On yesterday’s first day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand twelve, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-sixth, President Barack Obama has in one of his more strikingly Bushian moments (of which there are many) declared “Loyalty Day” as a national holiday to be celebrated annually.

Now, at first glance, this seems fairly innocuous.  The press release drops a lot of distinctively American, feel-good rhetoric — “Founders,” “Constitution,” “liberty, equality, and justice” — these are things which, by and large, we all like.  To observe Loyalty Day, we are encouraged to display an American flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance, presumably while pondering the principles and history the release discusses.

And yet — Loyalty Day is hands down disturbing, but I’m glad this declaration is getting so much attention.

You see, as it turns out, Loyalty Day isn’t a brand new thing, though you might get that impression from the White House press release.  It’s been around for decades, and most recent Presidents have made one declaration about it over the course of their time in office.  But, whether because ofgrowing cynicism in American politics or thanks to the GOP’s short-term memory loss in its opposition to Barack Obama, this particular declaration seems to be sparking more outrage.  Here’s why that makes the declaration, though not the holiday, a good thing:

1. That press release could have been written by Glenn Beck at the height of an on-air frenzy, but it was released by the Obama White House.  The tone has every bit of the most concerning strain of red-state genuflection before the military and other “patriotic” aspects of our government and history, but it isn’t a red-state document.  It demonstrates the equal willingness of both sides of the aisle to play on emotion — on love of country and pride in history — to advance uncritical allegiance to the state.

The fundamental monolith of libertarian morality is the non-aggression principle (NAP), also known as the non-aggression axiom. The NAP is the idea that it is wrong to initiate physical force, threats of force, or lies against others. As such, self-defense and peaceful coexistence and interaction is moral, and attacking others or manipulating people is immoral. This has also been referred to as “Kindergarden Morality,” as it rings home with what we are all taught when we are young -- don’t hit others, don’t threaten others, don’t lie to others. In as much that people have a right to self-ownership, the NAP follows with necessity, as it is the basic moral framework that enables interaction with others while not infringing upon their rights, which are equal to the rights that you yourself have.

Most people would, at the most basic level, accept that the Non-aggression principle is generally correct, not because it is true a priori, but because it appeals to basic moral intuitions with which we were born. The thing about natural law moral axioms such as the NAP, though, is that they are always true:  Whether or not we agree with it, the irreducible logical consistency of the NAP dictates that it is in fact true. The NAP is  deontological, in that morality is determined based upon an objective duty (being the NAP itself).

The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War

Continued from Part I: The Great Hyperspace War

Part II: The Invasion of Naboo

For those less-than-diehard Star Wars fans who insist that anything not in the six movies doesn’t count, they can witness this political-economic travesty of protectionism in Episode I: The Phantom Menace.  Because of a dispute over the taxation of trade routes to other star systems, the Trade Federation launches a blockade of the planet Naboo.  When the Jedi knights Qui-Gon Jinn and Obi-Wan Kenobi are sent to negotiate a settlement with the Trade Federation’s Viceroy, their diplomatic mission is simply to settle the issue but not to open the blockade, which, according to the Viceroy, is “perfectly legal.”  The notable Austrian school economist Mark Thornton makes an excellent political-economic analysis of the Trade Federation’s aggression against the Naboo:

Lucas sends a clear message that the Federation agreement with the corrupt Republic is based on the model of British Imperialism by filling the movie with historical imagery. The Federation is British Imperialism in the form of the East India Company, which controlled and taxed the British possession of the Indian sub-continent. Of course, entrepreneurs complained and evaded British taxes and regulations, but the British Empire gave out monopoly rights to control India and other colonial trading rights in return for tax revenue.