Glad to see that at least some folks are doing it.
And check out this great release by World Can't Wait.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Counterpunch smears the Free State Project
Here. In the tradition of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, the author cherry-picks "extreme" statements ("cannibalism should be legal"), and libertarians are presumably supposed to "denounce" them. What if we just applaud them instead? The heads of soccer mom Democrats across the country would explode.
To see how badly I can horrify the sheep, I thought I'd make some "extreme" statements of my own:
Cannibalism and necrophilia should be legal, so long as the person consents before death.
It should be legal to broadcast hardcore pornography on Saturday morning television.
It should be legal to buy and sell meth, heroin, cocaine, ecstacy, shrooms, and every other nasty drug you can possibly think of.
Animals have no rights.
There should be zero restrictions on gun ownership or immigration.
People should be allowed to discriminate against any race or gender they don't like.
Teachers having sex with students really isn't much of a crime, when you think about it.
Corporations should be allowed to grow as big as they please, and charge prices as high as they feel like.
Polygamy and incest should be legalized. As Harry Browne put it, "I should be able to marry my cat if I want to."
Cops and soldiers are trash.
The Emperor has no clothes.
Oops, sorry. Did I say something "extreme?" Perhaps the shrill goo-goo leftists at Counterpunch will demand I "retract" these statements. Unfortunately for them, I have no intention of doing so. In fact, I'm proud of them.
I've got your "retraction" right here, Counterpunch:
To see how badly I can horrify the sheep, I thought I'd make some "extreme" statements of my own:
Cannibalism and necrophilia should be legal, so long as the person consents before death.
It should be legal to broadcast hardcore pornography on Saturday morning television.
It should be legal to buy and sell meth, heroin, cocaine, ecstacy, shrooms, and every other nasty drug you can possibly think of.
Animals have no rights.
There should be zero restrictions on gun ownership or immigration.
People should be allowed to discriminate against any race or gender they don't like.
Teachers having sex with students really isn't much of a crime, when you think about it.
Corporations should be allowed to grow as big as they please, and charge prices as high as they feel like.
Polygamy and incest should be legalized. As Harry Browne put it, "I should be able to marry my cat if I want to."
Cops and soldiers are trash.
The Emperor has no clothes.
Oops, sorry. Did I say something "extreme?" Perhaps the shrill goo-goo leftists at Counterpunch will demand I "retract" these statements. Unfortunately for them, I have no intention of doing so. In fact, I'm proud of them.
I've got your "retraction" right here, Counterpunch:
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Spanish unemployment through the roof
Socialism is becoming less and less popular there. But in the US, it's as popular as ever!
UPDATE: Brits are going Galt.
UPDATE: Brits are going Galt.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Torturers? Prosecute the living shit out of them.
So now that the depraved fucks got caught torturing, they're suddenly claiming they were "assured" it was legal.
Wow, what a stellar defense! I guess I can just go out and butcher a family, then claim Lionel Hutz "assured" me I wouldn't get in trouble (let alone the implications of moral law). See how well that holds up in court. If you're one of the state's autocrats, the answer is, "very well."
Wow, what a stellar defense! I guess I can just go out and butcher a family, then claim Lionel Hutz "assured" me I wouldn't get in trouble (let alone the implications of moral law). See how well that holds up in court. If you're one of the state's autocrats, the answer is, "very well."
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Market anarchism and monetary economics
Since I've been discussing monetary policy with others on the Mises forums lately, I thought this would be a great time to discuss Steve Kangas' widely linked article on the gold standard.
Full disclosure: I am not an economist or economic historian, nor am I an expert on the subject (though I strongly doubt Kangas was either). Nonetheless, his problematic arguments leap off the page. I should also add that I am not necessarily for gold (especially not a state-run gold standard), but an advocate of competing currencies. So let's go through Kangas' smug article and see where he goes astray.
The reason why the far right opposes the current money system is because it allows the government to control the size of the money supply. They argue that an unscrupulous government might pay its bills by printing more money, which would cause inflation...
