Barrett's Blog (name under renovation)

Can We Ignore Them?

2006-04-02T11:54:00.000-04:00

What would happen if a large group of liberty minded persons (a few thousand or so) gathered, and bought a few hundred acres, and then founded their own, restrictive, private community? A community that is lead by a few gifted individuals, under contract?

What would happen if this there were hundreds or thousands of these little private property covenantal communities? All with the express purpose of eventual independence from the Federal, State, and local authorities.

Would the US government, be willing to violently crush thousands of communities, if they all were bent on violently defending their rights? What would the media and the world think?

If a small town of a few hundred, unanimously secceded, and everyone in the town was willing to fight to the death, for their independence, what would happen? Would the statists really say that killing all 500 or so people is really worth controling the town?

Is the term 'Anarchist' useful to the Austrian movement?

2006-03-30T17:05:00.000-05:00

Well, is it? Often, when people think of the word 'anarchist', many different images run through their minds. The image of the molotov throwing hippie, who is protesting the WTO , or the teenager (or adult who failed to grow up) with lingering anger at his parents. Certainly, if this is the definition of the word 'anarchist', I could never classify myself with them.

But, usually, those affiliated with the Austro-libertarian view of anarchism, generally means something else. They are distinguished from the socialist anarchists, who favor the abolition of all private property and free market economies. The Austro-Anarchist embraces free market anarchism, something that was beginning to take foundational shape in the 19th century. However, it wasn't until the arrival of Mises and Rothbard, that the Austrian school thought was extended. Mises refused the name 'anarchist'. But, it seems evident, that Mises believed that states, provinces, cities, towns, and villages should be able to seccede from large groups. He even believed that the individual person should have this right, the only problem being the technical difficulties of it. But, if they could be overcome, then it should be granted.

So, perhaps anarcho-capitalists should avoid the term 'anarchist'.

Whence Traditionalist Conservatism

2006-03-15T08:15:00.000-05:00

What has happened to traditionalist conservatism? What is traditionalist conservatism? These are very elusive questions. The words "traditionalist" and "conservative" themselves seem to have multitude of definitions. The Chinese who opposed Deng Xiaoping and his reforms to open up the country to economic freedom can be considered conservatives, since they wish to conserve the older socialist models. So, in essence, you had conservative communists. One of the reasons why what is left of American Conservatism favors minimal government control (in rhetoric, though, hardly ever in reality) derives from the traditional resistances to overarching state forces. Something derived from our past conflicts with British, colonial, state, and federal government and power.

What about the term 'traditionalist'? This also varies. Traditional East Asian values differ in certain degrees from traditional values held by Christian civilizations. During St. John Maximovitch's tenure as the Orthodox bishop of Shanghai, he would walk through the streets and rescue the abandoned Chinese female infants. It was considered acceptable to dispose of female babies in that manner, but, this ran into conflict with St. John's values.

So, can the term 'traditionalist conservative' mean anything? I believe it can. I certainly feel much more comfortable calling my self a conservative in the Christians tradition than I do any other tradition. I am traditionalist because I adhere to the cultural heritage of the Anglo-Saxon peoples. Now, it must be understood that a traditionalist conservative doesn't embrace each and every tradition, and wish to conserve everything. For a tradition to be conserved it must be desirable in itself. It must be moral, ethical, and beneficial to society.

In the American varient, traditionalist conservatism includes a foreign policy of armed neutrality (which isn't necessarily the same as isolationism, but, it can be), and the domestic doctrine of subsidiarity (local control of government), not to mention opposition to inflationary budgets. However, traditionalist conservatism in the form espoused by Dr. Russell Kirk seems to be a rather new phenomena in the coherent sense. Certainly, one might include many of the founding fathers in this category, in specific areas. Could Lord Acton be classified in the traditionalist camp, despite his being a classical liberal? What about Edmund Burke?

My sympathies lie very much with Burke and Acton, despite their support for the so-called Glorious Revolution, and what seems to be lingering sympathy for the republican opposition to King Charles I. Often Revolutions only eject one gang of theives to replace it with another. Better the devil you know than the one you don't.

From My Long Absence

2006-03-07T17:52:00.000-05:00

Ahh, I am back from a rather long and extended absence. So, I ask for remission of transgressions from anyone who bothers to read my rather measely comments.

So, what has transpired over the past year, in the events of the outside world that is? Much!
The occupation of Iraq has gone from bad, to worse. A possible 'civil' war seems to be on the verge, precipitated by the various groups of Shi'ite Arabs against Sunni Arabs, not to mention the mix of the Sunni Kurds. Bombings of religious shrines, attacks on religious minorities, various terrorist groups operating at will, and other events fill our television screens every day. Iraq is indeed a sad event in our current history. It is only one among thousands of other tragedies. Dead US, British, and other allied soldiers, as well as the fatalities among the native Iraqi populations, are sore reminders of the corruptions we encounter in political force and positioning. We must also keep in mind all the wounded, as well as the many hundreds of thousands who died under Saddam's rule, and his ill fated military adventures and wars with Iran and Kuwait. I dare mention the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the war, and the further debt it creates. However, for the risk of being called crass I hope to restrain myself on this point.

And what is the reaction of the world at large to all that has transpired in the Cradle of Civilization? Apathy, acceptance, and ill founded opposition at best. Apathy from the vast majority of Americans (afterall, I can only definitively speak of my immediate surroundings, which is the world for me), yet, it is an apathy that often slides into blind acceptance of the sad state of the world. "What can we do? I just don't care anymore?" That is an attitude that my despair finds some safety and comfort in. Sliding into acceptance? Yes. Many Americans may voice their diagreement with entering into our ill fated adventure to begin with, but, give them three more decades and they will be ready for the same activities. Isn't acceptance just as convenient and appealing as apathy? Why not accept what is proclaimed to us?

Is that all? No. There is the point of ill founded opposition. This is from the American left, and some from the American right. The left opposes the war because it is politically convenient, a change of minds has occured becaus of unpopularity or realization of the massive failures incured, or base their view on Leftish concepts of foreign affairs. I do not care at the moment to argue against the first two points of opposition, but, only the third. The American Left views the purpose of foreign affairs to reside solely in monetary assistance, embargoes, and diplomatic pressures, with military forces all being ancillary and supportive of these courses. This stems from underpinning Wilsonian concepts of nation building, premises which are shared by the majority on the Right (ever since the 50's). However, are not these policies destructive in their own right, counterparts of Rightist policies. Yes. How many have died in Iraq as a result of the sanctions. Sanctions which were started by Bush I, but, vigorously pursued by Clinton.

We all have a innate political tendency to seek a political situation for our goals. That is an essentially statist solution. After all, states control massive resources, and these forces can be put to quick use. However, for the more paleolibertarian/conservative reader, the arguments advanced are unsuitable to reality. I an going to avoid an indepth analysis of the problems innate in all foreign interventionist schemes. For the conservative who dislikes big government at home and all the social interventionism it entail, it is a logical flip to accept similar policies abroad. For the 'liberal', they only demonstrate a logical consistency in the application of social engineering, both at home and abroad. I will answer left-liberals latter, but, for those who profess conservatism, at least that which is influenced by the admirable Dr. Russell Kirk, it is amazing in the highest. Dr. Kirk, which no man or women can accuse of being a dyed in the wool libertarian, or leftist, despised foreign intervention. He was incredibly suspicious of the Cold War, and certainly opposed the first gulf war. But, those are not the good conservatives today. They are to be swept under the rug, and forgotten about.

Oh, Dr. Kirk, what would you think of you mutated progeny today!

Kyrie, Elesison.

