An interesting observation

Has anyone else noted the surprisingly--perhaps disproportionately--high number of libertarian thinkers (including the big names) that are/were Jewish?

Just thought it was kind of interesting.

Oh noez! PDAs will battle!

Michael Savage recently decided to sue a British politian for banning him from Britain.

If you're a minarchist, you're probably amazed to hear that the US and Britain aren't duking it out in a horrible war. After all, there is no world government, meaning there is no "final arbiter" (or whatever they keep babbling about). So there should be total chaos, according to the minarchists. Yet there isn't any.

Introducing...a blogroll!

Well, it's pretty incredible that it took me nearly a year to get to it (which says a lot about my laziness), but I finally added a blogroll. It consists of:

-friends
-readers
-blogs I read

I threw this together really quick and am probably forgetting more than a few people. If I forgot you or you want me to add you, please tell me in the comments! Just keep in mind that I have as many readers as Obama has principles.

UPDATE:

A funny comment left at SE's blog, in response to my memorial day post:

Wow....how "heroic" of you to honor those as you say...and quite frankly, I am being sarcastic! My Grandfather, and Great Uncles fought and lost their innocence in a war that if not had happened, your way of thinking would not be happening right now! You would be speaking German or quite possibly not be a part of this earth as we speak if you were not of the "true" race since that was what Hilter was aiming for in his quest to rid the world of those he hated. I, frankly am insulted at your words and feel that you owe my relatives an apology! I feel you need a good day in the local Veteran's Hospital cleaning up bed pans and speaking with those who have given up their independence in order for you to write such hatred. If you do not like this holiday, or the fact that we even have a military, then I suggest your move your sorry self to a country that fits your views!

Could there be a single cliche this putz forgot? LOL.

Fisking FSK

In a somewhat recent FSK post, he made the flat-out ludicrous claim that:

In a real free market, there is no way to enforce limited liability contracturally. Therefore, limited liability incorporation cannot occur in a real free market. Only a State can force a business' customers and creditors to accept limited liability provisions.

I responded:

Do you seriously believe this?! This is downright crazy.

To which he responded:

Since we're already name calling, I claim that you are the one with stupid beliefs. This is a common mistake by pro-State (L)libertarians.

Why are idiots so eager to defend corporations?

First, it is plainly obvious that there was no "name calling" in my comment. I said his statement was crazy--because it is. In fact, it's so breath takingly idiotic that I suspect even opponents of corporations would be embarrassed by it.

For those interested in reading a libertarian argument for corporations (or de facto corporations, at least), I strongly recommend Lee McCracken's Corporations in a Free Society.

FSK goes on:

In a true free market, no reasonable person would agree to a limited liability clause. Under certain circumstances, I might rule such an clause irrelevant, if I were judge in a free market court.

For example, suppose I walk into a restaurant as a customer. Before being served, the waiter makes me sign a "limited liability agreement". In the event I receive food poisoning, I agree that damages are limited to the assets of the restaurant. You certainly would view the waiter and restaurant with suspicion, wouldn't you? I can't imagine such a practice being commonplace in a real free market.

This is interesting, because the last time I had an operation done at the hospital, I could have sworn that I signed a form promising not to blame them if something went wrong during the procedure. Everyone else in the waiting room had clearly signed the form as well, and done so voluntarily. Dying is certainly a bigger risk than food poisoning. How do these things happen?

But let's be clear: even if you agree with FSK on the tort issue (and believe that shareholders are automatically liable for all torts, along with a laundry list of other dubious assertions), his stance goes far beyond that. He doesn't even believe that creditors (!?) would agree to limited liability without state intervention! No matter how good the investment looks! Sheer madness. Even the most ardent libertarian critics of corporations (such as Kevin Carson) have conceded that point.

Now before anyone jumps on me, let me say that I'm not denying limited liability would operate differently in ancapistan than it does now. Nor do I claim to be an expert on the intricacies of tort law. Perhaps some aspects of modern tort law do unfairly limit liability. I don't know--I'm not a lawyer. But does anyone seriously agree with FSK's original statement that "Only a State can force a business' customers and creditors to accept limited liability provisions"? It's nuckin' futs!

