10 Jun 2014

Potpourri

Potpourri 120 Comments

==> My latest Mises CA post points out that Krugman has a very low bar for ObamaCare. David R. Henderson made different points about the same Krugman post, but I wanted to focus on just one issue in my post.

==> Ron Paul talks about the Spitznagel goat situation.

==> The Free State Project’s Carla Gericke wins her lawsuit against the police. (They had arrested her for filming them.)

==> Richard Ebeling comments on thick vs. thin.

==> Tom Woods was not invited to the recent conference on Catholicism and libertarianism.

==> Dan Simmons (a policy expert from IER) talks about “fracking” with Tom Woods.

120 Responses to “Potpourri”

  1. please stop the lies says:

    Libertarianism is not concerned solely with the use of violence in society. It’s goal is to destroy democracy by stripping govt of its powers.

    • Bob Roddis says:

      But destroying democracy by stripping government of its powers ends government violence in society and ends mob rule.

      I can’t tell if the above comment is serious or a clever parody.

      • Hank says:

        Stop the lies Roddis!!!

        *covers ears*
        I can’t hear you!!
        LALALALALA

        • Bob Roddis says:

          I can hear you guys perfectly well. Yes, I am trying to “destroy” democracy> You are the ones who are oblivious to the mob rule nature of democracy and the legitmacy it gives statist plans to seize private property. It also tends to lead to ethnic turmoil in multi-ethnic countries with a large public sector as explained in a book I was assigned and read in college in January 1973:

          http://tinyurl.com/md8a85g

          People invariably vote with their ethnic/religious group which then “owns” the property of the nation because the Keynesian Kleptocracy has been deemed to own it so as to “manage” the economy. The winning group considers it “ours”.

          Yugoslavia

          Iraq

          Syria

          Ukraine

          India/Pakistan/Bangladesh

          Sri Lanka

          Burundi/Rwanda

          For starters.

          The multi-ethnic multi worldview USA is succumbing presently to the syndrome.

          • Gamble says:

            Yes Bob but how is a Democracy any worse or any better than a republic?

            In the former, the mob directly votes to control your life, in the latter, a mob votes to control your life indirectly via representatives…

            The real problem is the width and breadth of the public policy window. The window of public policy must be finite rather than infinite regardless government form.

            Truth be told. direct democracy is probably less tyrannical than representative democracy. At least this is what my interpretation of history has shown me.

            Just imagine if the majority had to vote on everything in public. Instead we have a system in which representatives do the dirty work behind closed doors with no majority approval.

            Now I am arguing for the of 2 evils. No thanks, instead I will take the free market…

            • Gamble says:

              Lesser of 2 evils. Direct Democracy versus representative democracy.

              Yikes. I will take choice #3.

              • K.P. says:

                Is it not easier to assassinate a rep than a mob?

              • Mike M says:

                Choice #3 is a Constitutional Republic. You forgot that option.

              • Gamble says:

                #3?

                Representative democracy is the same as a constitutional Republic. So when I say I will take #3, I mean something other than what we currently have.

                America may have been a constitutional Republic for a few seconds but I think even this can be challenged. That document was really written poorly, probably by intention. The limitations included were not really limitations, rather something to give the appearance. That document was troubled then and is troubled now. Furthermore, if a *perfect* constitution was drafted and adopted, the very representatives would immediately ignore, twist, usurp and destroy original intent. Power is power. People are people. People lust power.

                Read the other side of the story. Read the Anti Federalist papers, then tell me you are still convinced America is *special*. The Anti Federalist spotted this ruse a mile away…
                http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/anti-federalist-papers

            • Bob Roddis says:

              The more limits there are on what can be voted on, the better. The issue is how much the NAP is enforced or violated. I’m not sure it makes a difference if its a “republic” or a “democracy” or a monarchy if and when it’s violating the NAP.

              My general point is that “democracy” is all about voting on whose property is going to be violated or seized and giving that process apparent moral legitimacy.

          • Philippe says:

            “It also tends to lead to ethnic turmoil in multi-ethnic countries with a large public sector as explained in a book I was assigned and read in college in January 1973”

            Bob, why do you repeatedly lie about the content of that book?

            • K.P. says:

              Does that book not say something along those lines? What does it say?

        • Bob Roddis says:

          I remember thinking back in 2002, why would anyone want to spread “democracy” to a multi-ethnic multi-religious place like Iraq. Surely they’ve read the book by Shepsle and Rabushka on “plural societies, right? A multi-ethnic democracy is sure to lead to ethnic strife. Who knew?

          Al-Qaeda Seizes Iraq’s Mosul, Moves on Kirkuk. The territory in Iraq is only part of Al Qaeda in Iraq’s holdings now, which also include a broad swath of northern and eastern [multi-ethnic] Syria, giving them a more or less contiguous empire from the outskirts of Aleppo to Fallujah and Mosul.

          http://news.antiwar.com/2014/06/10/al-qaeda-seizes-iraqs-mosul-moves-on-kirkuk/

          • Tel says:

            Iraq wasn’t exactly peace central before the Americans moved in. They had been fighting the Iran/Iraq war for some time, and after the war ended, Saddam Hussein was well known for torturing and gassing his own people. The Western occupying forces opened up warehouses full of human remains.

            And yeah, the Americans sold them the weapons to do it, but so did the Russians. There’s nothing in the NAP to rule out selling guns to warlords is there? Just a perfectly peaceful international arms dealer, not initiating aggression or anything, dictators have a right to be armed you know.

      • Richie says:

        “joe”!