On "Creeping Fascism"

2004-10-18T11:23:00.000-04:00

Stephen Green (aka Vodkapundit) had a rather interesting post on "creeping fascism" (or the lack thereof) in America. To a degree he has a point- every dissident in America isn't being locked up for seditious speech.

However, locking up opposition isn't the only tenant of fascism. Fascism as a political ideology also deals with economic policy and foreign policy as well as domestic dissent crushing, and it seems that this is lost on Mr. Green. We can't just look at one incident dealing with one tenant of fascism and from that make blanket statements about America. This would, of course, be an argument based on the fallacy of conception.

Now, let's take a look at the broader picture, and compare American economic policy, foreign policy, and domestic policy with fascist policies.

Economically, fascism is an often misunderstood doctrine. Fascism, "as a social and economic system fascism is not a third way between the free market and communism. It is merely another form of totalitarianism that sought to 'combine its general totalitarianism with the individualistic character of society.' Such a middle-of-the-road policy created an extreme interventionist state whose chief production agent was the government-created monopolist." Since the early 20th century, America's economy has been dominated by a partnership of big business and government. The Federal Reserve, founded in large part due to big business, inflates our currency, finances the welfare/warfare state, causes boom-bust cycles, and leads to societal degradation. These three forces, through antitrust, IP laws, regulations, minimum wages, government contracts, corporate welfare, protective tariffs, and other interventions have effectively destroyed the competitive process of the market in some sectors, while most others are severely hampered. Only a precious few sectors could be called moderately free. Because of this, it is in fact true that the dominant forces in the economy are those that are government backed monopolists, very similar to the fascist system of corporate socialism.

On foreign policy, fascism is an aggressive, nationalistic doctrine. Since World War One, American foreign policy is quite possibly the most aggressive of any nation in the world. The US has been involved in the overthrow of foreign governments, invasions of sovereign nations, funding of terrorist organizations, and the backing of fascist governments around the world. Such an aggressive, imperialist foreign policy is a trademark of fascism.

On the home front, fascism is marked by militarism and nationalism. There has been an obvious surge of both after 9/11, and both parties have used it to good political effect. Their big media lackeys have not, despite the whining of warhawks, asked a single difficult question of war and peace to either candidate. And I won't even begin on the Patriot Act, just read the provisions of the thing and tell me it isn't a step towards totalitarianism.

So, in light of this, Mr. Green's attempt to ridicule those who claim America is going down the road to a fascist state in fact fails. He simply doesn't look the big picture, choosing in stead to argue from the fallacy of conception, citing one case and from that case making blanket, cover all statements.

Yes, I have been slack....

2004-10-17T10:35:00.000-04:00

about updating this blog. Really havent done it a hell of a lot since June. I thought senior year was supposed to be the easy year, but as of now it's taken more work than I've done in the last three years. Talk about a slap in the face. Between AP Calculus, AP British Lit, HTML Coding, and weekly debates and community events, I've been pretty busy. Hopefully I can start to find some time for this thing. I'll be working today to get the links and blogroll updated, maybe have a few posts.

On Extreme Property Rights

2004-08-15T11:57:00.000-04:00

Here's my semi-lengthy article on the right to exclusive ownership of one's self and one's property. Just a few disclaimers- Any errors in my representation of Rothbard and Hoppe's positions are mine, and if I have interpreted their arguments incorrectly do not hesitate to inform me of my error.

Libertarian political philosophy, particularly in its Austrian-derived variants, is unique in its unyielding defense of property rights. Such a rigorous defense often brings about much controversy between libertarians and mainstream political philosophers, but also between libertarians themselves, i.e., the Austrian School vs. the Chicago School on the nature of property rights. It is the purpose of this paper to examine a common objection to Austrian property rights theory and show the logical foundations of this objection to be untenable.

I. Austrian Property Rights theory

It is useful to first define just what I mean by "Austrian Property Rights" theory.

It was not until Murray Rothbard, a 5th generation Austrian economist, that the Austrian school began examining the fields of ethics and rights theory in any detail. Since Rothbard's initial works on the subject, the mantle has been taken up by numerous Austrian thinkers, namely Drs. Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Walter Block. While Rothbard, in The Ethics of Liberty, did establish a solid base for his libertarian ethics, it is Dr. Hoppe who has made the libertarian private property ethic truly logically unassailable.

So just what is the Austrian view of property rights? Rothbard writes,

THE LIBERTARIAN CREED rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the "nonaggression axiom." "Aggression" is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion.

If no man may aggress against another; if, in short, everyone has the absolute right to be "free" from aggression, then this at once implies that the libertarian stands foursquare for what are generally known as "civil liberties": the freedom to speak, publish, assemble, and to engage in such "victimless crimes" as pornography, sexual deviation, and prostitution (which the libertarian does not regard as "crimes" at all, since he defines a "crime" as violent invasion of someone else's person or property). Furthermore, he regards conscription as slavery on a massive scale. And since war, especially modern war, entails the mass slaughter of civilians, the libertarian regards such conflicts as mass murder and therefore totally illegitimate.

Rothbard's conception of property rights as elaborated in For a New Liberty rested upon the right to self ownership- that is, the right to exclusive control over one's self and one's faculties free from any coercive interference on the part of other individuals. Rothbard establishes this position of self-ownership by showing that the other options are impossible. He writes,

There are then only two alternatives: either (1) a certain class of people, A, have the right to own another class, B; or (2) everyone has the right to own his own equal quotal share of everyone else. The first alternative implies that while Class A deserves the rights of being human, Class B is in reality subhuman and therefore deserves no such rights. But since they are indeed human beings, the first alternative contradicts itself in denying natural human rights to one set of humans. Moreover, as we shall see, allowing Class A to own Class B means that the former is allowed to exploit, and therefore to live parasitically, at the expense of the latter. But this parasitism itself violates the basic economic requirement for life: production and exchange.

The second alternative, what we might call "participatory communalism" or "communism," holds that every man should have the right to own his equal quotal share of everyone else. If there are two billion people in the world, then everyone has the right to own one two-billionth of every other person. In the first place, we can state that this ideal rests on an absurdity: proclaiming that every man is entitled to own a part of everyone else, yet is not entitled to own himself. Secondly, we can picture the viability of such a world: a world in which no man is free to take any action whatever without prior approval or indeed command by everyone else in society. It should be clear that in that sort of "communist" world, no one would be able to do anything, and the human race would quickly perish. But if a world of zero self-ownership and one hundred percent other ownership spells death for the human race, then any steps in that direction also contravene the natural law of what is best for man and his life on earth.

As we can see, a denial of the right to self ownership only gives us two alternatives: slavery, in which men are no longer equal under the protection of law, or communism, in which no one would even be capable of acting. Since the alternatives are both morally indefensible and completely impossible, it is reasonable to say that the only legitimate position on the question of self-ownership is unequivocal support.

Rothbard then uses this position of self-ownership to support the right to exclusive control of property which man has legitimately acquired. It is quite simple to see that if we have a right to property in our body, that assault against another's body would be illegitimate and criminal, a violation of rights. However, it is trickier as we attempt to apply this right to the physical world outside of our bodies. Rothbard reasons as follows- If man has a right to self ownership as we have established, then man has an equally inviolable right to his labor. That is, man has a right to use his self in any way he wishes as long as it does not conflict with another's right to self ownership. By extension then it follows that if one has a right to his labor, then he has a right to the fruits of his labor. Locke writes,

…every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined it to something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men. For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to…

This brings us to Rothbard's conclusion as to the status of property rights. Rothbard concludes that the only rational position on property is that one has a right to the ownership of one's person, and from that his labor, and from his labor, property. In the same way that he does for self-ownership, Rothbard establishes this right by ruling out all other possibilities.

