Thoughts on the Ron Paul newsletters

The old story on Ron Paul's newsletters has surfaced again, with Ron Paul claiming he knew nothing about them and never read them.

While I doubt Ron Paul is a racist, and I understand that the story is old, and I get that all of the other candidates are far more evil, it still baffles my mind that Ron Paul would make such a bizarre and easily avoidable mistake.

Let's not pretend that these newsletters were merely "politically incorrect." They were, in fact, horrifically racist and incendiary. The comments on apartheid in South Africa especially made my stomach churn, as did the KKK-esque warnings of a "coming race war."

Ron Paul is probably telling the truth that he didn't write them, but surely he knew something about them. They were (most likely) written by his paleo buddies, and it's laughably unlikely that Paul doesn't know which of them were involved.

It's also ridiculously unlikely that Paul knew nothing about their content. While Paul may not be a racist, my honest opinion is that he didn't mind letting his paleo friends pander to them. This vile shit was going out under HIS NAME. Written in the first person. Sometimes with his SIGNATURE after it. I don't know about you, but anyone who published such filth under my name would get their lights knocked out--especially if I was in politics for Chrissakes. It clearly didn't bother Paul much..which is simply amazing.

I find that unbelievably bizarre. Why wasn't Paul bothered by the whole ordeal? Did he seriously think it wouldn't come back to bite him on the ass, if nothing else?

Strange, man.

Bachmann: Raise taxes on the poor! Fuck yeah!

Republicans are now aiming to hike taxes on the poor and middle class. Bachmann says everybody should "pay something" to the murderous state, and by "everybody" she means everyone except the rich (who will be on the "receiving" end of the robbery). The other big contenders seem to agree.

While we've come to expect this from Republicans, I'm surprised how few libertarians have jumped on this outrage. This is the most horrific and anti-human tax raise I've ever heard of, and it's from the "anti-tax" party.

Why freedom and capitalism are incompatible

Part of being a committed political blogger is evaluating and re-evaluating your views over time. While I remain committed to the demise of the state, along with market economics, I've come to accept most of the leftist critique of modern capitalism.

As the economy currently stands, large corporations and banks maximize returns for a dwindling number of wealthy absentee owners--who contribute no real labor (entrepreneurial or otherwise) to their enterprises. For obvious reasons, this tends to slant the entire economy in their favor, at the expense of everybody else. One credible study concluded that "reductions in wages and benefits explain the majority of the net improvement in [recent profit] margins."

It's not just the inevitable (excessive) inequality of this arrangement that's problematic. It's the fact that the absentee owners couldn't care less about workplace safety, workplace liberty, leisure time, or local communities. A democratically-run firm would have a far stronger incentive to care about all four, instead of being concerned only with profits for outside investors.

That's not to say that there wouldn't be investors under my version of market anarchism. Investment is a form of mental labor that deserves to be compensated in the form of interest. But most capitalist "investment" consists of merely buying stock from other absentee owners, rather than pumping fresh capital into productive enterprises.

There would still be managers and entrepreneurs, as well. The difference is that everyone in the firm would have democratic control over people put in managerial positions (assuming they don't choose to manage in a more cooperative fashion). The division of labor remains intact, but the gratuitous authoritarianism of modern corporate America is dealt a big blow.

Kevin Carson et all were right all along. Markets =/= capitalism. We can and should embrace the first concept without the second.

A decision to be proud of

This afternoon, I did what I should have done a long time ago and joined the ACLU. After watching the Republican candidates brag about how they will invade Iran and murder every living thing there, I decided that I will do whatever it takes to fight these sick bastards (including the Obombya regime) and everything they stand for. I am proud to ally myself with such a fine organization, and happy that my donation will also go toward fighting the war on drugs, creationism in schools, the prison system, and all the other idiocy that conservatives support.

If O'Reilly hates them, they deserve support. Period.

What kind of "ist" am I?