    • guest says:

      please stop the lies,

      America’s Founders hated Democracy and set up a Republic, instead; And they did this because they understood that Democracy violated individual rights:

      The Federalist No. 10

      From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

      A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

      Now, while they were right about Democracy being bad, they were wrong about a Republic being good; The reason is because a Republic, well-intentioned toward the maximization of individual liberty as it is, still finds some ways to see a group of people as a collective, which is the heart of why Democracies are bad.

      • Gamble says:

        Yes and the anti federalist hated both democracy and a national republic because they understood both violated individual rights…

    • Gamble says:

      PSTL,

      I don’t want any individual, organization or guberment, to initiate violence.

      AN evolved brain/soul understands and accepts the challenge of peace…

    • Major-Freedom says:

      please stop the lies:

      Your first sentence subsumes the second one.

      To be solely concerned with the use of violence in society, specifically to abolish initiations of it, implies a destruction of mob rule, since mob rule is itself an initiation of violence. 51% “voting” to steal or harass or order around the remaining 49% is still initiating violence. Simply increasing the scale of it doesn’t eliminate it.

  2. Carl says:

    It’s a pity he never got around to defining racism, but at least we know he’s against it. What a guy!

  3. Anonymous says:

    Anarcho-capitalism is NAP (Non Aggression Principle) and a specific theory on how to assign property rights — P E R I O D — nothing less, nothing more.

    Nowadays, it seems to be a principle in vogue, and gaining wider acceptance, so let’s shovel in all the other things that *I* think should be nice principles too (racism is bad, equals rights for women and minorities, respect for the sexual orientations that *I* like, etc. etc.) and let’s hope society behave the way *I* like.

    I’m beginning to think that thick(!?) libertarians are just another form of control freaks, a much softer one of course. I’m grateful though, at least they are just trying to convince me to behave in certain ways and not forcing me, at least for now.

    See, I have nothing against people preaching moral standards and wanting people to abide by them. BUT… you have to be honest, do not conflate concepts in order to advance your own agenda.

    • Gamble says:

      Yes it all boils down to property, better yet, respect of private property…

  4. Keshav says:

    This is a test to see whether I can at least post under an alternate name.

    • Keshav says:

      This is another test.

      • Keshav Srinivasan says:

        Yet another test.

  5. John says:

    I think for me it’s a little troubling when someone starts talking about destroying democracy and replacing it with no government because I don’t see how, as a practical matter, the rights (assuming they have any) of, for want of a better term, the weak will be protected from the strong in a system of no government at all. And while I understand the criticism of democracy I don’t think there’s really a lot of doubt from the historical perspective that the Western Democracies have provided the highest standard of living and quality of life in the history of the world. That’s not to say that there’s nothing wrong with them – obviously there’s a whole heck of a lot wrong with them, but I think a little caution is in order when one talks about scrapping the whole thing for essentially no system at all.

    • Gamble says:

      John,

      Instead of no government as the only option why not something more to your sensibility? How about a Federal government that really only does 5 things or less.

      How about 50 State governments that do more, yet reserve most rights for the individual.

      We have to get to limited government before ewe can talk about zero government.

      Zero government is a well paced distraction.

      Without sounding contradictory, I believe once we get to limited government, zero government will come into focus.

      None of this matter as we are quickly approaching 100% government rather than zero government…

      • Mike M says:

        Check Article 1 Sectin 8. It contains 18. We tried that. Statists beleive that lwas are for the “other” guy.

        • Gamble says:

          I know. That is why I only suggested 5 things. I was not talking about what we tried or how many we had or have.

          I was saying that we need not worry about too little Federal government till we get them down to 5 responsibilities.

          We have a long way to go till anarchy. It is like worrying about crossing a bridge that has a bad board at the very end. We are on the other end and the statist are trying to keep us from even taking the first step towards the liberty that awaits WAY on the other end of the bridge…

    • Matt M -Dude Where's My Freedom) says:

      “I don’t see how, as a practical matter, the rights (assuming they have any) of, for want of a better term, the weak will be protected from the strong in a system of no government at all”

      ALL of the worst historical examples of “the weak” being victimized by “the strong” happened under governments, many of which were “democratic.”

      “I don’t think there’s really a lot of doubt from the historical perspective that the Western Democracies have provided the highest standard of living and quality of life in the history of the world.”

      Correlation does not imply causation. The ancient Romans could have just as easily said: “Look, our Empire has achieved the highest standard of living and quality of life in the history of the world.” Was it because a dictatorship/empire was the best form of government? Was it because Jupiter and the other Roman gods were the true gods? Was it impossible for them to improve their system in any way?

  6. Matt M -Dude Where's My Freedom) says:

    “Or, is there a low enough margin of improvement–for example, a taxpayer cost of $250,000 per person per year–that even Krugman would admit, “Hmm, this is actually a debacle” ?”

    Silly Bob. If it saves just one child then no cost is too high!

  7. John says:

    You know, I personally am not persuaded by the case for a very limit federal government, but I agree that is the case to make. I can see how a system of a substantially more limited federal government with more active state governments (though probably still less active than today) and more active local governments within the state could operate. I’m not so sure it would necessarily be an improvement, but I think it’s doable, and in it’s earlier years the nation was essentially organized that way I think.

  8. Slappy McFee says:

    I think for me it’s a little troubling when someone starts talking about eliminating rape and replacing it with no rape because I don’t see how, as a practical matter, the rights (assuming they have any) of, for want of a better term, the weak will be protected from the strong in a system of no rape at all. And while I understand the criticism of rape I don’t think there’s really a lot of doubt from the historical perspective that the Western rapes have provided the highest standard of living and quality of life in the history of the world. That’s not to say that there’s nothing wrong with them – obviously there’s a whole heck of a lot wrong with them, but I think a little caution is in order when one talks about scrapping the whole thing for essentially no rape at all.

    Wouldn’t a world without rape be better than one with? Shouldn’t “we” be working towards a world with none at all?