And we know that's never happened in history before! Obviously a ridiculous idea.
Mainstream economists, however, have a powerful counter-argument.
Uh oh, whenever you see the word "mainstream" you know an appeal to authority or bandwagon fallacy is coming..
(BTW, most "mainstream" economists take stances on free trade, minimum wage, etc, that Kangas and his leftist ilk would never accept. So his appeal to "mainstream"--statist--economists is highly selective.)
Suppose that a village is using gold for money, but unfortunately there is only one gold nugget. Whoever possesses that nugget will be able to buy literally anything in the village -- but only once. After surrendering the nugget for an item, that person will then have to turn around and offer literally anything to get it back. Because the village has numerous people waiting in line to use the nugget for money, economic activity will slow down to a crawl, unemployment will rise, and the result is a recession. This example highlights another principle: money needs to be divisible. The village's economic activity would be doubled just by cutting the gold nugget in half. Of course, dividing money is the same thing as expanding the money supply.
This section is where Steve makes most of the errors that he discusses for the rest of the article.
Steve has a valid point about an economy not being able to function properly with an inadequate money supply. A shame it has already been addressed. In a nutshell, it is the market that decides which currency/currencies will be used. If a certain medium of exchange is far too scarce or abundant (which will send its purchasing power up or down), people will simply switch to something else.
When you really think about it, the money supply (in a market anarchist society) is basically unlimited. Everyone can choose to convert their gold or silver into rocks, plants, precious metals, abundant paper money or anything, and use that as a currency instead. Or a mix of them, or whatever. The difference is that the value is never robbed, as it is under central banking.
Kangas makes a completely fallacious claim: "Of course, dividing money is the same thing as expanding the money supply." Why he starts his sentence with "of course" is a mystery, because his statement is a complete non sequitur. There is a big difference between turning a dollar into ten dimes and printing more dollars. In the first case, I'm simply dividing the value I already have. In the second scenario, I'm creating more of it at the expense of others.
Kangas leaps from these faulty arguments to his conclusion that a secretive Federal Reserve, operated by and for the corporate elite, must constantly manipulate the money supply. Hardly a "progressive" stance, but progressivism has long been a philosophy for the rich and powerful.
Full disclosure: I am not an economist or economic historian, nor am I an expert on the subject (though I strongly doubt Kangas was either). Nonetheless, his problematic arguments leap off the page. I should also add that I am not necessarily for gold (especially not a state-run gold standard), but an advocate of competing currencies. So let's go through Kangas' smug article and see where he goes astray.
The reason why the far right opposes the current money system is because it allows the government to control the size of the money supply. They argue that an unscrupulous government might pay its bills by printing more money, which would cause inflation...
And we know that's never happened in history before! Obviously a ridiculous idea.
Mainstream economists, however, have a powerful counter-argument.
Uh oh, whenever you see the word "mainstream" you know an appeal to authority or bandwagon fallacy is coming..
(BTW, most "mainstream" economists take stances on free trade, minimum wage, etc, that Kangas and his leftist ilk would never accept. So his appeal to "mainstream"--statist--economists is highly selective.)
Suppose that a village is using gold for money, but unfortunately there is only one gold nugget. Whoever possesses that nugget will be able to buy literally anything in the village -- but only once. After surrendering the nugget for an item, that person will then have to turn around and offer literally anything to get it back. Because the village has numerous people waiting in line to use the nugget for money, economic activity will slow down to a crawl, unemployment will rise, and the result is a recession. This example highlights another principle: money needs to be divisible. The village's economic activity would be doubled just by cutting the gold nugget in half. Of course, dividing money is the same thing as expanding the money supply.
This section is where Steve makes most of the errors that he discusses for the rest of the article.
Steve has a valid point about an economy not being able to function properly with an inadequate money supply. A shame it has already been addressed. In a nutshell, it is the market that decides which currency/currencies will be used. If a certain medium of exchange is far too scarce or abundant (which will send its purchasing power up or down), people will simply switch to something else.
