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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