    Hyperbole, yes. But it’s amazing what changing one little word does.

    It’s easier to understand if you don’t have the image that government is all unicorns and rainbows.

  9. Slappy McFee says:

    Should have been a reply to John

  10. John says:

    I think my problem with this argument is that it kind of assumes the truth of what it’s attempting to argue. In other words, my point is I don’t think it’s really possible to argue that government is simply an unalloyed evil – that it has nothing redeeming about it. As I noted, in fact the western democracies are probably doing a better job of insuring some security, individual rights and opportunity, etc, that all previously attempted governmental systems. Doesn’t mean they don’t do evil, just means some care has to be exercised in considering what to replace them with.

    By substituting the word “rape,” which is I think everyone can agree is an unalloyed evil, for “government,” one simply assumes that western democracies are the equivalent of rape, and then proceeds naturally to argue that we can have no tolerance of rape. I think that skips over the central issue, is western democracy really the equivalent of rape? Is it really an unalloyed evil with no redeeming qualities, despite it’s providing what seem to be an awful lot of real benefits. I think that dog won’t hunt, but if it did, then we’d have to ask, would anarchism actually be a worse sort of rape and figure the answer out before we can decide to put democracy in the trash heap.

    • Gamble says:

      I think you are downplaying the negativities and over stating the positives regarding modern central governments. The modern fiat system combined with the IRS rapes me the very second I produce. I cant even provide for myself without being raped.

      If I give in and go on welfare, I am raped of my dignity.

      Regarding weak versus the strong. Why do you assume all of the strong, will be on the side of evil? More likely, the majority of the strong will voluntarily leave the weak alone and or protect them from the FEW ambitious and wicked bullies…

      But I digress because EVERY modern government now does much more than protect. They micro engineer the very core of social fabric…

      This conversation would be easy if we were only talking about who and how to best protect abolish violence…

      • Philippe says:

        You are being extraordinarily offensive to all real rape victims.

        • Gamble says:

          NO.

          We were using the word rape as substitute or better yet metaphorically. There are different types of rape. Regarding real rape victims, rape being defined as unwanted sexual contact, I have given no disrespect.

          Besides you are not their spokesperson, you can only speak for yourself. I am sorry if you are a victim of rape and I am sorry if I offend you.

          Darn slippery statist, shame on you.

          • Philippe says:

            What you describe has nothing to do with rape. Just as it has nothing to do with the horrors of slavery or the horrors of the holocaust or any such other horrors. You have the mentality of a spoilt brat, nothing more.

            • Anonymous says:

              Spoiled by a government that takes 60% of what we produce, provides unwanted substandard services, forcing us to seek out services in the private sector (education), starts wars with countries we don’t care about, dilutes the few dollars we are allowed to keep, puts us in cages if we dare to light a joint, the list is endless. But according to you we should be thankful that we’re not put in concentration camps, or physically raped by the TSA. Yippee, let’s hear it for the land of the free.
              Yeah, real spoiled brats we are.

            • Peter says:

              So you’re saying we should be thankful for not being put into concentration camps (yet) or physically raped by TSA agents (yet), lest we be viewed as”spoiled brats”?
              Nice.

              • Philippe says:

                nope.

            • Major-Freedom says:

              Philippe:

              “You have the mentality of a spoilt brat, nothing more.”

              It is comments like this that reveal not only an abusive upbringing, but also your thuggish and bullying mentality.

              When you view someone who only wants to be free of initiations of force as a “spoiled brat”, is you playing the role of abusive guardian and hearing ” leave me alone!” in your mind.

              • Bob Murphy says:

                Guys, can you chill out with the name-calling?

              • Gamble says:

                Major,

                I think you nailed it. You really get into the mind of the statist.
                [When you view someone who only wants to be free of initiations of force as a “spoiled brat”, is you playing the role of abusive guardian and hearing ” leave me alone!” in your mind.]

              • Philippe says:

                I said he has the mentality of a spoilt brat. If he had the slightest respect for real victims of rape he would not describe things such as paying taxes as “rape”.

                You really are a very bizarre personality, major “freedom”. I genuinely wouldn’t be surprised if your daddy inappropriately “touched your body” when you were a child, given your bizarre obsession with abusive childhoods and the idea of ‘daddy government’ “touching your body against your will”.

              • Gamble says:

                Okay Phillipe now you are playing word games, changing things, etc.

                John specifically said to substitute the word rape with the word government, I was simply playing along with Johns analogy. I was trying to communicate with John.

                Nobody is talking about when a women or man is raped in the traditional sense. Well, nobody but you is talking about this.

                I will say this, being systematical enslaved by fiat is nasty. Being systematically micro managed at the threat of gunpoint is nasty. I am not going to try and create scale of horror as you have, but I can tell you this. History will reveal our grievance as some of the most legitimate ever realized by humanity.

                I will not accept your spoiled brat mentality that we should just grin and bear this state sanctioned, state sponsored aggression.

                Come to my house by your self, not hiding behind democracy and the guns of government, then demand the fruits of my labor. I dare you.

                I really cant stand your denial of private property. Communist hate the very idea of private property. There is no such thing as private property in your mind. Good for you. I was not born this way and YOU need to learn tolerance for those of us that have private property hardwired into our soul. I think it is time for you and your anti property comrades to find your own planet. As you put it, go elsewhere and leave us alone. We don’t want anything from you. Now you need to not want anything from us.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “I said he has the mentality of a spoilt brat.”

                The point is that the reason you are thinking I have such a mentality is not because I actually do, but because that is how you percieve arguments against state authority.

                Much like you view a disobedient child whose parents provide for them as a “spoiled brat”, so too do you view adults disobedient to the state as spoiled brats.