When you really think about it, the money supply (in a market anarchist society) is basically unlimited. Everyone can choose to convert their gold or silver into rocks, plants, precious metals, abundant paper money or anything, and use that as a currency instead. Or a mix of them, or whatever. The difference is that the value is never robbed, as it is under central banking.
Kangas makes a completely fallacious claim: "Of course, dividing money is the same thing as expanding the money supply." Why he starts his sentence with "of course" is a mystery, because his statement is a complete non sequitur. There is a big difference between turning a dollar into ten dimes and printing more dollars. In the first case, I'm simply dividing the value I already have. In the second scenario, I'm creating more of it at the expense of others.
Kangas leaps from these faulty arguments to his conclusion that a secretive Federal Reserve, operated by and for the corporate elite, must constantly manipulate the money supply. Hardly a "progressive" stance, but progressivism has long been a philosophy for the rich and powerful.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Secede NOW
Ron Paul recently suggested we should take another look at secession. The Left is infuriated. "That's craaaaaaaaaaazy talk!" "What a loon!" "I used to like this guy, but now I see that blah blah blah."
Some great comments from statists:
Mr. Paul, are you really comparing the former USSR with America under Obama?
Of course not; it would be a ridiculous comparison. The Soviet Union was more free.
And we all know how well that (secession) worked out last time in the 1860s…
We certainly do!
I used to respect Ron Paul until this came out. Even talking about seceding is un-American.
You say that as if it's a bad thing.
I think Texas should secede. They can even take Oklahoma with them, and all the right wing freaks from across the country can move down their. They can have their own government based on no taxes and no spending, and see how far they get.
If only!
Libertarians are more dangerous than conservatives. They cling to this crazy "don't tread on me" ideology. It's more destructive.
LO-freaking-L! This stuff parodies itself.
Consistent secessionists are, of course, anarchists. And it's about time we get the secession ball rolling. As one comment put it,
Secession leads to banana republics, anarchy and dictatorship.
One out of three ain't bad.
Some great comments from statists:
Mr. Paul, are you really comparing the former USSR with America under Obama?
Of course not; it would be a ridiculous comparison. The Soviet Union was more free.
And we all know how well that (secession) worked out last time in the 1860s…
We certainly do!
I used to respect Ron Paul until this came out. Even talking about seceding is un-American.
You say that as if it's a bad thing.
I think Texas should secede. They can even take Oklahoma with them, and all the right wing freaks from across the country can move down their. They can have their own government based on no taxes and no spending, and see how far they get.
If only!
Libertarians are more dangerous than conservatives. They cling to this crazy "don't tread on me" ideology. It's more destructive.
LO-freaking-L! This stuff parodies itself.
Consistent secessionists are, of course, anarchists. And it's about time we get the secession ball rolling. As one comment put it,
Secession leads to banana republics, anarchy and dictatorship.
One out of three ain't bad.
Left-wingers are turning into brownshirts
I've been posting on the total hypocrisy of the mainstream American Right recently, but the Left is even worse. At least the Right's hypocrisy is going in a positive (if unbelievable) direction. Liberal Democrats are finally letting their authoritarian sides of the bag...and it's ugly.
Leftists have always been gullible, easily led saps who fall prey to charismatic "leaders." It should not be a surprise that Obama is continuing this historical tradition. What is surprising is just how authoritarian the Left has become in only a matter of months. They have set their sights set on "secessionists" (please god, let it be true), "wing-nuts," "rightwing domestic terrorists" (anyone who fails to submit to O's subjugration), "rightwing extremists," "anarchists" (which they define as anyone with even a slight free-market bent to their thinking), and so on.
When I speak of leftists being easily exploited pawns, I'm talking about the wimp left--the HuffPo, Crooks & Liars, DailyKos crowd. The Democrat soccer mom crowd. Some on the hard/intellectual left are staying consistent, but sadly such figures are rare.
We need more radical opposition, and we need it now.