Over the last few years, I've defined and redefined what kind of "ist" I am. In case anyone is wondering (who am I kidding?), I still identify as an individualist anarchist. And after becoming better read on worker self-management, especially by left-libertarian authors like Kirkpatrick Sale, I've come to accept the traditional anti-capitalist strand of individualist anarchism. I've had my issues with worker cooperatives in the past, but most of the objections I had have been answered. I just had to read the right books! (Thank you, Human Scale)

I'm a manager myself...at a big corporation. Does that not make me a hypocrite? My own answer is "no." Managers would still exist in worker-run companies. The big difference is that they would either be: a) everybody, or b) under democratic control. The structure of the company would change, but the role would still exist. And that's good enough for me!

Mitt Romney: blood-thirsty nacissist and wannabe child-murderer

No Republican debate was more terrifying than the last one, in which the candidates gave their opinions on foreign policy. Virtually all of the candidates supported torture, invading Iran, gratuitous threats to other countries, and eradicating anyone who objects to our evil government.

The candidates are all loons, but the worst is Mitt Romney because he will surely be the nominee. Rick Perry isn't a smooth-enough talker to keep a smiley face on the fascist machine, Cain is laughable, and none of the rest have a chance at being president. The elite have chosen Romney because he puts a "reasonable" face on the grotesque policies they seek to impose.

Romney wants the US to label China a "currency manipulator" (he doesn't see the irony, of course) and impose tariffs on their products to protect inefficient and idiotic American industries. The fact that China is holding all our government's debt is beyond him. The fact that this could lead us down the path to a nuclear war with a superpower is beyond him.

Romney is a hubris-filled lunatic with no grasp of reality. And he's exactly the kind of blood-thirsty egomaniac state power attracts.

God help us.

My triumphant return

I recently decided that I am going to go back to blogging regularly. I know I've said that before, but I *mean it* this time! My hiatus has not been without reason: it's been a crazy year--though also one of the best in my life. I moved into a new place (after much deliberation), went on a long safari through Africa (best vacation ever!), dealt with a number of personal issues (don't ask), and got the promotion I wanted at work (yippee!).

I had a lot I had to take care of this year, and it distracted me from nearly all of my other hobbies. Finally, I feel like I have the time to go back to what I've enjoyed doing for so long: blogging about how much I hate the elites. All of my new posts will be available both here and on Skeptical Eye. With the sham "elections" set for next year, there will be much to write about.

-Cork

Over at Skeptical Eye

I encourage all my readers to read Skeptical Eye, where SE and I are bringin' down the house. I'm too lazy to cross-post everything back here (at least at the moment).

Irritating the world, one blog post at a time

I've accepted SE's invitation to contribute to Skeptical Eye, for anyone interested.

It's funny 'cause it's true

Good stuff

I think I'm going to scream...

The Obombya administration's latest gut-wrenchingly insane idea: force EVERYONE to buy health insurance, whether they want it or not. Those who thumb their noses at his reckless, bizarre decree will pay a brutal "financial penalty."

I try not to use excessive profanity on my blog, but...

WHAT THE FUCK!? Could there be a more ludicrous or whacked-out idea? Is the Obama administration run by four-year-olds? Calling them morons is an insult to actual morons. Even statists can't possibly be this stupid.

As one HuffPo comment puts it:

Frakking brilliant. I guess their answer to homelessness is to require the homeless to buy homes?

Be careful what you wish for...

It's gonna be a long night

Sometimes I think I have some kind of insomnia. I often can't fall asleep even when I'm exhausted.

On weekends, it doesn't matter. But on nights like tonight, where I have to get up early the next morning for work...cripes. It's tempting to down a couple Tylenol PM tablets, but I don't really want to get in the habit.

Does anyone have any advice on how to fall asleep or something?

Bad Ilana, Bad!

I like Ilana Mercer. She speaks out against horrific war crimes, unlike Jon Stewart. And she's kinda cute. But her recent column is silly. She thinks the stance anarcho-libertarians take on the border is unwarranted. And she thinks there's something wrong with us, just because we enjoyed this hysterical (and apt) Absolut ad:

Well Ilana, the ad is funny for a reason. Americans, especially Southerners, obsess over "the border" without realizing that we stole all that land in the first place! It doesn't even belong to us, for cryin' out loud! Such is the lunacy of "borders," imaginary lines drawn by ruthless conquerors and criminals.

And god, Blogger is retarded for shoving random words to the right of the picture when they're supposed to be underneath it.

