brandonlc

Here’s a history lesson about America’s founding, in honor of the 4th of July

From the late 2025 volume “Polycentric Federalism and World Orders | New Ideas for Classical Liberal & Libertarian Foreign Policy.”

A little sum’ sum’ on Brexit’s 10-year anniversary

Since Greenland / the Arctic is in the news…

Hansai, or the Cleansing Fire

How the Interplay of Fog, Friction, and Faith Resulted in the Unintended Atomic Annihilation of Nagasaki’s Christian Community – and Ended World War II 80 Years Ago

With populist and authoritarian leaders on the rise in the democratic West, and with traditional authoritarian states seemingly coalescing around China, now is as good a time as any to understand why this is happening and what happens next.

Hahah you got it!

Let’s get the weekend off to a good start!

(You can buy the whole book here: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-70525-0)

This is a dark, somewhat humorous, look at how communities navigate around US veterans struggling with trauma. A bit different from the usual (excellent) stuff found here, but worth your time.

Abstract: The principle of Indigenous sovereignty acknowledges the liberal imperative of state authority, and yet simultaneously transforms it. Fundamental principles of sovereignty embedded in Westphalian ideas of state and nation-state are counterpoised against in other rationalities—including concepts of cultural rights, human security and more localized sovereignties. Canada’s experience in laying claim to both the internal waters of the Canadian Northwest Passage, and its more recent claim to the extended continental shelf in the Arctic Ocean, are a case in point. In both of these cases Indigenous sovereignty challenges the right of the Canadian state to make such claims with- out the explicit permission of Inuit peoples. Yet, gaining such permission supports conventional sovereign claims much the way is conventionally associated with the Peace of Westphalia, even if history was more complicated and less immediate in its compliance with what became conflated over time with Westphalian ideals. Meanwhile, land claims treaties in Canada’s Arctic along with new understandings of climate change and human security support a reassessment of sovereignty in practice, and an expansion from the Westphalian ideal to a post-Westphalian synthesis of Indigenous and state sovereignties. Can we still call such arrangements “liberal”, and is decolonization consistent with- in a framework of liberal views of state sovereignty? The Inuit experience at the nexus of Indigenous and state sovereignty suggests we can indeed, and that Canada’s evolving conception of sovereignty re-introduces tribal sovereignty as a pillar of the new, post-Westphalian order. While similar processes are under way across the Indigenous world, whether in the Far North or Global South, the experience in Arctic North America sheds important light on the evolution of sovereignty in both theory and practice as Indigenous values and conceptions are increasingly recognized and embraced by the sovereign states that emerged in their homelands through colonial state expansion.

A short story about a mouse and a rat. I thought it'd make a great "weekend read."

I really loved this article because it shows that ASI, and the control problem associated with ASI, isn't new at all. It has been around for a long time.

What this essay does is put ASI into historical context and put forth a solution to a problem that has also been around for a long time: republican constitutionalism (which has nothing to do with the GOP or Western right-wing movements).

Republican constitutionalism is a restraint mechanism on centralized power that has been popular -- in a more subtle form<https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691138305/bo...> - since the end of World War II and has always been a part of conversations about restraining power. Cool stuff, all 'round!

With all the talk lately of the the UN's ineptitude (and it has been inept, and corrupt, and hypocritical, and...), perhaps its time to start re-thinking international governance and how it can be ordered.

The link above considers a libertarian approach to world government, which is not as oxymoronic as it first appears.

A better comparison to this would be the evolution of federalism in Italy and Germany in the 19th-21st century.

Or the United States...https://www.jstor.org/stable/48647382

Oh man this is so cool, thanks!

Thanks!

The author's scholarship brought me to it. I was the guest editor of the journal issue in which this article appeared. Here's the scholar's, um, Scholar page: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&q=oye.... The author hails from Indiana University's Political Science Dept, which is currently one of the most interesting in the world.

Good stuff: "The Protestantized American brand of Islam we lived didn’t require communal worship or communal solidarity. So I became a solitary, privatized atom of faith."

A long essay on technology, equality before the law(s), and our cruel and dangerous nature.