Moreover, if a producer is not entitled to the fruits of his labor, who is? It is difficult to see why a newborn Pakistani baby should have a moral claim to a quotal share of ownership of a piece of Iowa land that someone has just transformed into a wheatfield—and vice versa of course for an Iowan baby and a Pakistani farm. Land in its original state is unused and unowned. Georgists and other land communalists may claim that the whole world population really "owns" it, but if no one has yet used it, it is in the real sense owned and controlled by no one. The pioneer, the homesteader, the first user and transformer of this land, is the man who first brings this simple valueless thing into production and social use. It is difficult to see the morality of depriving him of ownership in favor of people who have never gotten within a thousand miles of the land, and who may not even know of the existence of the property over which they are supposed to have a claim.

While Rothbard's position on the issue is undeniably strong, it stops just short of establishing property rights as a logically unassailable institution. Here Dr. Hoppe takes up the challenge and actually establishes property rights as such: an absolute and logically unassailable axiom which cannot be refuted without engaging oneself in a performative contradiction. Hoppe's argument goes as follows.

Hoppe states that the libertarian nonaggression or extreme private property position is in fact the logical presupposition of argument. That is, simply by arguing, one demonstrates his or her recognition of these principles, and thus any argument against them involves him or her in a performative contradiction, much like asserting that there are no true assertions.
Hoppe defends this quite lucidly and clearly. The only reason that we have discussions and debates is that as rational beings, we are able to engage in argumentation and proposition-making. Two stones clearly cannot discuss or debate an issue of ethics because they are incapable of interpersonal argumentative exchange. As such, all ethical proposals, and in fact all propositions in general, must assume that they are capable of being validated through argument. In simply arguing, one concedes his or her preference for argumentative exchange in establishing ethical propositions as valid, and as such accepts this first insight to be irrefutable.

Hoppe's second insight is that argumentation is an action. This is a quite simple statement, however it has momentous implications. As it is an action, it requires the use of scarce means, namely one's body and any other property which facilitates the argument. This means that by the simple act of arguing, one then shows his or her preference for the use of private property as a means to achieve his or her ends. Hoppe writes,

For one thing, obviously, no one could ever propose anything, and no one could be convinced of any proposition by argumentative means, if a person's right to make exclusive use of his were not already presupposed. It is this recognition of each other's mutually exclusive control over one's own body that explains the distinctive nature of propositional exchanges that, while one may disagree about what has been said, it is still possible to agree on at least the fact that there is disagreement. And obvious, too: Such property right in one's body must be said to be justified a priori. For anyone to try to justify any norm whatsoever would already have to presuppose an exclusive right to control his own body as a valid norm in order to say "I propose such and such."

In this line of reasoning, Dr. Hoppe has established the right to self-ownership as an irrefutable axiom. To assert anything to the contrary would be a performative contradiction in which the one asserting that self ownership is illegitimate is only able to assert such because of an exclusive ownership of their body. It would be no different than asserting "all assertions are false."

After establishing self ownership, Dr. Hoppe proceeds to property rights to the natural world. Hoppe argues that man is only capable or arguing insofar as he is alive, and man can only survive in the natural world if he has the right to use elements of the natural world to sustain him. Obviously, if man had no right to do so, the species would have gone extinct within a few days of its conception. Furthermore, if property could not be legitimately acquired by original appropriation, that is, establishing a link between one's self and a particular scarce resource by using it before anyone else did, and we were instead to give other people the right to what we originally appropriate, we again could not survive in nature. For if I do not have a right to establish an exclusive property title to a scarce resource by mixing my labor with it, then too the human race would not have survived passed day 5 or so.

Hoppe concludes that by merely being alive and arguing, one has presupposed the validity of the libertarian property ethic. No proposition can be made that is incompatible with the libertarian private property ethic without the advocate of such ethic involving him in a performative contradiction, in which he is unable to validate his position.

II. My Opponent's Objection and its Flawed Logic

An acquaintance of mine who opposes this theory posited to me one night this question. If we are to hold this to be true, then would he be justified in stealing a glass of water from me to save himself from dehydration.

Of course, being a logically consistent libertarian, I answered no. He challenged me on this issue, asserting that he would have a right to do such to save his life. Now let us analyze why this position is untenable.

The core of his argument against this position is that property rights are violable as long as the consequences of such a violation are good. He would be justified in stealing from me because my bottle of water is less important that his life.

First, let me deal with the problems of this argument from the position of Hoppe's conception of rights. By entering into an argument, my opponent is presupposing two things: Our right to exclusive control over our bodies, and our exclusive rights to ownership of our property. Dr. Hoppe has laid out the reasons why in the manner that I have explained above. Now the problem with his position then becomes that he is asserting something that is totally inconsistent with the act of interpersonal argumentative exchange, namely that I do not have an exclusive right to my property. If I do not have a right to exclusive control over my property, then because rights are universal and apply to all men equally, then he too lacks such a right by his own argument. If he and I lacked exclusive rights to our bodies and property, we would be incapable of arguing at all. Thus his proposal is a self-defeating contradiction in which he attempts to deny the validity of an ethic in argumentation that he must presuppose to engage in an argument in the first place. His proposition is no more valid than the proposition that humans action is not purposeful behavior.

Secondly, let me examine further the implications of this position. Let me reiterate that the position my acquaintance takes is that property rights can be violated as long as a good consequence follows from the violation. By this logic any numbers of rights violations are easily justifiable. For example - If someone needs a kidney transplant to save his life, and I have two perfectly functioning kidneys, my opponent would, if his is consistent in the application of his implicitly stated doctrine, find nothing wrong with taking one of my kidneys and giving it to the needy individual. Losing a kidney would be a mere inconvenience to me, whereas going without a kidney would be death for another person, why should I be allowed to greedily keep one of my kidneys? Certainly someone’s life is far more important than my kidney. This is the logic of my opponent's position.

Let us also take it further. Once again, if we are to consistently apply my opponent's logic, then killing one person is justified if it saves the lives of two other people. If I am not killed, then two people will die. However, if I am killed, two people will be able to continue their lives. If we hold then, that certainly having less unnecessary death is a good thing, killing one innocent person can justified to save two other people. Obviously this has definite extensions into the real world- Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for example. My opponent must see no problem at all with the incineration of half a million innocent people and the radiation of millions more if he views that this prevented a larger loss of life. Once again, if he is consistent he would have no problem with such action. If he did have an objection to this action, then, the objection would not be that the killing of innocent people is wrong, but that it would not satisfy high enough goals to justify the killing.

We now see that by taking my opponent's position, we put ourselves in a position in which there is nothing inherently wrong with a violation of rights. As long as the violation leads to a good consequence, then it is ok. Thus, if we accept this, we are complete moral relativists to whom there is no longer an absolute right or wrong. Now, I think that most people would have a problem with a complete absence of morality, my opponent included. However this is the logical conclusion of his argument, and if he has a problem with this conclusion then he should re-examine his reasoning.

Nice Piece On Theory And Practice

2004-08-15T10:00:00.000-04:00

Over at Catallarchy. It's a few days old, I know, must have missed it a few days ago. I find this post very interesting because the major objection I always come across when debating the issue of market anarchism is "well, in theory that is correct." As Micha points out, if the theory is correct, then it would work in reality. This is simply denying the conclusion while accepting everything that comes before it in a chain of reasoning.

Extreme Property Rights

2004-08-15T08:22:00.000-04:00

Well, after a heated debate between myself and a friend Friday night, I decided to write on the what I would call "extreme property rights," that is, that one has a right to pass a dying man on the street and not give him a drink of water that would save his life. I'll have it up sometime today.