                It is your warped view of government as mommy and daddy that is the reason you percieve what you percieve.

                If you didn’t believe in that warped view, then you would not be thinking of spoiled brats in your mind.

                ” Ihe had the slightest respect for real victims of rape he would not describe things such as paying taxes as “rape”.”

                I didn’t say taxes were rape.

                “You really are a very bizarre personality, major “freedom”. I genuinely wouldn’t be surprised if your daddy inappropriately “touched your body” when you were a child, given your bizarre obsession with abusive childhoods and the idea of ‘daddy government’ “touching your body against your will”.”

                See that Gamble? I was right about Philippe.

    • Tel says:

      I think that skips over the central issue, is western democracy really the equivalent of rape?

      Modern governments take the view that they own the very bodies of the citizens. This claim to ownership is morally equivalent to claiming that some woman belongs to you and you can do with her as you please.

      Physically of course it is not equivalent, but the illegitimate claim to own something that should no rightly belong to you is similar.

      • Philippe says:

        “Modern governments take the view that they own the very bodies of the citizens”

        nonsense.

        • Tel says:

          Then the “War on Drugs” simply does not exist.

          • Philippe says:

            circular “libertarian” argument again.

            In Ancap fantasy land you can have rules in a given area which state that people may not sell, purchase or use certain drugs.

            • Major-Freedom says:

              Philippe:

              You haven’t shown any “circular libertarian argument” a first time.

              The only rules allowed in ancapistan would be the rules that individuals set for their own property only. Everyone is banned from setting rules for others on their own property against their will.

              You call this “dystopia”? You call you being subject to NOBODY’S laws on your own property, to be oppressive against you? To be ruled by nobody is to be…ruled by oligarchies?

              Philippe, dude, methinks you need to update your convictions concerning ancapistan ethics.

            • Major-Freedom says:

              One individual, on their own property, succeeding in being subject to nobody else’s rules, is an example of ancapistan.

              So is two, three, five, ten, a hundred, a thousand, million, or a billion individuals.

              All ancapistan formation is at the end of the day is individual level secession from states and all other property rights violators.

              Libertarians don’t want to force you to cease being a “sheep”. If you want to prostrate under the liar Obama, and his SWAT teams and baby killing militia, then libertarians will not stop you. All they ask is that you don’t force them to live like you do, on their own property and pay and worship the same psychopaths as you.

              If you refuse to allow other individuals to live according their own rules on their own property, and you act on it and force others into your dystopia, then you are an aggressor and others would have a right to defend themselves and their property from you.

              At least you are sensible enough to be a hypocrite and NOT practise what you preach, and in practise you behave yourself as a libertarian. Just like LK, DK, and all the other internet statist tough guys.

              • Philippe says:

                of course you don’t just live ‘on your own property’ in a vacuum so everything you just said is garbage.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                Are you saying it is impossible to set and enforce rules according to geographical boundaries?

              • Philippe says:

                no.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Then your prior statement is not related to anything I said, because all I am talking about are rules set and enforced according to geographical boundaries, where the boundaries happen to be set according to individual homesteading, not statist conquest and war.

                Ancapistan is just rules set by individuals constrained to geographical boundaries established by homesteading and free trade.

                If you can understand how it is possible for rules to be set according to country boundary, then you should be able to at least understand how it is possible for rules to be set for smaller territories such as city states, all the way down to communities and individuals.

              • Philippe says:

                your personal real estate boundary is not established by homesteading. And as I said, you don’t just live ‘on your own property’ in a vacuum so everything you say is garbage.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                You’re changing the subject.

                All land currently owned was homesteaded.

                Whether or not the particular land I call home was subsequently stolen is an empirical question that you cannot claim to know from your armchair, especially given the fact that you don’t even know where I live. So you’re just making things up.

                Back to the point now. It seems like you can at least understand that rules can be set according to boundaries established by homesteading and trade. Whethwr or not a given piece of land is stolen is a different issue.

                So what is the problem? Why can’t rules for property X be set by the individual owner?

                I never claimed I only physically stay on my property. It is of course possible, indeed likely, for individual property owner set rules to facilitate travel and trade. If A wants to travel to property owned by B, then they can just agree to follow the rules of B, and vice versa.

                No vacuum.

              • Philippe says:

                “All land currently owned was homesteaded.”

                what a load of nonsense.

                “If A wants to travel to property owned by B, then they can just agree to follow the rules of B, and vice versa.”

                Ok, so you agree to follow the rules of the US.

              • guest says:

                If A wants to travel to property owned by B, then they can just agree to follow the rules of B, and vice versa.

                People actually want to do stuff like that, peacefully, but the statists get in the way:

                “Underground — And Illegal — NYC Dinner Parties”
                http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/underground-and-illegal-nyc-dinner-parties/

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “what a load of nonsense.”

                What a non-argument.

                “If A wants to travel to property owned by B, then they can just agree to follow the rules of B, and vice versa.”

                “Ok, so you agree to follow the rules of the US.”

                Non sequitur. The government did not homestead or trade for the land it is enforcing its rules on.

            • Tel says:

              You can’t have it both ways. If the State is entitled to tell you what to do with your own body (not by agreement mind you, but by unilateral violent enforcement) then this is a claim to property.

              If the State does not claim property ownership, then it has no business acting like it owns you.

              • Harold says:

                All you need is a view of ownership that is not absolute. If you deny the very existence of absolute ownership, but instead have a spectrum of greater and lesser control, the State can tell you what to do in certain situations without claiming ownership.