The Alternet liberals are upset..

..at the idea of libertarians starting our own semi-country. They hate the idea because it means less people for them to control and push around.

It is interesting how liberals believe Tibet should be free to secede from China, but don't think the rest of us should be allowed to secede from the US. What in the world is the difference? I mean, aside from the fact that the US is worse on human rights?

The problem I have with Fox's "Freedom Watch"

It's a good show, but seriously, it's the biggest echo chamber I've ever seen.

Andrew Nopalitano: Breaking news! The government just did something that violated our rights.

Guest #1: It sure did, Andrew. The government sucks.

Guest #2: Agreed. The government is very irresponsible.

Andrew Nopalitano: Now, Guest #1, you said the government sucks. Does it suck just a little bit, or a ton?

Guest #1: I think we're now at the stage where it's sucking a ton. A crap-load, in fact.

Guest #2: The government violates the Constitution.

Andrew Nopalitano: What does that mean for the future of the US?

Guest #1: My guess is that it's going to suck, Andrew. And suck it shall.

As much as I hate statists, things can get a little stale without them there to fight over things..

The "no alternatives" argument: why it's terrible

A common argument that leftists use to herd the rest of us into their labor camps is that workers "have no alternative" but to work for wages. In the still-continuing comments to SE's post mocking Franc, poster named littlehorn gives us the standard argument:

I would first ask if there are cooperatives in his line of work. Or such other arrangements where labor reaps its fruit, instead of something like 7% of it. (But let's not call that exploitation.)

If there aren't, then pointing to the 'voluntary' 'agreement', the one that occurred in the absence of any meaningful alternative to the system that he repudiates, is a pretty shallow point to make. You agreed to what you had no choice to refuse, so duh, that's not exploitation. It's only exploitation if no choice at all is involved.

A couple of comments:

1) Cooperatives do exist

Cooperatives (or at least quasi-cooperatves) do exist in his line of work. So the entire premise has already come crashing down.

However, even if no cooperatives existed in his line of work, Franc still has the option of buying stock in his company. Thus, he is already free to have his labor "reap" it's fruit, and "have a say." Why won't he do so? I'll tell you why: because he wants the profits without any of the risk. He wants to bag the profits when the company succeeds, but not bear the losses when it fails. Sorry, but reality doesn't work that way, regardless of how many "syndicalists" would like it to be so.

2) Why coops are rare

Our leftie comrade is right about one thing: coops are rare. But he fails to ask the question: why are they so rare? Left-libertarians claim it's due to state intervention, but that's a pretty dubious conclusion. State intervention seems to be the only reason they even *exist* in so many parts of the world.

According to the co-op supporters themselves:

Cooperatives have developed more extensively in areas with some history of
operating cooperative structures and/or a cooperative or socialist ideology. Government
support -- in the form of grants, favorable terms for borrowing capital, favorable taxation
policies, preferential treatment in awarding government contracts, and establishment of
barriers to outside investment and trade -- has been important in sheltering the development
of cooperatives in an otherwise hostile environment.

This is the case all across the globe.

Canada:

From September 2000 to 2003, the Worker Co-operative Fund Pilot Project, a $1.5 million investment fund funded by the Government of Canada and implemented by the Canadian Worker Co-operative Federation (CWCF), successfully created new, and expanded existing, worker co-operatives in all regions of Canada by assisting in their capitalization.

Spain:

Significant growth in this area has been attributed to supportive state policies and programs. For example, the Spanish constitution requires that public authorities encourage co-operatives and promote them via local legislation and local provisions. Furthermore, worker co-operatives benefit from a preferential tax rate of 20% as opposed to the generally available 35%.

Venezuela:

Chavez is spending hundreds of millions of dollars in oil and tax revenue on the cooperatives. Although there have been allegations of gross inefficiency and graft, cooperatives have become a powerful part of the economy and society.

More than 700,000 impoverished workers across the nation have suddenly become stakeholders, such as the 200 families in Bolivar state that were recently given the right to operate a toll road connecting state capital Ciudad Bolivar and Puerto Ordaz. Poor workers are now operating steel and textile factories, fisheries and dairy farms across Venezuela with the prospect of sharing in whatever profits the enterprises turn.