Leftists have always been gullible, easily led saps who fall prey to charismatic "leaders." It should not be a surprise that Obama is continuing this historical tradition. What is surprising is just how authoritarian the Left has become in only a matter of months. They have set their sights set on "secessionists" (please god, let it be true), "wing-nuts," "rightwing domestic terrorists" (anyone who fails to submit to O's subjugration), "rightwing extremists," "anarchists" (which they define as anyone with even a slight free-market bent to their thinking), and so on.
When I speak of leftists being easily exploited pawns, I'm talking about the wimp left--the HuffPo, Crooks & Liars, DailyKos crowd. The Democrat soccer mom crowd. Some on the hard/intellectual left are staying consistent, but sadly such figures are rare.
We need more radical opposition, and we need it now.
Conservatives act stupid...yet again
Now the conservatives are outraged at Obama for doing what should have been done long ago...making at least a feeble attempt to get along with (some) other countries.
Yes, Chavez and Obama are fascist tyrants, but that's not why conservatives are mad. The conservatives are pissed off because they want war with Venezuela, along with the rest of the world.
Yes, Chavez and Obama are fascist tyrants, but that's not why conservatives are mad. The conservatives are pissed off because they want war with Venezuela, along with the rest of the world.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Analyze Your Handwriting
Try it, but keep in mind that it's totally non-scientific.
My results:
You plan ahead, and are interested in beauty, design, outward appearance, and symmetry.
You are a social person who likes to talk and meet others.
You are affectionate, passionate, expressive, and future-oriented.
You are a talkative person, maybe even a busybody!
You enjoy life in your own way and do not depend on the opinions of others.
My results:
You plan ahead, and are interested in beauty, design, outward appearance, and symmetry.
You are a social person who likes to talk and meet others.
You are affectionate, passionate, expressive, and future-oriented.
You are a talkative person, maybe even a busybody!
You enjoy life in your own way and do not depend on the opinions of others.
Don't be fooled by conservatives
The conservative "movement" has been very fired up as of late, hosting "tea parties" and such. While it's refreshing to see some actual signs of life from the conservative Right, and perhaps a good opportunity to see how many conservatives we can turn into market anarchists (I'm living proof it's possible), we should take their newly discovered "anti-statism" with a grain..no..bucket of salt.
For one thing, the situation we're in right now is entirely the fault of conservatives. Bush set the precedent for Obama's policies (bail-outs, "stimulus" packages, insane deficit spending, etc), allowing the Democrats to move far, far, far more in that direction. Conservatives cheered Bush's policies and wars every step of the way. Bush's unpopularity, along with the pathetic bumbling campaign of war criminal McCain, handed the election to the Democrats on a silver platter. Now that they've put Obama in power and encouraged all of his policies, conservatives are outraged and throwing everything they've got at the opposition.
Sorry guys, but:
1) All of this is completely your fault.
2) The Democrats have only been in charge for a couple of months. (I'm not suggesting we "give them a chance," but that conservatives share most of the blame.)
3) You wouldn't be making a peep if McCain was doing the exact same thing. (if not worse).
4) You only oppose government spending when it's on something less crazy than what you want it spent on.
Obviously, I do not support Obama's spending spree. But it's not the worst thing in the world. I would rather have the government spend its stolen loot on pork-barrel projects and ACORN than on the military and its pointless wars.
So if anything positive can be said about the "stimulus" and out-of-control spending, it's that it may hamper the state's ability to spend money on even more destructive things that conservatives support.
For one thing, the situation we're in right now is entirely the fault of conservatives. Bush set the precedent for Obama's policies (bail-outs, "stimulus" packages, insane deficit spending, etc), allowing the Democrats to move far, far, far more in that direction. Conservatives cheered Bush's policies and wars every step of the way. Bush's unpopularity, along with the pathetic bumbling campaign of war criminal McCain, handed the election to the Democrats on a silver platter. Now that they've put Obama in power and encouraged all of his policies, conservatives are outraged and throwing everything they've got at the opposition.
Sorry guys, but:
1) All of this is completely your fault.
2) The Democrats have only been in charge for a couple of months. (I'm not suggesting we "give them a chance," but that conservatives share most of the blame.)