  11. Philippe says:

    please stop the lies,

    yes you are correct that this form of far-right-wing so-called ‘libertarianism’, or ‘anarcho-capitalism’, utilizes very misleading rhetoric to communicate its political agenda, which is to strip people of all their legal rights as citizens, to take away their very citizenship and their right to elect a government, to terminate the United States, tear up its Constitution, and replace it with an oligarchical or plutocratic regime in accordance with their political ideology. Of course unjust violence would not be absent or greatly reduced in this dystopia, but it suits the ideology to pretend that it would be.

    • K.P. says:

      Why do you think they want that agenda to become a reality?

      • Philippe says:

        well the ‘anarcho-capitalist’ dystopia could never really exist as it is just a ridiculous fantasy. Really the ‘anarcho-capitalist’ fairytale simply serves as an elaborate way to argue for the usual right-wing agenda plus more extreme things such as racist discrimination, robbing people of their right to vote, etc.

        • Bob Roddis says:

          Racial discrimination is not the initiation of force so the initiation of force is not appropriate to deal with it. As I’ve explained the past, there is an endless list of non-violent sanctions that might be applied against people with bad attitudes. Like everyone refusing the sell them any water or food. Or encircling them. Naturally, we are viciously attacked by the statists for both:

          1. Not initiating force against racists; and

          2. Promoting non-violent sanctions against racists.

          http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/05/libertarian-battles.html#comment-488156

          Further, why would anyone want to work for racists or move into their private neighborhood? Who cares?

          Finally, what is so wrong with convincing racists, Nazis and other loons to at least obey the NAP, however unlkely that might be?

        • K.P. says:

          That’s not what I asked.

          I don’t care whether anarcho-capitalism is a fantasy, why do you think “this form this form of far-right-wing so-called ‘libertarians'” argue in its favor?

          • Philippe says:

            why do I think ‘anarch-capitalists’ argue in favor of ‘anarcho-capitalism’?

            • K.P. says:

              Sure, why do they want it, what do you think they find appealing in it? (They came to be anarcho-capitalist for a reason, after all)

              • Philippe says:

                why do people become Scientologists? Same question really.

              • K.P. says:

                So they can fly?

              • Bob Roddis says:

                Philippe explains
                “why do I think ‘anarch-capitalists’ argue in favor of ‘anarcho-capitalism’?”

                “why do people become Scientologists? Same question really.”

                That’s the dead mouse waiting at the end of a long wasteful and pointless adventure with his matryoshka doll collection.

                It’s like there’s been the same two or three of these guys out there for decades. Nothing changes.

              • Philippe says:

                In your case Bob, I would say you choose to believe in nonsense and lies for (undefined) psychological or emotional reasons, as I have yet to see you display much of an ability to think rationally.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                Can you give an example of a nonsensical statement he made?

                Can you give an example of a lie?

                Can you show an example of an irrational statement?

                How do you know he’s doing it for emotional reasons?

              • Bob Roddis says:

                I do support the NAP for “emotional” reasons. I went to elementary school in a Jewish suburb of Detroit and learned of the Holocaust in 3rd grade in 1960. Then I learned of the Spanish slaughter of the Indians in 5th grade and took out a library book on the topic so often, my parents finally just bought me the book. I still have it. I’ve always had an “emotional” reaction to this kind of thing:

                https://www.flickr.com/photos/bob_roddis/8525140770/

              • Bob Roddis says:

                When I went to college, this was going on. I had an “emotional” reaction to this too:

                https://www.flickr.com/photos/bob_roddis/11847193163/in/photostream/

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Roddis:

                Philippe is just saying you’re thinking according to emotion because that is exactly what he is doing. He wants to make himself appear as rational because he falsely believes thinking rationally is necessarily thinking without emotion.

              • Bob Roddis says:

                I’m aware of what Philippe is doing. He’s a pest who has nothing to say. Like those other two guys we’ve encountered/endured over the decades.

              • Philippe says:

                Bob, you clearly display obsessive and compulsive tendencies, constantly repeating exactly the same mindless phrases and posting the same irrelevant images. Have you ever sought out the help of a professional psychologist?

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                Try to think outside the box here.

                Given that you and Roddis can’t stand each other, and given the “extreme” assumption that neither of you will kill each other, that is, given both you and he will live for the next say 40 years or whatever, what do you think should be the set of rules between you two? What do you think you and he should do, given that you do not want to trade or physically come into contact with?

                Can you think beyond having mere disagreements and remaining pissed off?

              • guest says:

                That’s the dead mouse waiting at the end of a long wasteful and pointless adventure with his matryoshka doll collection.

                LOL. I like the dead mouse analogy.

                A dead mouse caused Hayek to give up on responding to Keynes.

                And – I’m not sure, but – I think the “dead mouse” is an unofficial Saul Alinsky tactic.

        • Bob Roddis says:

          To be clear, I submit that non-violent concerted refusals to deal or similar tactics can solve whatever problems are allegedly caused by racists who are abiding by the NAP.

        • Bob Roddis says:

          Philippe says:

          Of course, causing someone to die of hunger or thirst by denying them access to food or water is not “non-violent” in the slightest. It is the exact opposite.

          Hey Philippe, are you the one who is actually SOFT ON RACISTS?

          http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/05/libertarian-battles.html#comment-490498

          • guest says:

            Also, statists should try not destroying crops on behalf of farmers, before they knock us for maybe, possibly, refusing to feed someone for free.

            And how many kids’ lemonade stands have been shut down because of them?

            I’m pretty sure someone could barter with someone else to have them go buy some lemonade, were it available to the poor as they traveled, and if the Minimum Wage didn’t get in their way of finding odd jobs.

            And then there’s housing:

            Defending the Undefendable (Chapter 20: The Slumlord) by Walter Block

        • Gamble says:

          “well the ‘anarcho-capitalist’ dystopia ”

          Dystopia? You have no proof to your claim. On the other hand, your current system, what ever you call it, has proven to be massive failure. Completely corrupt. A slave machine except for those on the dole and the payroll.