A v. P Takes Box Office

2004-08-15T08:19:00.000-04:00

Story here. Is it just me, or is this movie, featuring a tag line of "whoever wins, we lose," a metaphor for the campaign? (Thanks to Tim Swanson for the pic)

Well, it's Not a New Story, But...

2004-08-15T08:16:00.000-04:00

Someone in the mainstream is finally covering the Christian Exodus movement! I'm no Christian myself, but I hope they manage to at least raise the issue of secession and bring it to the attention of a wider audience. It would be a great thing if the US government began to splinter into smaller entities.

Hurricane? What Hurricane!?!?!?!?

2004-08-15T08:04:00.000-04:00

Well, despite the fact that it came ashore on the NC coast, from my home in Carteret County I would never have known there was a hurricane out there if it wasn't on TV. Most of the rain and wind went west of my place. In fact, I think we had more rain from the edge of the tropical storm that got us on friday!

Off With His Head!

2004-08-15T07:59:00.000-04:00

Jeff Jarvis is pissed about the NJ governor wasting taxpayer dollars. It's funny, if he really is pissed about this kinda thing, he would call for Bush to go to the guillotine.

Food for Thought

2004-08-12T15:52:00.000-04:00

William Lind has a great article up at counterpunch.org on the war through the eyes of Al Quaeda. I quote,

Again, there is no question that the account is propaganda. But propaganda is itself revealing. It allows us to see our enemies as they see themselves, and the self-image of al Qaeda that emerges from this account is one that should concern us. The seamless blending of ancient and modern, of divinely protected heroism and technological competence, is potent. That is particularly true when, as in this case, al Qaeda's opponent is the hired troops of a corrupt regime.

Mr. Lind knows his stuff, he's written quite a lot on this topic. I'm inclined to agree with him on this one- these terrorists are not as weak, stupid, and ill-equipped as most people would like to think. They know what they're doing. And as long as the US think they can, using a rigid and centralized structure of command, defeat a radically decentralized organization whose cells act with a good degree of autonomy, they'll only be fanning the flames.

165 Dead, 600 Wounded...

2004-08-12T15:48:00.000-04:00

Story here. Funny, after all the talk from the establishment about the incompetence of the Iraqi militias, their disarray, and their lack of direction,
"US tanks, armoured vehicles and helicopter gunships attacked the radical cleric's Mehdi Army, the rebels fired mortar rounds from the courtyard of the Imam Ali mosque, one of the holiest Shi'ite sites"

Back From a Summer-Long Hiatus...

2004-08-11T17:12:00.000-04:00

Well, I can't believe the summer is over, and I failed to blog any of it. To make a long story short, I got very sick for a few weeks, went on a road trip, and then after that just forgot all about blogging and, in all honesty, economics, philosophy, and politics all together.

However, that just changed.

I just got back from Mises University in Auburn Alabama a few days ago, and I can honestly say it was one of the best things I've ever done. I learned more in a week than I have learned in most years at government funded schools in my home state of North Carolina. Not only though did I learn, I was inspired to continue learning, thinking, and spreading the word about Austrian economics, libertarianism, and market anarchy. So, with that said, I'll probably be blogging a lot more in the future.

Blogging will formally resume in around 22 hours....

Ray Bradbury on Michael Moore, and My Thoughts on IP

2004-06-03T13:09:00.000-04:00

While scanning Reynolds’s blog Instapundit, I found an interesting post @Salon on Michael Moore, Ray Bradbury, and Fahrenheit 9/11.

I agree with Bradbury on one point- Moore is an asshole. Though I don't care what he says about Bush foreign policy, his socialist views on the economy are some of the worst out there today.

However, I disagree with Bradbury when he says Moore "stole" the title of Bradbury's famous Fahrenheit 451. Yes, Moore's movie borrows the title, however, there is no theft involved. Intellectual property, that is the idea that people have the rights to ideas, is completely illegitimate.

As stated above, the idea of intellectual property is the idea that someone has the exclusive rights to use the intangible creations of the mind. Proponents of IP say that there is no difference between tangible and intangible creations as it relates to the right to property.

When examining IP, we first must examine just what property is. Property, as defined by Locke, has two necessary preconditions- it must be scarce, and it must be in demand. Anything that is not scarce and not in demand is not, and cannot be, property.

Immediately then, we run into problems with IP. Namely, knowledge is not scarce in the economic sense. If I educate myself, I do not make anyone else dumber. That is, I do not, in acquiring knowledge, decrease anyone else's share. Stephen Kinsella writes,

IP is not naturally "scarce," in the economic sense. Under Lockean theory, the state of nature contains natural property, which is economically scarce, meaning that my use of Blackacre conflicts with your use of Blackacre. Use of such property is exclusive, since my use excludes yours, and vice-versa. So that scarce property and resources can be used without potential users eternally warring over these tracts, ownership is allocated (to the first user who "mixes his labor" with it, according to Lockean theory; or to the creator for created goods) so as to solve this problem.

However, were we in a Garden of Eden where land and other goods were infinitely abundant, there would be no scarcity and thus no need for property rules. For example, your taking my lawnmower would not really deprive me of it, if I could conjure up another in the blink of an eye. Lawnmower-taking in these circumstances would not be "theft". Thus, classical property rights do not seem to naturally apply to things of infinite abundance.

As knowledge is infinitely abundant and not restricted by any set quantity of knowledge, it cannot be considered property.

Now, this ethical argument does not stand well with utilitarian who believe in wealth maximization through government action or inaction. Utilitarian could care less about the ethics of a situation; they only wish to maximize wealth.

This theory of utilitarianism has numerous problems inherent in it. First and foremost is the inability to make any kind of interpersonal utility comparison. That is, because everyone's value scales are unique, one has no way of knowing if his actions will increase anyone's utility or value but his own. Because utilitarians cannot even show themselves capable of making such comparisons, their arguments are not solvent.

For example- most utilitarian proponents of IP state that if we did not have patents to protect inventors, they would go uncompensated for their inventions and we would loose incentives to innovate and develop new technologies.

However, Mr. Kinsella has pointed out that patent law only covers what is considered to be a practical innovation. That is, while an airplane that makes use of the laws of aerodynamics is patentable, the laws of aerodynamics themselves are not patentable. This intervention reduces the incentive for theoretical research and rewards only practical research. One cannot say that either theoretical or practical research would maximize wealth in the long run, and thus one cannot say whether or not patents increase the utility of society in the long run.

I could go on, but you're probably better off reading Kinsella himself. His website can be found in my links section.

Sage Advice from Murray Rothbard

2004-06-03T11:38:00.000-04:00

In April of 1954, Murray Rothbard penned this classic indictment of foreign policy in the cold war era and beyond. Rothbard's analysis is penetrating, and the applications to the modern "War on Terror" abound. Even though it is over fifty years old now, it deserves a critical read.

River Socialism?

2004-06-03T10:48:00.000-04:00

Article by Erich Mattei up at the Mises Institute today on the subject. Yet another government boondoggle...

Tenet Resigning?

2004-06-03T10:45:00.000-04:00

That’s what Joshua Marshall is reporting. I don't see any official corroboration yet, though.

Update- Yep, its confirmed- Tenet has submitted his resignation.

DiLorenzo on Neoconservatives and Lincoln.

2004-06-03T10:05:00.000-04:00

Great LRC article by Thomas DiLorenzo on neocons and Lincoln.