3) You wouldn't be making a peep if McCain was doing the exact same thing. (if not worse).
4) You only oppose government spending when it's on something less crazy than what you want it spent on.
Obviously, I do not support Obama's spending spree. But it's not the worst thing in the world. I would rather have the government spend its stolen loot on pork-barrel projects and ACORN than on the military and its pointless wars.
So if anything positive can be said about the "stimulus" and out-of-control spending, it's that it may hamper the state's ability to spend money on even more destructive things that conservatives support.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Sorry for the lack of posting
I'm still alive, just stuck in a busy week (with many a job interview).
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Jon Stewart: Property of the State
In this clip, Jon Stewart informs his audience that nobody should be concerned about the State teaming up with powerful corporations, or the gutting of our liberties, or Obama's national service programs.
Why? Because we're in a democracy, which supposedly means it isn't tyranny. What a relief!
Oh yeah, and the conservatives have no credibility, which apparently makes all criticism of Obama wrong.
Why? Because we're in a democracy, which supposedly means it isn't tyranny. What a relief!
Oh yeah, and the conservatives have no credibility, which apparently makes all criticism of Obama wrong.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Sad News
Lee, the head libertarian-conservative blogger at Right-Thinking, has apparently passed away.
Like Harry Browne's death, this is sad news for all lovers of liberty. Right-Thinking was literally the first blog I ever read, and it was the blog that initially got me into politics. It was not only persuasive, but extremely entertaining and funny. Lee had an outrageously crude sense of humor, along with a passion for profanity that can hardly be matched.
The man was an atheist who constantly blasted creationists, Christians, Muslims, and just about every other religious group--usually in a hilarious, scathing fashion. He despised the Bible-thumping wing of the Republican Party, but also the political correctness of the Left. While he was not a Rothbardian in any sense of the word, he had a heavy libertarian bent to his thinking. His stances on just about everything (the war on drugs, gay marriage, assisted suicide, economic policy, etc) showed profound respect for individual liberty. He was an independent thinker (not a kool-aid drinker) who didn't have an ounce of respect for the Ann Coulters or Rick Santorums of the world.
After I converted to libertarianism, and then to radical libertarianism, I stopped reading Right-Thinking for quite a while. This was mostly due to the neoconservative stances on foreign policy. I felt Lee had a serious blind spot when it came to militarism, and that he was often very stubborn about it.
However, although it took him longer than me, Lee eventually became extremely critical of the Bush administration and the neocon establishment. He switched from the GOP to the Libertarian Party. He started to oppose the war in Iraq and the Bush administration's dangerous assault on our civil liberties. He gave the strongest arguments against torture that I've ever read, and lost a significant portion of his readers for it. In short, he became increasingly libertarian and radical as time went on.
Recently, he had been posting less and less at Right-Thinking, leaving it mostly to a handful of others with similar views (Hal_10000 and West Virginia Rebel). He began investing more time in his (non-political) blog about living in China--where he was transferred for work stuff. I never registered or posted any comments on his blogs, but was always happy to lurk.
None of this is meant to imply that Lee would approve of everything on this blog. But he was a wonderful human being and his death really, really sucks. An extremely sad day.
Like Harry Browne's death, this is sad news for all lovers of liberty. Right-Thinking was literally the first blog I ever read, and it was the blog that initially got me into politics. It was not only persuasive, but extremely entertaining and funny. Lee had an outrageously crude sense of humor, along with a passion for profanity that can hardly be matched.
The man was an atheist who constantly blasted creationists, Christians, Muslims, and just about every other religious group--usually in a hilarious, scathing fashion. He despised the Bible-thumping wing of the Republican Party, but also the political correctness of the Left. While he was not a Rothbardian in any sense of the word, he had a heavy libertarian bent to his thinking. His stances on just about everything (the war on drugs, gay marriage, assisted suicide, economic policy, etc) showed profound respect for individual liberty. He was an independent thinker (not a kool-aid drinker) who didn't have an ounce of respect for the Ann Coulters or Rick Santorums of the world.
