A review of Machiavelli’s “The Prince” (audiobook)

I had read “The Prince” itself before listening to this audiobook, sometime during the winter of 2006-2007. It was in English translation, since I don’t speak Italian, but it would still seem to have counted for something. Thus, you might expect that I didn’t learn anything from this audiobook. But on the contrary, I learned much from this hour-and-a-half audiobook.

Niccolò Machiavelli

A review of “The Nazis: A Warning from History” (BBC)

It seems incredible that the Nazis ever came to power. Today, they are among the most unpopular of all movements, portrayed as bad guys in movie after movie (and rightfully so). You would think that they were as unpopular then as they are now, but this was obviously not the case. Most of the people who supported them at that time have since tried to conceal their Nazi pasts. But a small number of them are more open about their involvement in these things, and are willing to praise Nazism even in the climate of today. This series interviews a few of these people on camera, and shows why they were willing to follow Adolf Hitler to the extent that they did (or at all, for that matter). It is a revealing look into the psychology of the Nazis.

Adolf Hitler

Some interesting Joe Biden quotes about race

These quotations show Joe Biden saying some very awkward things about race. You might respond that none of them are bad enough to convict Joe Biden of racism. With that, I would actually agree. However, in my opinion, they are much worse than any of the purportedly “racist” comments made by Donald Trump. Yet Trump is always portrayed as a “racist,” while Biden is not.

Again, I don't think there's enough here to convict anybody of racism. My point is not that Joe Biden is a “racist.” My point is that he is judged by very different standards than those that are applied to Trump.

The Continental Congresses: The backstory of the United States Congress

“An act for granting and applying certain stamp duties, and other duties, in the British colonies and plantations in America, towards further defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same; and for amending such parts of the several acts of parliament relating to the trade and revenues of the said colonies and plantations, as direct the manner of determining and recovering the penalties and forfeitures therein mentioned.”

– Long title of the “Duties in American Colonies Act 1765” (better known as the “Stamp Act”), as passed by the Parliament of Great Britain

Albany Congress (1754) is formed in the year that the French and Indian War began

In 1754, a war broke out in British North America, a war that Americans know as the “French and Indian War.” This war would eventually lead to a worldwide conflict known as the “Seven Years’ War,” which would break out two years later in 1756. But something else happened in 1754 that might not have seemed particularly important at the time. A number of the British colonies in North America sent delegates to the “Albany Congress of 1754.” This is the first of several Congresses that would eventually lead to the creation of the United States Congress. The Albany Congress met for only one month. During this time, representatives met daily at the City Hall to discuss a number of important issues. Among these were better relations with the Native American tribes, and common defensive measures against the French threat from Canada – since the “French and Indian War” meant that British North America was now at war with both France and its overseas colonies in Canada.

The Albany Congress, 1754

Parliament passes the Stamp Act (1765), which leads to the Stamp Act Congress (1765)

The French and Indian War began in 1754, but the worldwide conflict known as the “Seven Years’ War” did not begin until 1756 (or so Americans remember it). When it began, the “French and Indian War” (as Americans call it) became the North American theater of this larger worldwide conflict. But when Britain and France later made peace with each other in 1763, both this larger conflict and its North American portion were over. Things might have seemed like they would remain peaceful. But in 1765, Britain passed the Stamp Act (cited earlier), which enacted taxes on stamps in North America. In the thirteen colonies, these stamps would be required for legal documents, playing cards, calendars, newspapers, and dice. The colonies were not happy about these taxes, since they were being passed by a Parliament in which the colonists were not represented. It is true that these taxes were not very large, but the actual amount of the tax was never the issue. The issue was whether the British Parliament had any right to tax the colonies to begin with, when the colonies were not represented in the body that was taxing them. I doubt that the British people of today would put up with being taxed by the United States Congress, since they have no representation in it. In a similar way, colonists were not about to put up with being taxed by Parliament, and thus organized the Stamp Act Congress in 1765.

1d Stamp Act of 1765 proof

A review of “Early Austrian Economics” (audiobook)

So I recently finished an audiobook about “Early Austrian Economics,” about the famous Austrian School in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. This is a school that has long been admired by conservatives, because they supported the idea that free markets reflect the subjective preferences of individuals (specifically consumers). Thus, they considered free markets to be a positive thing on this account. Their work was highly focused on economic science, but it did have obvious political implications as well, because of the insight that markets meet the demand of society, and satisfy its needs and wants.

Actually, the Confederacy had no intention of ever abolishing slavery

Warning: For obvious reasons, this post does not censor the offensive language out of the historical sources that it quotes from. To do so would be to obscure the truth about past racism and bigotry.

The Confederate Constitution shows that the South intended to prolong slavery

Even today, there are still some White Southerners who support slavery (although they are few), but most of them now disapprove of the institution, and the racial discrimination that was at the heart of it in these prior times. Perhaps because of this, there have been some White Southerners in recent years who have argued that the South would have abolished slavery anyway, and that it was inclined to do so at this time. (The fictional book “The Guns of the South” is one example of this trend, and I have encountered various other examples of this in some conversations that I have had with White Southerners over the years.)

I will show this with some relevant quotations from the Confederate Constitution

Because of this, it might be helpful to correct the record here, and show that the South had no intention of ever abolishing slavery. I will do this with some quotations from the so-called “Constitution of the Confederate States” (ratified 1862), which show how pro-slavery this wanna-be “Constitution” really was. In many ways, it was even more pro-slavery than the United States Constitution that it would have permanently replaced, which had a number of defects of its own with regards to slavery.

First page of the Confederate Constitution

A review of “Joseph Schumpeter and Dynamic Economic Change” (audiobook)

I recently finished listening to an audiobook about the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter, who lived from 1883 to 1950. He eventually emigrated to the United States, and obtained U. S. citizenship. This was a good audiobook about him, and seemed to offer a good summation of his life's work. But I have somewhat mixed feelings about Joseph Schumpeter's ideas.