The Lincoln myth is the ideological cornerstone of the American welfare/warfare state because it deifies not only Lincoln but all of his successors. It provides the necessary moral cover for the crushing of states’ rights as limits on federal power at home and for military adventurism abroad. As Robert E. Lee warned in a letter to Lord Acton in 1866, the destruction of states’ rights and the transformation of the American government into one consolidated empire was sure to become despotic at home and aggressive abroad. A truer forecast was never made. The Lincoln myth has been the essential ingredient in the destruction of the Jeffersonian political tradition in America, in other words.

DiLorenzo is right on. Just scan the Claremont Institute website and you'll find near-religious worship of Father Abe.

Propaganda in the Works...

2004-06-03T09:52:00.000-04:00

At present he's [Roger Simon] also co-writing a screenplay with Michael Ledeen, a foreign-policy expert and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who is also an NRO regular. Simon is keeping the project close to his vest, and will say only that it is a thriller related to the war on terror.

I knew the state made propaganda during WWII through Hollywood, but apparently they're getting desperate again.

Original article found here.

More Republican Socialism

2004-06-03T09:35:00.000-04:00

WaPo story here. What I do not understand is why those supporting this and other subsidization of education constantly complain about the increasing costs of college. I would point them to Neal McCluskey's brief on the issue.

The report -- released to herald the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act -- quickly identifies the tuition rocket's likely fuel: "Beginning with the Higher Education Act of 1965, the federal government ... has provided significant funding to help ensure that low- and moderate-income students and families are not prevented from receiving a postsecondary education simply because of financial circumstances." This year, thanks to the Education Act, "roughly $90 billion [was invested] in higher education, with the bulk of that money, about $65 billion, [going] directly to students...."

Consider that $65 billion going directly to students and its effect on demand: A student will "purchase" education at a price he can afford. Extra education money enables him to pay a higher tuition. In the aggregate, multiple billions in student aid artificially inflate demand -- and average tuition -- as students who might not have gone to college do, and others attend more expensive institutions than they otherwise would have.

The government, through its subsidization policies, is toying with the price of higher education. When that price rises, they point to greedy universities. But if they fall, I guarantee the state would take all the credit.

The Ayatollah Just May be Right...

2004-06-03T09:30:00.000-04:00

Story here.

But Khamenei questioned whether democracy could be brought to a country by means of "atomic bombs, coups and military might," he said in comments broadcast live on state television.

Copts Again

2004-06-02T22:16:00.000-04:00

Maybe some people will accuse me of being hung up on this issue. Frankly, I don't know. What I do know is that my heart is torn for the Coptic people of Egypt (as it is for the Palestinians in Israel). From the Al-Kosheh massacre of January 2000 when 25 Coptic Christians were killed in a riot, all the way to arrest. Imprisonment, and death of a Coptic Orthodox priest, and two parishoners because they dared to repair a brick wall without government permission!

How would some of our readers like to live in a country where you have to carry around an ID card informing the police of your religion, or where your daughter could be raped, and then forced to convert to Islam no matter what you say or do? Yet, the Egyptian government receives more foreign aid than any other country, except Israel.

Why? Why do so many Americans not care? Well, because the Copts are virtually unknown, although they make up 15% of the population of Egypt. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that we go into Egypt guns blazing, like we went into Iraq. We would have a worse mess in Egypt than in Iraq. Why don't we start with stopping all foreign aid to Egypt (and hey, while we're at it, stop all foreign aid period). Secondly, stop interventionist policies all around the Muslim world, that engender nothing but hatred and disgust for all Westerners, whom they think are all Christians.

By giving Egypt foreign aid for decades we have unwittingly supported a failing dictatorship, and been implicit in the Egyptian governments policies of repression.

I Knew Bush was No Friend of Liberty, but....

2004-06-02T20:17:00.000-04:00

Damn! Anyone who supports Bush is supporting only socialism and mass murder.

Government Cannot Protect Us

2004-06-02T17:39:00.000-04:00

Ron Paul via LRC here. Ron Paul attacks what is seen as a sacred cow by Washington and it's enablers- that government can protect us. He writes,

But the obvious lesson of September 11th is that government cannot protect us. Even with trillions of tax dollars spent on “defense,” hijacked planes flew unchallenged over our skies and attacked national symbols of business and government. Yet now we’re told to put even more faith into the same bureaucracies that failed us so miserably in the past? Self-reliance and self-defense are American virtues; trembling reliance on the illusion of government-provided security is not.

He could not be any more correct in his analysis. He continues,

It’s easy for elected officials in Washington to tell Americans that government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism, but it’s your freedom and your tax dollars at stake – not theirs.

Because our government can ensure their own profits and livelihood by taxing us, they have no economic incentive to act efficiently and protect us. In fact, they have every disincentive to do so. If a government worker were to look out for his economic well-being, he does not have to serve consumers, only his boss. For his boss, he simply has to convince the higher-ups that there is a crisis that necessitates more spending on his agency. No one has to serve the consumers, make us safer, etc- that would only make their posts expendable.

There is a plethora of literature out there regarding Austrian economics and market anarchism, and I suggest you read as much of it as you can. The national defense myth, that is that some far off, self-serving government employee can protect us, is the very intellectual foundation of all governments. If this foundation disappears, so do our rulers.

More reading on the subject:
Counterterrorism (by government) is Impossible, by Lew Rockwell
Hoppe's Bibliographic Essay on Anarcho-Capitalism
For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray Rothbard
Bureaucracy, by Ludwig von Mises
24's Subversive Message, by Matthew Hisrich
Does US Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism? by Ivan Eland

Also, make sure to check out the links section of this blog. It has links to many anarcho-capitalist websites and intellectuals. (LRC, Mises.org, Hans Hoppe, Walter Block, David D. Friedman)

The True Nature of War

2004-06-02T17:16:00.000-04:00

Op-ed by Anne Applebaum here. The majority of people still consider World War Two to be a "good war." It has fascinated me for some time now that anyone can say the loss of fifty million lives was "good." I guess it's only good if you're the US government or on the dole of the US government.

Dissent! Dissent!

2004-06-02T16:59:00.000-04:00

Cheney seems shocked that someone may dislike the PATRIOT Act.

War Makes Strange Bedfellows

2004-06-02T16:52:00.000-04:00

Story here. And this is the guy who we believed about Saddam's weapons program! It should come as no surprise to anyone that he admits to lying about Saddam's weapons when he is known as an international criminal and liar.

Bush- War on Terror = World War Two

2004-06-02T16:42:00.000-04:00

He doesn't know just how right he is. He's right that this problem was brought to us by a meddling foreign policy. He's right that civilian casualties may well match or exceed military ones. He's right that this war may claim fifty million lives by its end. And he’s right that this war will probably end one day in the future to open up an even worse can of worms for the world.

So, if he means that this war will be disastrous for the entire world, he's right. I just don't think he meant it that way, though.

Ladies Night No More?

2004-06-02T16:38:00.000-04:00

This is possibly the stupidest application of anti-discrimination law yet.

Jewish Fundamentalism

2004-06-02T10:54:00.000-04:00

Just for those American supporters of Israel. So, you think that the Jewish religious leaders are the innocent figures in the blood bath we call the Middle East? Wrong. The strange fact is that American evangelical Protestant leaders, like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, continue to support a nation-state that not only kills with impunity, but curses the very religion of those who support it. Hmmm, the Taliban and the Rabbis are starting to look a lot closer now.

VDH- Kill, Then Talk

2004-06-02T09:54:00.000-04:00

Op-ed from TNR online here.