Abstract: This paper explores U.S. government activities related to human experimentation after World War II. We emphasize how a proactive foreign policy, even in the pursuit of liberal ends, can undermine the rights and liberties of members the domestic populace. The typical primary justification for a strong military and proactive foreign policy is to protect the person and property of domestic people while reinforcing liberal values. But preparing for and engaging in war and foreign intervention, even if defensive in nature, often does the opposite in unseen and underappreciated ways. We discuss the implications of these tendencies and consider three responses offered by liberals—liberal empire, interstate federalism, and citizen-based defense.

Abstract: Prior to the creation of the United Nations and even prior to Woodrow Wilson’s philosophy of intervention, members of Congress called for a humanitarian intervention to aid the people of Cuba as they fought against the violent oppression of the Spanish government. Spurred on by the first-hand accounts of horrifying atrocities, President William McKinley overcame his reluctance and called for the American military to aid the revolutionaries in Cuba. This initial decision marks the beginning of a very different path towards international dominance than the one created by European empires. Unlike their European counterparts, the United States would claim to use its military to protect those fighting for their freedom all over the world due to their longstanding commitment to the liberal ideal of self-determination. While it may appear benevolent, the United States struggled with questions about how a self-governing people could develop and use a large military to overthrow governments as well as whether these actions could be considered imperialism. Looking into this early effort to rid a country of violent oppression by offering military assistance provides a prism through which to view the ongoing struggles of liberalism that informs American foreign policy decision making.

This piece asks what a libertarian world government would look like?

Abstract: Champions of capitalism and right-wing theorists of culture typically blame American Indian reservations’ economic woes on tribes’ historical aversion to market principles and on present-day federal policies that impose socialism on them. These arguments suggest capitalism as a simple rule to improve prospects for economic development in Indian country. We argue that the simple rule is not capitalism but polycentricity: greater tribal autonomy to choose the rules to govern tribal economies. One of the legacies of imperialism is that the primary governance challenge in Indian country today is that relations among the tribal and federal governments are monocentric, with Congress asserting nearly unlimited authority over tribes. This reduces the ability of tribal governments to experiment with rules to improve tribal economies and tribal governance more generally. Thus, debates about capitalism or socialism in Indian country miss the mark. Progress toward a more meaningful polycentric governance regime is especially critical because of the complicated nature of the economic challenges on many Indian reservations.

Abstract: Tyler Cowen’s concept of “state capacity libertarianism” was not devised with Somaliland in mind. Somaliland falls short of his ideals on both state capacity and libertarianism. Yet, Somaliland has made progress in developing state capacity. Although it faces significant obstacles as an unrecognized de facto state in the Horn of Africa, it must further develop state capacity if it is ever going to improve the lives of its citizens and address pressing challenges like high rates of infant and maternal mortality, widespread abject poverty, and minimal public infrastructure. In doing so, however, Somaliland needs to leverage the libertarian sympathies of its people to expand personal and economic freedom. Somaliland will never approximate fully fledged state capacity libertarianism but improving state capacity while increasing freedom is essential for advancing human welfare. Its people would benefit from something approximating “state capacity libertarianism with Somali characteristics.”

Abstract: There is no doubt that federalism has important ingredients for growing an international order for individual liberty and interstate peace as well as political and economic integration across national borders. Yet sharp disagreement characterizes the effect of federalism. What is not at issue in Africa is that two prominent African federations - Ethiopia and Nigeria—have demonstrated how not to grow such an international order. These African federations, which were deliberately designed to control individual action, have, unfortunately, paralyzed individual liberty, fueled interstate violence, and hindered political integration beyond state/provincial borders. The imposition of federalism in Ethiopia and Nigeria has not only failed to live up to the purported promises of federalism but has also run roughshod over pre-colonial African traditions that can and should inform the theory and practice of federalism. This article draws important lessons from how two pre-colonial self-generating orders among the Yoruba of Nigeria used polycentric values of interstate federalism and avoided provincial-central [or state-national] sovereignty and interprovincial violence as well as ensured individual liberty and political and economic integration beyond provincial borders.

