconditions of a free market economy. “ (P38 sidebar ,same book) yet his libertarian government is not the typical monarchist one in that it will enforce biblical law. According to North, “The biblical program is clear: government under revealed biblical law, with various aspects of this law enforced by a biblical revealed system of decentralized courts” (P37 on sidebar ,The Sinai Strategy) Furthermore North is aware this is a monopoly and it does not concern him.

North sets out too, what he would like to see criminalized and carried out in his theocratic world.

“The biblical view of the State unquestionably and irrefutably affirms the right and obligation of the State to execute men, for the Bible sets forth God’s law. God has delegated this power to the State.” (P119 of above book)

Furthermore North is Pro-stoning. ” That modern Christians never consider the possibility of the re- introduction of stoning for capital crimes indicates how thoroughly humanistic concepts of punishment have influenced the thinking of Christians” (P147 sidebar ) Considering North considers humanist an insult, he is not being complementary.

Should someone object to his arguments for this he has ready replies.

Should someone object to his capital punishment advocacy on Christian grounds, he responds “Critics of capital punishment could argue that men are not to avenge, and that we view capital punishment as a transgression of God’s sole and exclusive monopoly of execution. This argument is wrong. The institution of civil government is entrusted with this responsibility . The individual may not execute another man, as if he were an autonomous agent of judgment, but the covenanted political community may. In fact, this power reduces the likelihood of blood vengeance by close relatives of the slain (p139 on the side bar to the left) and “Furthermore, by denying this right of execution to the State, the opponents of capital punishment me implicitly turning over the power of execution (as distinguished from the right of execution) to murderers and rebels. It reduces their risk of permanent bodily judgment. “ (P120 sidebar, of same above book )

At this point ,I’m thinking I should be worried about what I’ve typed. Why? “The existence of this theocentric commandment against distorting the truth concerning God has created a unique property right: the right to a name. A man is entitled to his good name. Slander is therefore a form of theft. The civil government has an obligation to defend the right of an individual to use a particular name, both personal and corporate, both familial and institutional. The civil government must also defend that name against false witnesses.”(209 on sidebar) Thankfully everything I’ve said is absolutely true , with no signs from North of having repudiated or disassociated himself from these views. It makes you wonder why Paleo-libertarians choose to associate with him in the first place. Now I’m all for working with individuals or groups who are not anarchist on an issue by issue basis where our views align but it must be noted North is not libertarian and should not be claimed as a great champion of liberty. Hopefully those who know of his views do not share his agenda.

Sinai Strategy

http://www.commentary.net/freebooks/docs/2102_47e.htm

Failure of the American Baptist Culture

http://www.commentary.net/freebooks/docs/21ce_47e.htm

2

Beh, under Calivinist theonomy the non-elect aren’t bound by the Bible anyways; if North wants to set up his little theocracy where women are stoned and doesn’t insist on co-opting non-Calvinists into it I don’t really care. He’s certainly a strange person, but practically every libertarian is a nutjob of some sort or another.

And ‘anti-authoritarianism’ is crap. Property is authoritarian. Libertarianism is not about being against ‘authority’ or about being for ‘freedom’, both of which are bogus words used for rhetorical puposes by all political stripes. Libertarianism is about a specific concept of law and property norms and social organization by indirect coordination and contract.

And what does Scott mean, ‘ally’? Seriously, what does he think he, or North, are accomplishing? They’re both scribblers ignored by nearly the entire world and surrounded by leftists who hate their ideas; and North is a lot better of an economist.

3
4

No he does doesn’t say it only applies to calvinists.He was it enforced by the state.Don’t you dare,defend him.

Shrugs I said it conditionally. It’s not like it matters, no one gives a flying frick about Gary North’s opinions except for libertarians and right-wing Calvinists; who are politically irrelevant.

Exactly.Hence the anarchist/libertarian opposition to it.Property is not ownership.

Eyes commence to rolling

why I do not wish to frequent these forums or Mises.org anymore.

Don’t expect me to weep.

Face it An-cap has nothing in common with any sort of anarchism throughout history

I really don’t give a damn about this stupid semantic argument, most anarchists are retards and kooks. I’m about property and contract law, whether this fits your leftoidal intellectual masturbation as to what ‘anarchism’ is doesn’t matter to me in the least.

because he fits capitalists apologetics.I see.

i.e., he is not an idiot and understands economics.

Oh, and just to troll you, John D. Rockefeller, Sr. is the greatest American in history.

376×450 11.5 KB

5

How about a co-belligerent, then?

6

Also, there is no such thing as a ‘paleo-libertarian’. That was a moniker Lew used to distance himself from the multicultis at Cato, just like ‘right’ libertarian, it doesn’t actually mean anything; it’s really just in opposition to the ‘not libertarians’ such as liberventionists, state efficiency experts and leftoidal pseudolibertarians.

7

Scott,

Those quotes are definitely of the insane kind, so thanks for pointing them out. It was writting 25 years ago so he may have changed his ideas. But if he hasn’t openly/clearly done so then I would want to have nothing to do with that guy.

I keep wondering from time to time if the religious strands in the ancap/Austrian movement need to be addressed more publicly.