First off, the article's tone and moral backing is consequentialist in nature, and I have already made public my thoughts on that kind of moral theory. Also, Hanson seems to think he knows all, for example:

Clear success in Falluja--defined not just by apparent tranquility, but the absence of arms caches, nocturnal assassins, and organized gangs of Baathists using homes and businesses to foment insurrection--will undermine Sadr's militias, embolden democracy-minded moderates, and frighten Iran and Syria into curbing their mischief. Iran will talk to us soon enough about behavior that promotes stability rather than terrorism--but only when they have real reason to fear U.S. success in Iraq.

I would love to find out how he knows this. Writes Matthew Hirsch for the Mises Institute,

In each case, though, the focus is on the repercussions of an interventionist U.S. foreign policy. Sometimes called "blowback," or what might otherwise be identified by Misesians as the unanticipated consequences of government action, the lesson is the same whether dealing with foreign or domestic policy. Government policy presumes a static and unchanging world and cannot predict or account for the human response to its policies. Even its "dynamic" models are static because they cannot account for every variation.

In foreign policy, the problem is arguably worse than in domestic policy, because the government deals with political systems its supposed experts cannot understand, cultures that are unfamiliar, and unleashes forces and responses that it never expected. The result is always some "crisis," which means nothing more than a dangerous development that had not been part of the plan.

To make it short, there is no way anyone can predict the outcome of any foreign engagement, to do that would require us to understand every possible action taken by every possible actor involved. In such situations, you always have unexpected consequences. Throughout history, we see that these consequences often outweigh any good that came from the original intervention. US entry into WWI set the stage for the massive allied victory that led to Germany's subjugation. US entry into the Russian Civil War between the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks gave the two nations nothing but mistrust, that mistrust and continued interventions by US government in regional affairs gave us a Cold War. These blowbacks were far more damaging that the initial problem. Even Hanson's example of US defeat in Vietnam was an unforeseen consequence of an originally minor intervention. The Cato Institute has done an extensive survey of this subject. Still, however, we have pundits and politicos who do not understand this simple principle.

On Consequentialism

2004-06-01T17:53:00.000-04:00

I was going through the archives of Rod Long's weblog, and I ran across a series of articles dealing with, at least in part, the moral philosophy of consequentialism. That is, that wrongdoing is justified if it brings a positive result. Professor Long writes,

I don’t regard consequentialism as a viable moral theory. Thus murder remains a forbidden rights-violation, regardless of whether some “good” comes of it. Or, to put it another way, no good on balance can come from an immoral act, because no result counts as good if achieved through wickedness. Either way, no end can justify an immoral means.

I'm in agreement with him on this point. If one holds that immoral action is just if "good" comes of it, then one has no real objection to torture, genocide, or robbery if it benefits the "greater good." They only have an objection if it does not have net benefits. In many ways, this is the position of many on the War in Iraq. Even though the US has killed upwards of one million Iraqis since the early 90s, most of them children, that's not a problem since we had good intentions and seek to bring them democracy. To them, the government's intentions justify mass murder. Similar arguments are made by the left to justify regulation, redistribution, and affirmative action programs. They may violate property rights, but they create a net benefit. And if we are to get to the crux of the matter, all supporters of the state are consequentialists to some degree or another. The state's very existence is predicated on the theft of income and property from the producers, a violation of their rights to keep and own property. However, they see the state as necessary for establishing justice, ignoring much of the important scholarship on the utilitarian side of anarchism. The consequentialist argument is flawed to the core precisely because it holds no principled opposition to any violation of rights as long as they benefit society at large.

Republican Congressional Revelation

2004-06-01T10:40:00.000-04:00

Story here.

Mica argues that private companies will do a better, more efficient job at the screening that currently is the TSA's primary function.

This should not surprise anyone. Of course the TSA bureaucrats are inferior to private sector screeners, they have no profit motive. If only our representatives had a basic understanding of economics....

TNR- Amnesty International a Threat to Human Rights?

2004-06-01T09:57:00.000-04:00

Article here.

In fact, it could be argued that one of the most serious emerging threats to human rights today is Amnesty's decision to spend a disproportionate share of its limited resources attacking the United States--at the opportunity cost of focusing attention on governments that are slaughtering, enslaving, torturing, and imprisoning millions of people around the world....

I think Ghitis is drawing a false dichotomy between "governments that are slaughtering, enslaving, torturing and imprisoning millions" and "The United States." The US Govt. embargo of Iraq has led to over one million deaths. Ten thousand more, at least, have died as 'collateral damage.' Similar 'collateral damage' is also found in Afghanistan. Say what you will about our motives, they do not justify this level of death. Let's not forget that the only reason Saddam was even in power was because we propped him up as a counterbalance to the Ayatollah Khomeini, whom also only came to power because of US meddling.

And if we are to talk slavery, let's talk about the legitimacy of the very existence of the State. If we reject slavery, and define slavery as a condition of subjection or submission characterized by lack of freedom of action or of will, then we must also reject the state. Allow me to illustrate-

1. Slavery is immoral
2. Slavery is a condition of subjection or submission characterized by lack of freedom of action or of will
3. The State is legitimate.

One cannot hold two of those views without rejecting a third- The State's existence is only supported by the subjugation of a segment of the population through taxation, coercion, and intimidation- slavery.

Revisionism as the Ultimate Cause

2004-06-01T09:03:00.000-04:00

In the spring of 1966, Murray Rothbard’s Left and Right carried an editorial describing Cold War revisionism as the major historical task of the day. Rothbard saw the struggle between the ‘official’ state-sponsored versions of history and revisionism to be one of the utmost importance.

Today, the importance of revisionism is unchanged. The history taught to the nation’s students in the state’s schools is flat out wrong. My generation is coming up ignorant of the history of this nation and the world. Nearly everyone simply accepts what he is taught without any thinking or analysis.

Revisionism is important because it takes the ammunition from those who seek to enlarge the state. Around Memorial Day, we are bombarded by reminders from statist historians that those men who served their country during wartime were fighting to secure our freedom. They invoke the images of Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and Reagan in an effort to support the state’s most recent war. If we allow these propagandists to go unchallenged in their interpretation of our history, we doom ourselves to a defeat in the war of ideas.

This Memorial Day, we see a perfect example of this invocation. The Chicago Sun-Times ran a column yesterday on the current war in Iraq and the War for Southern Independence. Steyn writes,

You think Iraq's a quagmire? Lincoln's ''new birth of freedom'' bogged down into a centurylong quagmire of segregation, denial of civil rights, lynchings. Does that mean the Civil War wasn't worth fighting? That, as Al Gore and other excitable types would say, Abe W. Lincoln lied to us?

His version of history has been taught in schools for as long as public schooling has existed on a large scale. Because his is the orthodox view of history, this column will serve as a resounding reminder of our moral purpose to a majority of the public.

And this is precisely why revisionism is so important to the cause of liberty. Were the public educated on the causes, effects, and historical implications of the War for Southern Independence, this article would not resonate with anyone. It would likely be ridiculed and laughed at by most people if they knew the truth about that horrible war. Instead, it will re-affirm the belief in Bush’s war. We cannot allow this to continue if we hope to ever win the war of ideas

More on the War for Southern Independance.

2004-06-01T07:45:00.000-04:00

A Claremont Institute worship piece on Lincoln, published yesterday.

I can't help it, but I think anyone who can hold these views of the War for Southern Independence seriously, and anyone who can publish them seriously, is not worthy of any intellectual respect. I'm going to have much more on the War for Southern Independence later today, probably a full-length column on the matter.

Update- Apparently, Mr. Krannawitter, the VP of Claremont, has a history of Lincoln worship.

The Chicago Sun Times Unwittingly Proves the Anti-War Point!

2004-06-01T06:47:00.000-04:00

This must be the product of government schooling. Let's look at some quotes.