Abstract: This paper explores U.S. government activities related to human experimentation after World War II. We emphasize how a proactive foreign policy, even in the pursuit of liberal ends, can undermine the rights and liberties of members the domestic populace. The typical primary justification for a strong military and proactive foreign policy is to protect the person and property of domestic people while reinforcing liberal values. But preparing for and engaging in war and foreign intervention, even if defensive in nature, often does the opposite in unseen and underappreciated ways. We discuss the implications of these tendencies and consider three responses offered by liberals — liberal empire, interstate federalism, and citizen-based defense

I remember first reading about Musa when I was dreaming up new civilizations that could be included in the upcoming Civilization III game.

I wanted so bad for there to be more than just one civ from sub-Saharan Africa, and reading about African history introduced me to a bunch of west African civs that I'd never knew existed.

Abstract: This paper evaluates the prospects of a republican alternative to national liberalism. It draws on Max Weber to provide an account of how national liberalism is meant to work. It examines some of the tensions that emerge from this account, and some of the ways liberals and nationalists have tried to deal with these tensions. Ultimately, I argue that both liberalism and nationalism have struggled to go it alone, but both also struggle to go on together. I suggest that the republican alternative is potentially promising, but still faces stiff competition from nationalism. To beat nationalism, the republicans will need to offer citizens a more compelling relationship with the state than the nationalists offer. This will require a substantial expansion of citizenship rights. Because republicans reject the thick, cathartic, intimate relationship nationalism offers, they must provide a set of rights that citizens consider even more valuable, binding them in a thin way to the republican constitution.

Abstract: The principle of Indigenous sovereignty acknowledges the liberal imperative of state authority, and yet simultaneously transforms it. Fundamental principles of sovereignty embedded in Westphalian ideas of state and nation-state are counterpoised against in other rationalities—including concepts of cultural rights, human security and more localized sovereignties. Canada’s experience in laying claim to both the internal waters of the Canadian Northwest Passage, and its more recent claim to the extended continental shelf in the Arctic Ocean, are a case in point. In both of these cases Indigenous sovereignty challenges the right of the Canadian state to make such claims without the explicit permission of Inuit peoples. Yet, gaining such permission supports conventional sovereign claims much the way is conventionally associated with the Peace of Westphalia, even if history was more complicated and less immediate in its compliance with what became conflated over time with Westphalian ideals. Meanwhile, land claims treaties in Canada’s Arctic along with new understandings of climate change and human security support a reassessment of sovereignty in practice, and an expansion from the Westphalian ideal to a post-Westphalian synthesis of Indigenous and state sovereignties. Can we still call such arrangements “liberal”, and is decolonization consistent within a framework of liberal views of state sovereignty? The Inuit experience at the nexus of Indigenous and state sovereignty suggests we can indeed, and that Canada’s evolving conception of sovereignty re-introduces tribal sovereignty as a pillar of the new, post-Westphalian order. While similar processes are under way across the Indigenous world, whether in the Far North or Global South, the experience in Arctic North America sheds important light on the evolution of sovereignty in both theory and practice as Indigenous values and conceptions are increasingly recognized and embraced by the sovereign states that emerged in their homelands through colonial state expansion.

by Steven Pifer

Francis Fukuyama approves (https://twitter.com/FukuyamaFrancis/status/15802374109394370...)

Your thoughts?

Abstract: Prior to the creation of the United Nations and even prior to Woodrow Wilson’s philosophy of intervention, members of Congress called for a humanitarian intervention to aid the people of Cuba as they fought against the violent oppression of the Spanish government. Spurred on by the first-hand accounts of horrifying atrocities, President William McKinley overcame his reluctance and called for the American military to aid the revolutionaries in Cuba. This initial decision marks the beginning of a very different path towards international dominance than the one created by European empires. Unlike their European counterparts, the United States would claim to use its military to protect those fighting for their freedom all over the world due to their longstanding commitment to the liberal ideal of self-determination. While it may appear benevolent, the United States struggled with questions about how a self-governing people could develop and use a large military to overthrow governments as well as whether these actions could be considered imperialism. Looking into this early effort to rid a country of violent oppression by offering military assistance provides a prism through which to view the ongoing struggles of liberalism that informs American foreign policy decision making.