Donald Trump, who is sued for defamation by writer Jean Carroll, mumbled his discontent visibly or loudly enough yesterday during the latter’s testimony that the judge threatened to remove him. It is tempting to relate this to what he previously advocated for libel laws and also to Princess Mathilde, a niece of Napoléon Bonaparte (portrayed in the featured image of this post). (Libel is written defamation, although I am not sure if Mr. Trump knew or cared about the difference.)
When he was running for the presidency in 2016, Trump famously said that he would strengthen libel laws to make suits easier to win. He was targeting his political enemies in the press but the changes he adumbrated might have helped Ms. Carroll’s suit. In February 2016, he said (the short accompanying video is also worth watching):
One of the things I’m going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we’re certainly leading. I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We’re going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.
Trump repeated his threat in 2018.
In other countries, notably the United Kingdom, defamation laws are easier to invoke so that the rich and powerful are better able to silence writers and critics with suits or threats thereof. That somebody can be sued for disclosing information about another person does not sit well with libertarian ideals, especially when the information is true and no harassment is involved. Murray Rothbard argued against any ban on defamation. At any rate, defamation laws are an easy tool against free speech.
Some people entertain a hedonistic-narcissistic conception of the state, whereby anything that the state does to favor them is good, and anything that the state does not do to favor them is condemnable. Mr. Trump is not the only one to embrace this conception, but he does it with a vengeance and little attempt at coherence. Anthony de Jasay illustrated hedonistic-narcissistic statism with Princess Mathilde. In his article “Before Resorting to Politics,” reproduced in his book Against Politics, de Jasay’s writes:
Why does anyone want to resort to politics and why does anyone put one kind of political order above another? Those who are both very earthy and very frank approve the one they believe is doing the most good for them.
He then quotes Jacques Bainville, a French old-style conservative (anti-liberal) historian and political writer (the translation is de Jasay’s):
The way truly to understand history is the way of Princess Mathilde [Bonaparte]. She would not forgive those who spoke ill of Napoleon because, as she explained, “without that man, I should be selling oranges on the wharf in Marseilles.”
This is an unavoidable fact if and only if the state has the power to make anybody happy at the detriment of others or miserable in order to favor others. Bainville had nothing against that. Classical liberals and libertarians do.
READER COMMENTS
Richard W Fulmer
Jan 18 2024 at 11:53am
With Trump, “it” could refer to just about anything.
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 18 2024 at 3:12pm
Richard: I agree. And it is dramatic.
Craig
Jan 18 2024 at 1:07pm
L’etat c’est mort! The Cold Civil War is being fought partly in courtrooms. NRA, Fox, Giuliani? And return salvoes have been filed of course. Better fought in the regime’s courtrooms, I suppose, as opposed to an actual war. I do believe it really puts a spotlight on the genuine necessity for #nationaldivorce.
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 18 2024 at 3:05pm
Craig: Delenda est Carthago? Perhaps you are right, but do we have any serious reason to think that the resulting little Leviathans will be better than the big one? How can Florida compete against Mississippi with wages 24% higher in the former than in the latter? To make Florida great, tariffs will be needed, will argue Floridian Compass. Moreover, to protect the Northern border against the Mississippian workers who have lost their jobs, tough immigration controls will be needed. The Mississippi government will in turn levy a special partial-residence tax on Floridians who want to work from (inexpensive) home in Mississippi. Mississippi wants to be great too. Thinking about it, why should the Florida government allow any of its rich taxpayers to leave for Tennessee? But Tennessee needs to be great too…
Craig
Jan 18 2024 at 4:27pm
“but do we have any serious reason to think that the resulting little Leviathans will be better than the big one”
Yes, I do because I’ve lived it – “NJ”=56% and FL wouldn’t do that. I know what they did last summer, je me souviens!
Craig
Jan 18 2024 at 5:28pm
P.S. FL also has a state constitutional amendment prohibiting any increase in state taxes or fees without a supermajority.
Michael Sandifer
Jan 18 2024 at 9:47pm
Secession, I meant.
Michael Sandifer
Jan 18 2024 at 9:46pm
What do you mean by “national divorce”? Literal succession?
Craig
Jan 18 2024 at 10:52pm
“Secession, I meant.”
I figured as such and yes that’s what I mean. I have heard people like Marjorie Taylor Greene advocate along the lines of a softer divorce where the federal regime continues to maintain the military, but I don’t even want that.
Warren Platts
Jan 22 2024 at 3:10pm
Pierre, do you see where your logic eventually leads? If secession within the United States is bad, then union of the United States with Mexico & Canada must be good. Indeed, logically, it would be best if Planet Earth were one global state. But of course, to maintain order & prevent secession in a one-world state, totalitarianism would be required. Just sayin’…
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 22 2024 at 7:33pm
Warren: You are totally right. But the opposite logic of secession has only one non-arbitrary stop: the individual. If Maine secession is “good,” so is Gorham from Maine, and so is my street from Gorham, and myself from the other individuals on my street. I have made this argument many times. This is another way of saying what Anthony de Jasay argues: group rights have no logical foundation (see his chapter on this topic in Against Politics). If the state has a justification, it can only be to protect the individuals’ liberties. This, I think, justifies resisting the centralization of power, but the justification is only as good as the confidence we have that at least some decentralized units (or the one I or “we” live in or under) will protect individual liberty.
Warren Platts
Jan 23 2024 at 5:31am
Good points. We can imagine two versions of Planet Earth: (1) a single-global state; or (2) a world composed of 2,000 little nation states. The question is which of those would best protect individual liberties. Under (1), assuming no hukou system, you’d be free to travel wherever you wanted visa-free & trade among the antipodes would be tariff-free. But of course, you couldn’t have a democracy because people would vote to secede.
Under (2), you might have 2,000 little democracies, but you’d probably need visas to go to some places, there would be immigration restrictions, you might have to pay a tariff to buy something from someone on the opposite side of the planet, plus there would probably be little wars among a few of the nation states continually.
Which version is better in terms of individual liberties? It’s debatable, but personally I’d prefer the anarchic 2,000 nation state world to the orderly 1-world empire version..
vince
Jan 18 2024 at 3:11pm
Does Trump have enemies in the press? Elsewhere, too?
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 18 2024 at 3:14pm
Vince: Yes, of course. The whole world is out to take advantage of him and America (even if these two preys are one and the same).
Comments are closed.