You think Iraq's a quagmire? Lincoln's ''new birth of freedom'' bogged down into a century long quagmire of segregation, denial of civil rights, lynchings. Does that mean the Civil War wasn't worth fighting? That, as Al Gore and other excitable types would say, Abe W. Lincoln lied to us?

Why I most certainly do think reconstruction was horrible, and that Lincoln was a liar! No, the Yankee invasion of the South was NOT justified. Go read DiLorenzo, Wilson, and other revisionist scholarship on the war, and then tell me that Lincoln was right.

hey had victims galore back in 1863, but they weren't a victim culture. They had a lot of crummy decisions and bureaucratic screwups worth re-examining, but they weren't a nation that prioritized retroactive pseudo-legalistic self-flagellating vaudeville over all else. They had hellish setbacks but they didn't lose sight of the forest in order to obsess week after week on one tiny twig of one weedy little tree.

Wrong again! If not for Lincoln's dictatorial policies, Delaware, Maryland, and even New York may have drifted out of the union! And let us not forget that Lincoln shut down more than three hundred newspapers during his war on the South, effectively silencing criticism of his regime.

Playing by Gore-Kennedy rules, the Union would have lost the Civil War

If he means by telling the truth about the motives, implications, and costs of the war, he's absolutely right. However, as I have said before, Lincoln didn't allow that to happen because he silenced, shut down, and exiled opposition. Hell, he even arrested the head of the Supreme Court!

Mr. Steyn has unwittingly proved the point of the paleoconservative/libertarian anti-war camp, and for that I drink to his ignorance.

IPI- America Setting Bad Example on Press Freedom

2004-06-01T06:39:00.000-04:00

AP story here, just scroll down and you'll see it.

"Bans of news media outlets are both unwise and counterproductive, no matter how inaccurate or unfair the authorities may deem their reporting or editorials to be," the institute said.

When the US puts a country under martial law, bomb their cities, give them a fiat currency, and show a total disrespect for freedom and the market and then calls itself a liberating force, something is seriously wrong.

PATRIOT Act Going Under?

2004-06-01T06:36:00.000-04:00

Village Voice story here. One can only hope so.

More on Israel

2004-06-01T06:26:00.000-04:00

Just a follow up to Gavin's last post, this FEE article dealing with foreign aid, terrorism, and Israel is worth a read.

"Beatings, torture, imprisonment, and even killings of Palestinians have become commonplace. Palestinian farmers have been deprived of water for their farms, while Israeli farmers get what they need. Palestinian freedom of travel has been restricted or denied on numerous occasions, making it difficult or impossible to visit family or go to work, thus causing economic hardship. Christian and Moslem Palestinians who live in the West Bank and Gaza have been prevented from worshiping at Jerusalem's religious sites for security reasons. Palestinian merchants who sell watermelons in the local market have been beaten because they sliced open the watermelons, revealing the colors of the Palestinian flag, which was forbidden at the time. Palestinians have also been beaten for wearing shirts in the colors of the Palestinian flag. During the recent election, right-wing Israeli party posters placed in front of polling places falsely warned Palestinians that their health and pension benefits would be taken away if they voted, greatly reducing the number of Palestinians who dared to vote. Some of those who tried to vote were beaten by police."

Foreign Aid To Egypt And The Plight Of The Coptic People

2004-05-31T19:30:00.000-04:00

What I have found interesting for sometime is the fact that the United States federal government gives more money to the government of Egypt than to any other except Israel. Yet they still refuse after 20 years to move toward free market reforms and greater freedom for their people. Not to mention the fact that the Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt is persecuted and discriminated against by the government. Once again, your tax dollars at work.

And I'm sure many so-called "evangelical Christians" in the United States are concerned when Muslims persecute Christians, but not when Israelis do. However, I'm sure a lot of evangelical Protestants don't really care since they consider us Orthodox Christians not be Christians, while they treat Israeli Orthodox Jewish extremists who hate Christianity as their allies.

Why do we continue to give money to the likes of Egypt (and Israel)? If you want empirical evidence, hasn't 20 years of nothing but more oppression demonstrated the failure in our policy?

On the LP

2004-05-31T17:31:00.000-04:00

The Libertarian Party nominated it's candidate for president yesterday. Catallarchy has an interesting article on the matter and I think I'll weigh in on it.

To be blunt, I'm for the total abolition of the state. Not limited government, not constitutional republicanism, but market based anarchy. To me, the LP and other mainstream libertarian organizations are acting foolish. They're spending so much money on getting in good with the government that they aren’t taking the time to support and take part in major research and educational efforts. I hate to sound pessimistic, but the LP isn't going to make a splash anywhere anytime soon if they do not have a major refocusing of their efforts from electoral politics to education. Lew Rockwell wrote a great column on the issue a little while back. I borrow from him when I say that to become a bureaucrat to fight bureaucracy, to join the state in order to roll it back, makes as much sense as fighting fire with matches and gasoline.

And They Call Them Capitalists!

2004-05-31T17:19:00.000-04:00

Story here. The neocons have actually been calling for a gas tax for a while now, but now supposedly free market Chicago economist Gary Becker is calling for a gas tax as well. Slate does get something right though:

"The irony is that the free market forces that many of these writers normally extol are actually working. Americans are buying more Priuses and fewer Hummers. Ford is rushing a hybrid SUV into production. Car-buyers need to be bribed to purchase gas-guzzlers. The Wall Street Journal reported today that U.S. automakers have jacked up SUV rebates by an average of 17 percent from last year. Givebacks on tanks like the Cadillac Escalade and Lincoln Navigator are up 50 percent. "

This is very similar to what the government's own statistics show about the period after WW2 and before the EPA. During that time, emissions were down about 25%, and gas consumption in vehicles was down in similar numbers. All of this before any regulatory agency was established to watch over the industry. So... why did we need that agency again? When asked in the early 1990s, the head of the EPA could not answer that question.

Wow! Reason Writes Somthing Worthwhile!

2004-05-31T13:03:00.000-04:00

It may be a first. The article does tell it straight, though. I could not possibly be more fed up than I am with the "blogosphere" and their constant ranting about the news media and Iraq. Do they report everything going 'well' in Iraq? No. But do they try to make it look like the end of the world? Once again, no. The media in all forms is biased, even the "transparent" blogosphere. As they surely know, most bloggers have been extremely kind and supportive of nearly every war thrown at them, and they too have not reported all they could. Do we then have to call for their heads? No, we just stop reading them and find news somewhere else.

Any of You Have a Tape Recorder?

2004-05-31T12:54:00.000-04:00

Some people have all the luck! In particular, those attending the Mises Institute's Economy, Society, and History: A Seminar with Hans-Hermann Hoppe are quite lucky! I sure hope the institute posts audio, video, or transcripts of the historic conference.

Ah, Conspiracies!

2004-05-31T12:48:00.000-04:00

Richard Neville today on Nick Berg's murder.

"· They are well-fed, fidgety, and reveal glimpses of white skin.

· Their Arabic is heavily accented (Russian, Jordanian, Egyptian).

· An aside in Russian had been translated as "do it quickly".

· One character wears bulky white tennis shoes.

· The man on the far left stands in the familiar "at ease" military posture.

· The men's scarves are worn and tied by people who "haven't a clue", says conspiracy theorist Hector Carreon, like actors in Hollywood movies."

Now, I have not seen the video, nor do I want to, so I cannot lend any verification to those points. But, with all of the US and Iraqi bickering about who had him when, there are questions that need to be answered about this incident.