        • Major-Freedom says:

          Philippe:

          Since when did you have a right to vote to initiate force agains other individuals?

        • Peter says:

          What’s wrong with “racist discrimination”?
          “right to vote”, hilarious. You can have mine, and stick it where the sun don’t shine, as the French say.

      • Bob Roddis says:

        You are asking Philippe why he thinks libertarians have an evil unstated agenda and what motivates the pursuit of this evil unstated agenda. I’d be interested in hearing that too, although I have heard various versions for four decades.

        My theory as to why “progressives” cannot at all deal with the NAP, much less the concepts of violent intervention, Cantillon Effects and economic calculation is because they see themselves as the saviors of the masses who in their view are quite incompetent (unlike the “progressive”). The NAP suggests that all humans are perfectly competent to run their own lives and achieve a reasonable level of affluence so long as their person and property are protected pursuant to the NAP. That vision totally cuts out any role for the individual “progressive” as a savior. I would go farther and suggest that this exposes the “progressives” as racists who think minorities are incompetent without help from the “progressives’” statist policies.

        Further, the process of economic calculation depends of upon “the masses” being able to freely engage in voluntary exchange in order to create the information that is essential for a prosperous society. Again, there is no role for the busybody “progressive” to play in that process pursuant. Libertarian analysis holds that it is the very regime of economic intervention that makes possible the violent attacks upon average people that exist under socialism and fascism by weakening the essential protections of private property. Austrian analysis holds that it is those violent interventions proposed by the “progressives” that destroy and impede the creation of the essential price information necessary for a prosperous society.

        The “progressives” have a deep emotional attachment to their self-image as a savior of society. The “progressive” cannot bear not being considered the savior of society and goes completely berserk in response to the claim that his “cures” are the cause of most of society’s ills. But the essence of libertarian and Austrian analysis is that the “progressive” cures are the cause of those ills. Thus, we get the reaction that we do from them.

        • K.P. says:

          While I myself am guilty of doubting the intentions of some people, I usually take it on faith that they have good intentions. With libertarians being a mostly powerless bunch I never saw much reason or evidence to question their motives.

          Of course, I am not a libertarian and don’t get to attend their evil meetings so I could be duped here. I was a mutualist for many years though and can honestly say those guys were crazy over their concern for the poor (I take that a being a respectable concern for most political ideals.) The difference between an AnCap and a mutualist is almost razor thin so it’d definitely be interesting if the intentions are vastly different.

          • Philippe says:

            Bob, foaming at the mouth and sticking words together in meaningless phrases does not constitute analysis.

            • Major-Freedom says:

              Because saying someone is “foaming at the mouth”, when they’re really not, does constitute analysis.

    • Bob Roddis says:

      to strip people of all their legal rights as citizens

      The AnCap proposal is to STRENGTHEN the personal and property rights of all humans whether they be citizens or otherwise so that their rights are permanent and not subject to the whims of the latest election results or perhaps a perfectly legal and proper amendment to the US Constitution that, for example, abolishes the Bill of Rights and the 13th and 14th amendments. Those rights exist regardless of the state of the US Constitution and its amendments.

      Further, under AnCap, there is nothing to stop any number of folks from creating a voluntary association of people who enjoy continuing to live under current interpretations of the US Constitution.

    • Major-Freedom says:

      Philippe:

      “…which is to strip people of all their legal rights as citizens, to take away their very citizenship and their right to elect a government, to terminate the United States, tear up its Constitution, and replace it with an oligarchical or plutocratic regime in accordance with their political ideology.”

      You have a hilarious way of saying “Drastically reduce initiations of force against innocent people”.

      Strip away the right to vote for people who will violate the property rights of others? Reduction in violence.

      Take away citizenship? No, if you want to identify yourself as a sheep, libertarians won’t stop you. They just ask that you don’t impose it on them too.

      Terminate the United States? No, you can still praise and worship Obama if you want, libertarians just ask that you don’t impose it on them too.

      Oligarchy? That is what we have now! You want to maintain the oligarchy, while libertarians want to eliminate it.

      • Philippe says:

        “libertarians just ask that you don’t impose it on them too”

        I don’t want to live in your dystopian totalitarian society, so you can take your ideology elsewhere.

        “You want to maintain the oligarchy, while libertarians want to eliminate it.”

        Typical “libertarian” lie.

        • Peter says:

          You just want to live in your own dystopian totalitarian society, and force us to live in it too. At least we allow you to opt out.

        • Major-Freedom says:

          Philippe:

          “I don’t want to live in your dystopian totalitarian society, so you can take your ideology elsewhere.”

          Define “elsewhere”. If you mean not on your property, then you already have that.

          If you mean they have to leave their own property, then you are just claiming ownership over their land.

          They are not forcing younto live according to the rules they want to live by on their own property. They just don’t want you to force your statist way of life on them on their own property.

          This isn’t rocket science Philippe. You are falsely claiming that for libertarians to get what they want only for themselves and their property, is somehow an aggression against you on your property.

          Why are you unable to coexist with people who want to live a different way than you on their own property? Telling libertarians that they must leave their own land if they don’t live the way you want them to live, is precisely what libertarians are talking about when they say, correctly, that you want to impose your ideology on them againat their will.

          If you can co-exist with people living in an adjacent country with separate country laws that only apply to them and not you, why can’t you do the same with your next door neighbors who only want to live according to their rules on their own property only and not forcing you to live the same way?

          “Typical “libertarian” lie.”

          A. It is not a lie, it is the truth. States are oligarchies.

          B. You haven’t shown libertarian “lies” a first time, so saying “typical” as if you have, is inaccurate.

          You want to force everyone on their own property to live in your dystopian statist ideal. You want them to be forced at the threat of violence to pay the same protector as you. You are the aggressor Philippe, not libertarians. You are deceiving yourself due to false convictions that you have been brainwashed into believing.