An online book to read if you haven't

Against Authority, by Hogeye Bill

The chapter on the history of anarchist thought (from an ancap perspective) is especially worth reading.

For those who thought my "memorial day" post went too far...

Cram it. (H/t to Mike)

Every time I think these sickening animals couldn't sink any lower, they do. If there was any deceny in the world, we would have a series of buses transport people from the VA hospitals to maximum security prisons, where they belong.

Health Care Myths

I hate arguing against socialist medicine, because it's difficult to do so without sounding like I'm defending the current statist system (which I have no interest in preserving).

Nonetheless, I am SO sick and tired of the left's "47 million uninsured" and other heavily misleading statistics that I had to dedicate a post to it.

The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen's Guide, by Sally C. Pipes (special emphasis on myth 10)
Beyond Those Health Care Numbers, by Greg Mankiw
The Problems with Socialized Health Care
The Myths of Single-Payer Health Care, by David Hogberg
A Little Healthcare History, by Lee (Note: this is one small post out of an extensive archive at Moorewatch, which has refuted nearly every healthcare myth in the book.)
Why the U.S. Ranks Low on WHO's Health-Care Study, by John Stossel
Another Bogus Report Card for U.S. Medical Care, by John Stossel
Uncovering Some Really Bad Science
and...this fantastic Cato article

I could drop links all day, but this will suffice for the moment. I'm just sick of hearing these faulty claims being regurgitated all day long.

Rothbard: "Listen, YAF!"

An excellent article. And one in which it often seems as if Rothbard is warning us to stay away from Hoppeans:

This open letter is addressed to the libertarians attending the YAF national convention in St. Louis this Labor Day weekend. Notice I said the libertarians in YAF; I have nothing to say to the so-called "traditionalists" (a misnomer, by the way, for we libertarians have our traditions too, and they are glorious ones. It all depends on which traditions: the libertarian ones of Paine and Price, of Cobden and Thoreau, or the authoritarian ones of Torquemada and Burke and Metternich.) Let us leave the authoritarians to their Edmund Burkes and their Crowns of St. Something-or-other...

How come I am an exile from the Right-wing, while the conservative movement is being run by a gaggle of ex-Communists and monarchists? What kind of a conservative movement is this? This kind: one that you have no business being in...

You can see for yourselves that you have nothing in common with the frank theocrats, the worshippers of monarchy, the hawkers after a New Inquisition, the Bozells and the Wilhelmsens. Yet you continue in harness with them. Why? Because of the siren songs of the so-called "fusionists" — the Meyers and Buckleys and Evanses — who claim to be integrating and synthesizing the best of "tradition" and liberty...

His comments on torture are just as relevant today:

The cops, with their monopoly of coercion and their overwhelming superiority of arms, tend to brutalize, club, and torture confessions from people who are either innocent or have not been proven guilty. What has been the attitude of the Right-wing, and your fusionist leaders, toward this systematic brutality, or toward the libertarian decisions of the Warren Court that have put up protections for the individual rights of the accused? You know very well. They hate the Warren Court almost as much as they do Reds, for "coddling criminals," and the cry goes up everywhere for all power to the police. What can be more profoundly statist, despotic, and anti-libertarian than that?

Read the whole thing, it's brilliant.

A great quote..

..from Murray Bookchin:

"People who resist authority, who defend the rights of the individual, who try in a period of increasing totalitarianism and centralization to reclaim these rights -- this is the true left in the United States. Whether they are anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists, or libertarians who believe in free enterprise...I feel much closer, ideologically, to such individuals than I do to the totalitarian liberals and Marxist-Leninists of today."

Classic O'Reilly pwnage

Can you imagine what it would be like if one of us was given a chance to appear on O'Reilly's show? I think his head would literally explode.

WOOHOO!

Finally, I'm employed somewhere! I start Monday!

Hells yeah!

I'm going to celebrate by going to Jamba Juice. God I love that place.

Question for metalhead readers

Does anyone here have the new Meshuggah album? Or the new Manson album?

Are they worth buying? Or should I play it safe and wait until there are a bunch of cheap, previously owned copies?

Mucho thanks.