8

I keep wondering from time to time if the religious strands in the ancap/Austrian movement need to be addressed more publicly.

I don’t really see the point. There are a lot of people who are useful to libertarians that are weirdos. Buchanan is a protectionist white nationalist, David Irving is a Gemanophile, Gabriel Kolko is a neo-Marxist, FJP Veale was a fascist, Thomas Sowell is a NeoCon.

I’m obviously not anyone who has any high opinion of religion, but to me it’s all pretty moot. Anyone who can think can tell the difference between libertarianism and theocracy, and if they can’t - who cares? Good riddance.

9

Not to my knowledge.He hasn’t publicly distanced himself from them. Know how he links to garynorth.com under his articles at lew rockwell.com? well if you follow that then click gary north’s free books then http://GaryNorth.com/freebooks then get to http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/pagetwo.htm then click on

(If you have already visited this page, click here to enter Freebooks’: Main Area.)

The main area links you to the selection of books from which I displayed above.

So he hasn’t repudiated his old views or if he has, doesn’t consider them terrible enough to get rid of those links and publicly reject them.

Oh or to save all that linking see here - http://www.garynorth.com/public/department57.cfm

10

That applies to Gary North then!

11
12

I am not going to argue with you about etymology; what I mean by libertarian is propertarian-contractarian; like Anthony de Jasay or Jan Narveson. I could give two cents and a whistle about all this mystical BS about equality, freedom, yadda yadda yadda. It’s just so much hot air.

You can use it to mean Crypto-Georgist-Anarcho-Situationist-Communo-Freeholderism; I’ll use it to mean something legal and not moralistic or culturally fetishistic. Classical liberalism, Quakers and all those other Christian heresies are nonsense as are all the leftist fantasy millenialisms built on them.

That applies to Gary North then!

Maybe North is a libertarian and maybe he isn’t, I don’t really care. I read him for his economic analysis, not for his Calvinist crackpottery.

13

Coming from a guy who made a thread trying to discuss how unlibertarian religion is… Are you now saying it’s irrelevant?

14

Okay, almost every one of you is arguing with some imaginary version of what I said. What I said is that libertarianism is not inherent to any religion because religions are just slapdash collections of cultural and volk norms, none of which are consistently libertarian. Anyways, you guys were being Goddamn ridiculous and I am not having this stupid argument with you.

15

I don’t know any other libertarian who finds Irving or this FJP Veale guy useful.

16

This is why Lew Rockwell’s Web site is so irritating. On the one hand, you will get solid libertarian commentary and on the other you’ll get some Suzanne Somersish level of vaccine skepticism or Laurence Vance or Kramer talking about RFID chips or Gary North pining for Christian theocracy. I read today an article that denied Einstein’s theory of relativity in favor of Newtonian mechanics. I mean, really.

His site certainly appeals to the populist libertarian front. Mises at least puts up an aura of respectability.

Anyway, thanks for the links. When a poster (can’t remember which) first pointed out that North was a Calvinist theocrat, I was less than surprised. I did read his Wiki page a long time ago and assumed he was just another paleolibertarian, but after that post prompted me to look at “Christian reconstructionism” I can’t figure out what his affiliation with Rockwell even is. Is Lew a religious fundamentalist too?

17

It’s good to be skeptical. Your examples don’t show why there is a problem, only religion is a problem as it is the opposite of skepticism.

18

Ally, what? Ally for what? The dude is either correct, incorrect, or doing pointless speculating about reality on a plethora of issues. What are you on about?

19

I don’t know any other libertarian who finds Irving or this FJP Veale guy useful.

You mean, aside from James J. Martin, the best libertarian historical revisionist ever?

I’ve known North was a theonomist for a long time, I’ve read a bunch of the stuff on his website. The guy is obviously an Ultracalvinist; though of the right-wing sort.

20

Ricky, it seems like a double standard. Unprincipled right-wing guys are ‘useful’, while left-wing people are ‘idiots’.

The fact remains that if you are unprincipled, ‘useful’ is a synonym for rhetorical and nothing else.

If people don’t grasp sound methodology – which Gary North does not – they are just rhetoricians. The same as Ronald Reagan saying that ‘government is a problem’. And likewise,their rhetoric is not useful to people who are principled and will inevitably see that their methodology is weak. The same as a preposterous scientific theory cannot stand on ‘interesting rhetoric’.

You are burying your head in the sand in the hopes that nihilism will save us from this point.

On the subject of authortarianism, I think you have it the wrong way. Authoritarianism is nonsense not because property is authority, but because no one can possibly have the preference – universalizable – of authority. Since all authorities hate authority or exhaust the limits of a chain of authority somewhere along the line. Hence anarchism is a fact, rather than a ‘want’. And authoritarians are those who deny the fact of anarchism and create the physical force of statism from fantasy. And authoritarianism is both the physical force (weak) and majoritarian ideology (strong) which maintains this situation. And no such natural authority or archon can exist a priori except the individual’s self-ownership. Even property can be destroyed and no magic capitalist God will intervene because it breaks a law of the universe. It is only that no one has the ‘right’ to do anything like this, as a matter of logic. Since any such right is imaginary.