          • Philippe says:

            You can do what you want so long as it is legal.

            If you want to do something else, go elsewhere (or try to change the law).

            No, you don’t get to live in this society and make up your own individual laws just for yourself.

            • Major-Freedom says:

              Philippe:

              “You can do what you want so long as it is legal.”

              Legal according to whose laws, and legal where exactly?

              “If you want to do something else, go elsewhere (or try to change the law).”

              Elsewhere from where exactly?

              “No, you don’t get to live in this society and make up your own individual laws just for yourself.”

              What do you mean by “this” society? Do you mean your rules for everyone?

              • Philippe says:

                This society, the one you are in now. The one that presumably you were born into and your parents decided to make you a member of.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                A person does not have the right to sign contracts on behalf of the unborn, nor do they have a right to enforce rules on their adult children on those children’s own property.

                If you claim that your rules can be imposed on me and apply to my behavior on my own property, then you are an aggressor.

              • Philippe says:

                The real estate you live on was purchased in accordance with US law, the law of the society in which you live. When you signed the contract to take possession of the real estate, the contract did not entitle you to an exemption from the law whilst you are on that real estate, just as buying a car does not entitle you to an exemption from the law whilst you are sitting in the car.

                And no, you didn’t acquire possession of that land by homesteading it in some imaginary ahistorical vacuum, all on your own, before the society you live in came into being.

              • guest says:

                … in accordance with US law, the law of the society in which you live.

                You’re using the word “society” incorrectly.

                “Society” can’t be a party to a contract. Only individuals can.

                Also, just because I do business with someone doesn’t mean that they’re part of my society.

                That definition would be too broad to be meaningful.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                The state’s laws being what they are is insufficient in estsblishing whether or not they are just or fair.

                Individuals act. They can act alone or in cooperation.

                Yes, land is in fact homesteaded. Whether or not the land was subsequently robbed, has no bearing on the morality or justice of homesteading ethics.

    • guest says:

      … this form of far-right-wing so-called ‘libertarianism’, or ‘anarcho-capitalism’, utilizes very misleading rhetoric to communicate its political agenda, which is to strip people of all their legal rights as citizens …

      “Human Rights” as Property Rights

      But more importantly for our discussion, human rights, when not put in terms of property rights, turn out to be vague and contradictory, causing liberals to weaken those rights on behalf of “public policy” or the “public good.” As I wrote in another work:

      Take, for example, the “human right” of free speech. Freedom of speech is supposed to mean the right of everyone to say whatever he likes. But the neglected question is: Where? Where does a man have this right? He certainly does not have it on property on which he is trespassing. In short, he has this right only either on his own property or on the property of someone who has agreed, as a gift or in a rental contract, to allow him on the premises. In fact, then, there is no such thing as a separate “right to free speech”; there is only a man’s property right: the right to do as he wills with his own or to make voluntary agreements with other property owners.[2]

      … couching the analysis in terms of a “right to free speech” instead of property rights leads to confusion and the weakening of the very concept of rights. The most famous example is Justice Holmes’s contention that no one has the right to shout “Fire” falsely in a crowded theater, and therefore that the right to freedom of speech cannot be absolute, but must be weakened and tempered by considerations of “public policy.”[3] And yet, if we analyze the problem in terms of property rights we will see that no weakening of the absoluteness of rights is necessary.[4] …

  12. Bob Roddis says:

    Philippe also says:

    In other words, Rothbardianism is not simply the “rigorous enforcement of the NAP”. Any idiot should be able to see that very clearly.

    http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/05/libertarian-battles.html#comment-490824

    • Philippe says:

      And that is correct. It’s funny that you find it difficult to understand this very simple and very obvious point.

      • Major-Freedom says:

        How is it correct?

  13. John says:

    I do agree that it’s probably a bad idea to ascribe motives to people’s beliefs. I mean, I’m sort of a progressive person, but I don’t think I have a deep emotional attachment to my view of myself as savior of the society. I guess no one really knows oneself for sure, but I don’t think so. In the same way, I don’t really get the sense that people writing on this blog secretly harbor a desire to install a plutocratic regime that will strip everyone of all their rights. These kind of accusations going back and forth don’t seem to advance the ball much, at least in my estimation. My main concern is just, like, how would this anarcho-capitalism really work? I don’t really see how it’s going to be very practical to enforce contracts, provide general national security, and, yes, control or eliminate anti-social conduct like race discrimination without some sort of a government. I understand the theory that neighbors may all decide to discipline an individual they don’t like, but as a general rule, it is impossible to get people to agree on who they don’t like, why they don’t like them, and what should be done about it. Absent some mechanism for collective enforcement, I’m struggling to see how anarchy isn’t going to deteriorate into, well, anarchy.

    • K.P. says:

      “My main concern is just, like, how would this anarcho-capitalism really work?”

      While you certainly can get very specific responses to each of your concerns, I’ve always found it unique that such a society would be (presumably) open to a plurality of solutions instead of a one-size-fits-all solution.

      I wouldn’t worry too much about it though, I think you can safely travel a long, long distance before you’re anywhere near Ancapitstan.

  14. Bob Roddis says:

    Bob Wenzel finds a unique perspective from non-Austrian Dave Brat:

    The book purports to discuss the role of value and ethics in economics but manages to get to the root of neither while completely distorting the meaning of “value-free” analysis and referring to Methodological Individualism as “Perspectivism.” Mises, Rothbard, and Hayek get two brief mentions and then aren’t mentioned again, even though the paper could have benefited greatly from what they had to say on the subject.