And just for kicks, here's my favorite Meshuggah song:

The Keith Preston Dustup

Most of us who have spent time in the anarcho-libertarian quarters of the net are familiar with the work of Keith Preston. The man is a great libertarian-anarchist thinker, and I've linked others to his work many a time. His essay Beyond Conservatism is especially worth reading, as are his many criticisms of the anarcho-commies.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Mike and Kevin that his crusade against political correctness has crossed the line into bigotry.

There are other libertarian bloggers who devote nearly all their time to "culture war" issues. I'm not one of them, because it just doesn't interest me much. Admittedly, this might be because I'm not a member of any minority group.

But I've always viewed "cultural conservatism" as little else than a cheap excuse to blindly hate all minorities. Is it really all that gutsy to rip on a small group of people who are already treated with contempt every day of their lives? Can't we just leave them alone, or--god forbid--try to lift them up instead of tear them down further? No, that would be "PC."

Further, Keith has some views I've always seen as at odds with libertarian anarchism, such as his opposition to open borders. Sorry, but anyone who believes in state control over the "borders" (imaginary lines drawn by plutocrats) is in minarchist, not anarchist territory (pun intended)? This of course conflicts with the silly "populist right," but it's the anarchist position nonetheless.

The whole thing a damn shame, because so many of Preston's non-culture-war articles are a blast to read. But now he's gone out and pissed everyone off--alienated friggin' everyone--just to throw some red meat to the Neo-Nazi wolves. Ick.

A memorial day we can all get behind

Mass murderers day...er...Memorial day, as we're all aware, is tomorrow. It's a disgrace of a holiday where we "honor" those who have murdered, raped, pillaged, nuked, and tortured for the state.

The state's (I refuse to call them "our") veterans deserve a lot of things--such as being spit on, or locked up for crimes against humanity--but respect is hardly one of them.

Some anarchists will tell you that the troops died for nothing. But that's not exactly true.

They died to butcher women and children. They died to make life miserable and unbearable for people all across the globe. They died to strengthen the police state. They died to take away our liberties. They died to enrich the military industrial complex. They died to make the world safe for US-style corporatist capitalism. They died to strengthen dictators and tyrants. They died to ensure US hegemony over the entire world, and to enslave the innocent. They died to destroy and steal from foreign countries. They died to worsen the economy and harm the poor. They died to end habeas corpus and protect torture.

In a nutshell: they died to make the world a far worse, far more despicable, and far more dangerous place. And they did so knowing exactly what they were doing.

Rather than show any respect for veterans, we should use this day to remember those who do deserve to be remembered: those who have been slaughtered by the troops, those whose lives have been permanently destroyed by the troops, those who refused to serve, those who deserted the troops in times of battle, and those who betrayed their own country in times of war.

Now that's a memorial day I could get behind.

Just got back from the new Terminator movie

My friend liked it, but I thought it was pretty weak. Mindless Hollywood action at its most mindless. Not a hair of character development anywhere. Forgettable as ever. It has some cool special effects, but it's not even as good as the third one. Avoid it, unless you have the attention span of a gnat.

It's official

Tom Tancredo is more libertarian than Bob Barr.

Kind of sad, huh?

Which is better?

The Democratic Socialists of America, or the anarcho-communists?

Personally, I'm leaning toward the Democratic Socialists of America. From their website:

Democratic Socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.

So they're willing to allow some degree of free enterprise, unlike the anarcho-communists. And while they advocate harsh control over everything else, their overall program isn't much more statist than so-called "libertarian socialism" would be in practice.

Sadly, the Democratic Socialists of America may be preferable to the anarcho-communists.

One syllabus for all schools?!

A recent "column" at Common Dreams calls for the United States to move toward Democratic Socialism. The comments left in response are pretty nauseating.

From a poster named Lefty:

Given the current collapse of our economy, it is now time to fully break the grip that our corporate fascist political and business leaders now have on this country. This list should include:
1. Nationalize the banking system.
2. Nationalize the insurance industry.
3. Nationalize or regulate the petroleum industry much like the electric and natural gas industries are regulated.
4. Single payer health insurance.
5. A robust higher education system in this country. Interest free students loans. $1000 a year tuition and room board at all state universities.
6. Campaign election reform. If you can't vote in an election you can't contribute to a campaign.
7. Nationalize any industry that does not follow the laws of supply and demand. [Wtf? -Cork]

Other posters clearly agree:

I agree with many of the comments by Lefty. There should be nationalisation of the essential utilities - gas, electric, water, banks (lending for mortgages, national savings, one set of interest rates), insurance. There should be one syllabus for all schools..