Meanwhile, capitalist enterprise remains strong virtually everywhere, despite being regulated nearly to death. I wonder why that it is? Could it be that it's just a superior business model much of the time? Perish the thought.

3) The fallacy of "perfect circumstances"

This argument assumes that in order to be free, one must have a 100% perfect set of circumstances in every imaginable situation. But this is absolutely impossible. There is no such thing as a life that has a flawless package of options for you at every given moment. To enforce this absurd entitlement would be to end the freedom of everyone else!

If you want to work in a cooperative, you are not "unfree" because it doesn't instantly materialize in front of your eyes. You are going to have to *shock* *gasp* save your own money for the project instead of enslaving others to do your bidding.

The left-libertarians will of course respond that they have no money to form their co-ops. Well, life is a bitch sometimes, isn't it? Again, there are no "perfect circumstances." We are confined by the laws of nature and reality. A co-op is not going to magically spring up from the damn ground the second you desire it. There are *no* businesses that have that kind of advantage.

Contrary to LL claims, it IS possible to save money and "own the workplace." In The Machinery of Freedom, David Friedman spends an entire chapter explaining how easily it could be done. He points out that if you take away taxes and examine the income of workers, all of them could buy their own workplaces (or at least the majority of onwership) tomorrow if they wanted.

Easier than a violent revolution, right? That certainly sounds like an "alternative" to me! Strange, then, that none of them are doing it.

My coughed-up conclusion

The "no alternatives" argument is terrible. First, because there are alternatives. Second, because any lack of "alternatives" is generally due to their inefficiency or lack of state protection. Third, because it's impossible to have a perfect set of "alternatives" at any moment. So the "no alternatives" argument is an epic fail.

The environmentalists are going to be angry

People are going Green without any "help" from the useless State.

Radical leftists against abortion?

Is 'pro-life' actually a radical leftist position? An anonymous comment left on Rall's Search and Destroy blog (which is on my blog roll):

It saddens me that conservatives somehow co-opted the whole pro-life position.

One of the core concepts that drew me to progressive and liberal politics was the idea of protecting the rights of the "little guy," standing up for the individual against the oppressive momentum of the wealthy elite and corporate interestes.

With that in mind, who among is us more helpless, more in need of an advocate, than an unborn child? An unborn child is so weak and needy that it literally cannot live without the biological support of the mother. It has no way to speak on its behalf, little way to even show the outside world that it exists.

To me, supporting pro-choice policies is absolutely incompatible with the idea that we should be protecting and standing up for the weak among us. The hungry and homeless need our help, but they can also get up, move around, and act on their own behalf to some degree. An unborn child has none of these abilities, and completely relies on others to protect it..

..I often find myself in a lonely, lonely world as a pro-life progressive liberal. However, in my heart, I know this is the just cause, and I will continue to fight to give voice to those without one of their own.

There are radical leftists who take the same stance (see here and here).

I guess my own approach to the issue is kind of similar to Anthony Gregory's.

Sometimes it's ok to hate the wealthy

To blindly hate all wealthy people is just vacuous and silly. But there are a number of wealthy people who we just can't hate enough:

-Politicians
-War profiteers
-Bankers
-Crony capitalists/plutocrats
-Government bureaucrats & technocrats
-Lobbyists
-Media talking heads (the state's propaganda dispensers)

This merry band of obscenely wealthy parasites exists for no purpose other than to plunder the living hell out of the rest of us.

So if you're looking for wealthy people who actually are to blame for the world's problems, feel free to direct your anger at them.

Libertarians proven right, yet again...

...not that anyone will notice.

In case you haven't heard yet, GM has gone bankrupt, as has Chrysler. Remember back when the idiotic sheep demanded that we "do something?" Turns out they were completely dead wrong about everything. What a shocker...not.

Billions of dollars that could have been saved or spent to create genuine jobs have been flushed down the toilet.

But I'm sure the "investments" in the "stimulus" package will be far more wise and successful, right? That's why nobody was willing to lend their money or support to any of them without state coercion.

Right?

Will statists and statist economists ever apologize for how wrong they constantly are? Or do they secretly enjoy destroying the country?