    The first footnote of the paper comments, “For the sake of brevity, I have included only Robbin’s essay as an example of Austrian method. Mises and von Hayek are critical figures in economic method, but they pull us away from the central line of thought under development in this reader.”

    He’s referring to economist Lionel Robbins, who wrote in The Economic Problem in Peace and War – Some Reflections on Objectives and Mechanisms, Read Books, 2007 (1st ed. 1947), pp. 68, “I grew up in a tradition in which, while recognition was indeed given to the problems created by the ups and downs of the trade cycle and the fluctuations of aggregate demand, there was a tendency to ignore certain deep-seated possibilities of disharmony, in a way which, I now think, led sometimes to superficiality and sometimes to positive error. I owe much to Cambridge economists, particularly to Lord Keynes and Professor Robertson, for having awakened me from dogmatic slumbers in this very important respect.”

    Later, the brief reference to Mises and Rothbard are in the section about Robbins. The throwaway references to Austrians is the giveaway. Cite so you can’t be accused of completely ignoring it, just damn it by faint praise so that the reader won’t be exposed to it. The true mark of an economics professor careerist.

    http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/06/david-brat-unscrubbed.html#comment-form

  15. Gamble says:

    I really like this article by Jack D. Douglas. It may seem really extreme to the uninitiated but in my mind, this article encapsulates exactly where humanity is at.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/06/jack-d-douglas/the-empires-paranoid-power-lust/

  16. Bharat says:

    From this article, I don’t completely get the thin v. thick distinction. In the examples he gives, it seems that the “thin” libertarian would have just as much of a problem as the ‘thick.” For example, if a Ku Klux Klan member believes that the differences among the human races is significant enough to warrant one group less rights as compared to another (or no rights at all), then even a thin libertarian will have an issue: the Ku Klux Klan member is not going to follow the non-aggression principle. Likewise, if one thinks that homosexual activities warrants throwing rocks or physically bullying the said practitioner, then the thin libertarian will also have a direct problem with such behavior (the throwing rocks).

    I had only read a little before on this subject, but if “respecting certain behaviors” only means “follow the non-aggression principle,” then it seems there is no distinction. If “respecting certain behaviors” means “follow the non-aggression principle and make sure to argue against people who don’t believe in it,” it seems to only be of some minor, practical significance (“libertarians should debate against anti-libertarians on every single issue!” – if you’ve ever been around libertarians, it seems they do that anyway). And if “respecting certain behaviors” means “follow the non-aggression principle and don’t ever speak out against behavior you don’t like,” it seems like it goes too far.

    • Bharat says:

      This is a comment based off of Richard Ebeling’s article.

    • K.P. says:

      I believe the idea isn’t whether they ignore the rights of others but if they grant them, but only to that extent.

      Instead of physically harming the people they just ceaselessly mocked and ridiculed them, or shunned them and used their private property to discriminate – all perfectly legal actions, just to be clear. Would a society that “allowed” that type of anti-social behavior continue to still respect their legal rights down the line?

      (Richard did confusingly say “physical abuse” though, which all libertarians – and most everyone – would say is obviously out of line)

      • Bharat says:

        Thanks KP for clarifying, although it raises a few more comments and questions for me:

        What you said made more sense than what Ebeling said, at least based on the arguments given. Out of what you said, the “ceaselessly mocked and ridiculed” part stands out to me as a potential problem. As for discrimination through private property, I don’t think that per se would be bad. I could imagine a well-functioning Christian libertarian society pretty easily that did not go so far as to violate the rights of homosexuals.

        However, if it’s ceaseless mocking and ridiculing that poses a problem, that brings up the question: is this really a wider philosophical outlook or just a practical one? Because of course we don’t want to live with hateful people, that’s bad for any society. But where does philosophy enter this picture? “Don’t be hateful” doesn’t have to do with any particular issue, e.g. gay rights; it has to do with any issue. If you’re hateful toward white males, then you’re more likely to aggress against them. It’s almost like saying we shouldn’t have violent criminals in our society and should speak out against their behavior because they threaten libertarian society.

        So even this different way of looking at it seems to fall under the category I mentioned above of having only a practical significance. But if we try to make that a wider philosophical outlook, it seems either 1) “thin” libertarians would have a direct issue with the behavior, or 2) it would go too far in permitting certain behaviors such that you cannot even disagree or speak out against them, e.g. Christians claiming homosexual activity is a sin (even if they did so respectfully).

        • K.P. says:

          Well, fine, call it a practical matter that philosophers (and internet commentators) bicker about. I think many would agree that practical matters still… well, matter.

          “I could imagine a well-functioning Christian libertarian society pretty easily that did not go so far as to violate the rights of homosexuals.”

          Well, I could too, largely though because of personal experience with Christians – they’re ridiculously nice!

          I remember hearing a Satanist (Kevin Slaughter, I believe) even remarking that living in a Christian society is the best.

          That being said, you can look at all the flak modern Christians get for just expressing that homosexuality is a sin, even as the Christian says he still loves the sinner a thousand times over. So I have doubts as to whether a truly liberal society could ever exist for very long. (That’s not necessarily a point against thick libertarianism per se, just one version of it, and really it’s probably just me rambling)

          Could you imagine an well-functioning Islamic libertarian society though? Eh, maybe. Now add some homosexual to the neighborhood. No, not for very long at least.

          • Bharat says:

            Don’t know enough about Islam so can’t really comment on that example. Aside from that though, I agree with you. Also, it seems as if calling Ebeling’s particular configuration as “thick libertarianism” is a misnomer since it is misleading. We could instead merely say it is a practical strategy toward establishing and maintaining a libertarian society (and I certainly agree that practical matters do matter).

Leave a Reply to Tel

Cancel Reply