Multiple syllabi would be a threat to the regime's indoctrination, I'm guessing. Lovely. Keep in mind that this is from a fairly mainstream left-progressive site.

Good god these people are frightening.

The absurdity of anti-capitalism

In order to be an anti-capitalist, you would have to believe that

1) Entrepreneurs and inventors make the world poorer and worse off with each one of their new ideas.
2) The capitalists who provide the money for their innovations are also increasing poverty and harming the world.
3) The resulting new job opportunities impoverish the masses even further.

Could there be a set of views more self-evidently false and insane? I can't think of a better way to capture the pure absurdity of their beliefs in such a brief post.

The utilitarian case for radical market anarchism

Since a lot of people are (often understandably) not convinced by normative arguments based on "rights," I wanted to make the utilitarian case for free market/individualist anarchism...in a single post.

Why should a utilitarian be radically anti-state? The answer is laid out so well in this essay, it’s not even worth trying to rephrase it:

Anarchists oppose the state (defined as an organization with a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force in a given country) because the state exists for the sole purpose of limiting human freedom and imposing the will of a certain group of people (usually a tiny minority) on the rest of a nation’s citizens. Because of the state, millions of people are incarcerated—mostly for nonviolent and “victimless” offenses—and forced to live in totalitarian conditions in which they have absolutely no control over their own situations. Because of the state, untold multitudes are forced to alter their behavior for fear of enduring punishment and incarceration if they act autonomously. Because of the state, millions of people die in wars and genocides, and millions of others are forced to live under foreign occupation in which their liberty is severely restricted. It is obvious that, so long as the state exists, human beings can never attain maximum freedom or maximum happiness, and so, utilitarians and anarchists should oppose the state.
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=4486

It doesn’t get much more succinct than that! Governments killed something like 262 million people in the last century. Governments are the most brutal, unaccountable organizations in the history of mankind. They’ve brought tyranny, oppression, slavery, and poverty wherever they’ve been allowed to exist. They benefit a small but powerful elite at the expense of everyone else. Governments have brought us unspeakable horrors: gas chambers, torture dungeons, gulags, mass executions, human ovens, large-scale starvation, ethnic cleansing, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Newt Gingrich, you name it. And there’s no end in sight! There’s only one remedy: abolish the state immediately, completely, and unapologetically, piss on its ashes, and then put its “leaders” on trial for crimes against humanity.

The utilitarian case for the total free market also simple to make. Market anarchism would allow for unrestrained competition, capital accumulation, and innovation like we’ve never seen before. People would be rewarded, not punished (as they are in the current system) for creating wealth and raising the standard of living. People would be punished, not subsidized (as they are in the current system) for failing to raise the standard of living. The rewards and punishments in both departments would be far, far greater, which is a good thing. The poor would easily benefit the most from all of this. (See George Reisman’s article Anti-Obamanomics for a more extensive discussion of this.)

Money would no longer be diverted to wealthy government bureaucrats and their cronies, nor would it be spent on their trillion-dollar wars or boondoggles. The Federal Reserve would no longer transfer wealth from the poor to the ultra-rich. The countless monopolists, price gougers, illegitimate landholders, and authoritarian employers propped up by the government would be put out of business. The minimum wage would no longer trap people in grinding poverty to make billionaire leftists feel good. Regressive taxes (social security, sales taxes, etc) would no longer exist. People trying to start their own businesses or become self-employed would no longer be stopped or punished by government regulators

Market anarchism would mean complete freedom and autonomy for all individuals. Instead of living as serfs on the land of a feudal government, every single person would have absolute control over their lives and the decisions they make. Everyone would be free to keep every last penny (would pennies even exist?) they make, and free to spend it however they want. Instead of a one-size-fits-all, poorly run government education system, they would be able to choose whatever school they want, with whatever values they want, at whatever price they want. The same goes for health care, garbage collection, firefighters, postal service, and everything else. There would be far more choices than with a government monopoly (or a heavily cartelized economy). And when people are free to choose from a number of options, they are usually more happy than when they are coerced into one.