After I converted to libertarianism, and then to radical libertarianism, I stopped reading Right-Thinking for quite a while. This was mostly due to the neoconservative stances on foreign policy. I felt Lee had a serious blind spot when it came to militarism, and that he was often very stubborn about it.
However, although it took him longer than me, Lee eventually became extremely critical of the Bush administration and the neocon establishment. He switched from the GOP to the Libertarian Party. He started to oppose the war in Iraq and the Bush administration's dangerous assault on our civil liberties. He gave the strongest arguments against torture that I've ever read, and lost a significant portion of his readers for it. In short, he became increasingly libertarian and radical as time went on.
Recently, he had been posting less and less at Right-Thinking, leaving it mostly to a handful of others with similar views (Hal_10000 and West Virginia Rebel). He began investing more time in his (non-political) blog about living in China--where he was transferred for work stuff. I never registered or posted any comments on his blogs, but was always happy to lurk.
None of this is meant to imply that Lee would approve of everything on this blog. But he was a wonderful human being and his death really, really sucks. An extremely sad day.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Watching Woods
So I went to see Tom Woods speak tonight, about the economic meltdown. It was a great presentation (Woods was very humorous), but for whatever reason I felt like an outsider being there. I got strange looks, and have the feeling a lot of people there suspected I was a left-liberal. In other words, I fit in with the Ayers-Churchill crowd fine, but not with one that shares my philosophy...LOL.
The audience was mostly a conservative/libertarian hybrid, with a handful of intelligent liberals. One badass standing in the back had a Murray Rothbard "Enemy of the State" shirt on. Rock on, bro!
It's funny to say this, considering my previous post, but I was actually quite relieved to see some left-libertarians there---one of whom politely handed me an A-L-L pamphlet. While I've been critical of the excesses of some left-libertarians, it was a joy to see them. And it was hilarious watching them hand anarchist pamphlets (each with a big circle-A on the front) to a relatively conservative audience.
Market anarchism (or whatever the F you want to call it) is really spreading!
The audience was mostly a conservative/libertarian hybrid, with a handful of intelligent liberals. One badass standing in the back had a Murray Rothbard "Enemy of the State" shirt on. Rock on, bro!
It's funny to say this, considering my previous post, but I was actually quite relieved to see some left-libertarians there---one of whom politely handed me an A-L-L pamphlet. While I've been critical of the excesses of some left-libertarians, it was a joy to see them. And it was hilarious watching them hand anarchist pamphlets (each with a big circle-A on the front) to a relatively conservative audience.
Market anarchism (or whatever the F you want to call it) is really spreading!
Friday, April 3, 2009
Left-libertarian Messiah Goes Corporatist
Dean Baker author of the online book, The Conservative Nanny State (frequently cited by left-libertarians), is just another apologist for corporatism.
*This post has been rewritten, because it was written badly.
*This post has been rewritten, because it was written badly.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Allow Me To Proclaim Myself a Genius in Advance
Everybody, apparently, predicted our current economic situation. (No disrespect to Kubby, who was probably the LP's best candidate last year.)
Well damn it, I want in.
I predict the economy will recover at some point.
I predict it will then get crappy again, some time later.
Finally, I predict....*drum roll* a GREAT DEPRESSION that will last a hundred years! When will it come? No idea. Might not be for a while. But when it comes, don't say I didn't warn you in a highly sensationalist fashion.
If it never comes, it's because you didn't wait long enough.
I'm definitely saving this post, so that I can later show how f-ing right I was. I should be the new host of Mad Money.
Well damn it, I want in.
I predict the economy will recover at some point.
I predict it will then get crappy again, some time later.
Finally, I predict....*drum roll* a GREAT DEPRESSION that will last a hundred years! When will it come? No idea. Might not be for a while. But when it comes, don't say I didn't warn you in a highly sensationalist fashion.
If it never comes, it's because you didn't wait long enough.
I'm definitely saving this post, so that I can later show how f-ing right I was. I should be the new host of Mad Money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
%20torture(1).jpg)