People could choose for themselves what drugs (including prescription drugs) they want to use, what guns they want to buy, who they want to marry, who they wish to associate with, and which charities they want to donate to, without government idiots interfering. What does that sound like? Freedom!

No more FCC telling us what we can and can’t watch. No more “selective service.” No more Department of Homeland Stupidity with its absurd color warnings. No more restrictions on freedom of speech. No more Rick Santorums using legislation to ram their insane religious beliefs down our throats. No more laughably ineffective government police, who crack down on petty “crimes” while leaving violent wackjobs free to terrorize us. No more military industrial complex, medical industrial complex, or security industrial complex. Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity would likely have to sell themselves into prostitution (which would also be legal). What does all of this add up to? Greatly enhanced autonomy, extreme freedom, and more happiness.

When should we want all of this? Now!! As quickly as possible! Radical abolitionism is the only way we’ll ever get anywhere. Gradual and “pragmatic” reforms will never achieve anything.

So whether you're a Stirnerite egoist looking to promote his own interests, a Kropotkinite do-gooder who wants to help society as a whole, or someone else skeptical of arguments from "rights," you should consider market anarchism.

Missing the point

As I watch pundits bicker back and forth about torture on TV shows, I continue to be baffled that opponents of torture never bring up the most vital point:

NOBODY KNOWS WHETHER THE VICTIMS ARE EVEN TERRORISTS.

How in the world could anyone arguing against torture actually fail to make this point? Opponents of torture are reduced to arguing that it "doesn't work." Weak, man.

Here's Jesse Ventura debating some monster on Fox News (h/t to LRC).





Although Ventura did his best taking on three hard-core fascists, he seems to just assume, along with the hosts, that the victims of torture are "terrorists." He had several perfect opportunities to correct the stupid neocon jackass, but never did.

The neocon asks whether Abraham Lincoln, Harry Truman, and FDR should have been prosecuted. Well, duh. But the neocon has a point: civil libertarians would support the prosecution of those dead criminals and tyrants if they were consistent. A shame that they aren't.

Heading to the land of our ancestors

Sorry for the lack of posting lately. I'll be in Europe for a week (starting tomorrow), and have several job interviews right when I get back. So I'm kind of busy, and probably won't post again for a little over a week. Not sure how all of you will get along without my brilliant commentary [/sarcasm].

If you need a few chuckles, check out Ron Paul's latest "opponent." This doofus is even less impressive than Paul's previous opponent, Chris Peden. Not an easy feat!

Is anyone else...

...enjoying the total collapse of the Republican Party? I cackle with sadistic glee every time I see what new hole these clowns have dug themselves into, and laugh even harder when I hear about each new harebrained "plan" they've come up with to con people into voting for their godawful party. Funny stuff!

David Frum is worried about the dwindling number of college educated voters in the GOP. Well Frum boy, when your party appeals only to anti-intellectual morons and dumbasses, shouldn't that tell you something? The GOP ain't exactly MENSA central. While the left's intellectuals (Chomsky et all) have plenty of silly beliefs, they at least qualify as intellectuals. The Republican right has no actual intellectuals at all.

Unless this guy is your idea of an intellectual:

Obama "regrets" slaughtering Afghans for the rich

Well, isn't that just dandy? He orders the murder of children, but oh, he regrets it afterwards!

Tell that to some kid with his limbs blown off, you fool. I'm sure that'll make him feel much better.

Jon Stewart defends mass murder

This guy has to be the single biggest pussy on the planet. Not a drop of integrity anywhere in his body. Sad.

UPDATE: The idiot neocons are also outraged, but for the opposite reason, of course. I couldn't resist fisking this one comment by a hysterical neocon at NewsBusters.

I want this coward, Jon Stewart, to talk to any surviving WWII veterans or their families. I want him to tell them that Truman is a war criminal.

There's some truth here: Stewart would be too big of a coward to do this. But I certainly wouldn't. I would be more than happy to politely, calmly explain to a vet that Truman was a cold-blooded murderer, a ruthless genocidal butcher, and a savage war criminal. If religion wasn't a hoax, Truman would be rotting in hell as we speak, probably in the same pit as Adolf Hitler.

Would the vet object? Who cares?

These heroes [sic] and their children will tell this idiot that Truman's actions saved millions of American lives (and in reality, hundreds of thousands of Japanese).

ROFL. Of course! The best way to save lives is to go around nuking people.

Jon Stewart is a person who is lucky enough that he has never had to sacrafice a damned thing in his privledged little life.

I don't know about Stewart, but I'm certainly not dumb enough to make any "sacrafice" for the state or its corporate cronies. Anyone who is simply gets what's coming to him.



He should be grateful!

Radical libertarian PWNS conservatives

In the comments to this post, some dude named SethF is really taking out the trash!

My life is a wreck, but I'm taking it rather it well

Welp, I'm about to graduate from college and go into the real world. Thank god!

The downside? Despite months and months of downright ruthless hunting, I haven't locked up a job or even an internship. So I'm going to graduate as a freakin' bum: a nightmare I tried to avoid by starting my job search early.

These are not the words of some stoner slacker dickweed, folks: I have a high GPA and a fairly decent resume. In fact, I have plenty of employers interested in talking to me about sales positions. The problem is, while I have some experience in that area (and even enjoy it to a large extent), I'm not sure it's what I want to do for a living. I want a job in the field I majored in, dammit! I know the economy sucks, but seriously..can't a man get a break?

On the up-side, I'll be taking a nice, relaxing vacation in Europe not too long from now. And it looks like I might be moving to the East Coast (the Big Apple) with my friend by the end of the summer. What are my plans for once I get there? I have none. I'm wingin' it like mad, people.

So if I'm going to be a bum, at least I'll be a bum living out his dreams! ;D

Hierarchy and usury, once again

As I've stated numerous times, my principal objection to left-libertarianism is not cultural, but economic and scientific. A real-life economy simply could not function on left-libertarian principles. This is because the simplistic rule of "no hierarchy" essentially means "no division of labor."

The entrepreneurs, inventors, innovators, and "men of the mind" (as Rand called them) will always be the leaders, the risk-takers, and the project managers. Everyone else will always be (voluntary) followers, for their own benefit. As Tom Woods put it:

Leaving aside the odd view that only manual laborers engage in “work,” all the brawn in the world could never have produced a steam engine or a Pentium processor. Only when informed by the knowledge of inventors and supplied with the capital saved by capitalists can the average laborer produce the tiniest fraction of what he is today accustomed to producing.

So the left-libertarian desire to "smash hierarchy" amounts to "smash the brains of the operation" and "smash the division of labor." Let the workers democratically replace the mind of the person in charge! (And let's allow hospital janitors to "vote" on the decisions of surgeons while we're at it.)

A comment on Rad Geek's blog also discusses the inescapability of the division of labor:

Well, let’s set this straight: the difference of talents and character will certainly produce labor contracts wherein the capitalist assumes the (entrepreneurial) risk-taking weight and the wage-earners obtain a fixed income where there was none in a self-“employment” setting. This vertical division of labor is far superior (as the horizontal or trade type) to independent laboring. The fact that you find it forming over and over, spontaneously (see Menger-Hayek-Leoni) in small populations, deserted areas and anarchic settings (no black flags or blogs, just the lack of any State presence suffices) must tell you something about its validity as an institution.

When I bring these types of arguments up to left-libertarians, they get angry very quickly and claim (unconvincingly) that they aren't against the division of labor. But it has to be one or the other--either no hierarchy or no division of labor. Take your pick.

Other left-libertarians realize how weak their position is after you explain it to them. Some will gradually concede, "Fine, there has to be some hierarchy and a division of labor. It's the autonomy of teh workers I'm concerned about."

Fine. I'm concerned about that too. Focus on autonomy, then. But I won't be satisfied until all of them confront these problems head-on instead of evading them (before going on to ramble about "hierarchy" again, as if they have some keen insight the rest of us are unaware of).

Another dilemma left-libertarians refuse to confront is that of "usury." Few of them will give a straight answer on whether they think it's ok to make profits off a firm one doesn't work in. IMO, anyone not opposed to that is not a leftist or left-libertarian, but some breed of capitalist.

So ends another post on a subject that's getting tiresome. But I had to get my thoughts out there.