A Very Un-PC Look at Memorial Day

2004-05-31T12:33:00.000-04:00

Butler Shaffer writes today at LRC on his view of Memorial Day and other federal holidays. It's definitely not PC, and it pulls few punches. It's a strange situation for me- my father and grandfather served in the US Army during the Cold War and WW2, respectfully. I don't hold anything against 99% of the soldiers who have served in the US Army and military, all of those I have met are well-intentioned and good people who simply see things much differently than myself. But I agree with Shaffer that not once since the Revolutionary War has a US Army fought for our freedom. I think that, once again, the Cato Institute is busy in PC appeasement of the State. They should be pointing out just how big the State has gotten due to war and the fear of foreign enemies, not worshipping at it's altar.

Free Grapes?

2004-05-31T12:25:00.000-04:00

Well, I know it's not the most recent article, but seeing as how my state still has such laws in effect, I thought it was worth a mention. Interestingly enough, the NC law also bans the transport of mead in and out of the state!

Sudan? Human Rights?

2004-05-31T12:19:00.000-04:00

Interesting post over at Instapundit about Sudanese abuses of human rights. Ironic, as they are on the Human Right Commission of the UN. While I don't often agree with Mr. Reynolds on anything, this only goes to show just how big a farce the UN is.

The Libertarian View of War

2004-05-31T11:49:00.000-04:00

Most of the people I meet through debate, school, and other social functions, are absolutely baffled by the libertarian conception of foreign policy and war. I think the subject must be clarified a bit. The major misconception when it comes to war and libertarians is that libertarians are pacifists. I have no doubt that some are. However, most are not. If you define a libertarian, as Rothbard, Kinsella, and Hoppe have, your definition would be one who does not believe in the initiation, or threat of initiation of force, against an individual and his property. This basic theme is often known as the Non-Aggression Axiom, Non-Aggression Principle, Libertarian Property Ethic, and other names.

Now let's break it down.

Is this ethic pacifistic? No. The ethic strictly prohibits the initiation of aggression, not the use of force in self-defense. In fact, most subscribers to the non-aggression principle are strong advocates of self-defense, militia organization, and gun ownership.

Does this ethic justify preemptory war? No. Preemptory war falls into the category of the initiation of aggression. The War in Iraq is impossible to justify if you subscribe to the non-aggression axiom. Bush and the Neocon's Iraq war, then, to those subscribing to the non-aggression axiom, is at worst murder and at best negligent homicide.

Can any wars be justified by the non-aggression axiom? Yes, but it is rare. For a war to be compatible with this principle, it must be fought on the defensive and voluntarily funded and manned. A good example of this can be found in the War for Southern Independence. The Federal Government's aggressive action against the South, their conscription, their taxation of income, and their inflation all make their war completely unjust. The South, on the other hand, fought for her defense and independence. However, the South also used conscripts and inflated their currency. While the cause of the south- secession - was certainly just, their method was not.

For more discussion on this topic and the non-aggression axiom, see Hoppe's interview in Québécois Libre, Rothbard's For a New Liberty, Chapters 2 and 13

Well, it's About Time!

2004-05-31T10:08:00.000-04:00

Today's Cato Institute daily commentary comes from Ludwig von Mises. It's about time that Cato and other "libertarian" organizations recognize and respect Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, and others from the Austrian school. Of course, with an award named after a Chicago boy, and that award given to an admitted statist, I have little hope that the main proponent of 'libertarianism' in the country will give the hard-line libertarians their due.

Back to the article. It's from Mises Treatise Human Action, one of the founding works of the modern Austrian School of Economics. It's right on when it says that capitalism and the free market are the ultimate guarantees of peace and freedom. If anyone thinks that war can bring him peace or security, this article shows just how wrong he is.

Derbyshire @ NRO

2004-05-31T08:48:00.000-04:00

John "kick one for me, guys" Derbyshire is complaining at National Review Online about far left and far right attacks on Bush and his people.

"Whatever you think on this point, at least acknowledge that George W. Bush and his administration are decent, intelligent, and patriotic Americans, with a century or so of collective experience in government between them, doing their honest best for the country. As opposed, I mean, to the stuff you hear from Bush-haters on the Left and Paleo-Right, to the effect that the Bushies are

Stupid — So stupid they let themselves be used as helpless pawns of Israel, Iran, the Saudis, or the oil lobbies (pick your preferred nutso conspiracy theory).
Venal — Just in it for the money, you know. Oil for blood, Halliburton, yada yada.
Crazy — The most popular diagnosis being religious dementia, GWB taking his orders directly from God."

He's obviously referring to groups like moveon.org, antiwar.com, and lewrockwell.com, and that's OK. I personally have gripes with the way many people have opposed the war in Iraq. I think the rampant name calling, while its not necessarily untrue, is not a good strategic move. Those against the war have a strong enough case on evidence, ethics, and history to wipe the floor with the neoconservative hawks.

Speaking of ethics, I have always wondered if the neoconservatives are even capable of maintaining a coherent theory of ethics and morality. They seem to be nothing short of left-wing moral relativists.

Speaking of Chicago v. Austria...

2004-05-30T17:31:00.000-04:00

I forgot to mention the Block-Epstein debate in my earlier post! This debate, available for free at the Mises Institute, is a great illustration of the dichotomy that exists between the two schools of thought. Block's Austrian-based anarchism contrasts wonderfully with Epstein's statism. Furthermore, if you read the comments below the link to the audio file, you'll find both analysis and links to help clarify any misunderstandings of Block's argumentation.

Why Tradition Matters To Liberal Societies?

2004-05-30T17:25:00.000-04:00

In today's topsy turvy world we often go looking after things that are new and progressive. The latest idea out of some philosopher's book or some think tank seem to dominate political circles. The new fads coming out of the music and movie industry, trying to push the envelope even further, having already broken traditional boundaries. Now, before some people fly off the handle, don't take this to mean I support censorship of any of these above mentioned things. The first amendment of the Constitution guarantees them the right to produce what they will. However, we must make a distinction between what is permissible by law and what is moral. Lying to your mother about taking the car is legal, but not moral. Committing adultery behind your wife's back is legal, but not moral. Refusing to comply with an immoral law is illegal, however, it is virtuous. Murder, however, is both illegal and immoral since it violates that persons moral right to the life given them, and it harms society by devaluing human personhood to the level of animality.

This is where tradition and culture are so important to the liberal society. What do I mean by liberal? Liberal in the classical sense; a society which recognizes that to allow virtue, you must also allow vice. One that values the life of everyone from conception to death. To do this you must allow the human person to spend their money as they will, do with their property as they will, and to think and believe what they will; all within the limit of reason. By this limit I mean that as long as they are not adversely affecting the natural rights of another. For example, if they spent their money on hiring a hit man to kill you, that is clearly immoral and illegal and falls outside of their rights. Or, poisoning you land with radioactive waste, when you clearly know that it will irradiate other peoples land.

As an Anglo-Saxon I value my cultural heritage going back to the 5th century. Anglo-Saxon society brought us Shakespeare, Elliot, Ricardo, Jefferson, Washington, Calhoun, and countless others. The Anglo-Saxon virtues of honour and loyalty to ones lord and friends, as well as rugged survival instinct that has allowed us to endure tyranny and invasion both from foreign enemies and often our own government. The Anglo-Saxon tradition helps me realize who my people are and I feel joy in this. These comments are considered racist by some, that is, by those who hate Anglo-Saxon culture. Feminists, black racists, neocons, socialists, and hosts of other want me hate the fact that my ancestors lived in a deeply religious and patriarchal society. Anglo-Saxon men are evil, it is good when they are killed or oppressed. They deserve punishment for their ancestors actions. Nonsense. If there was no Anglo-Saxon cultural heritage for America to build upon, we would not have the concept of freedom. Germanic cultures (of which the Anglo-Saxons are the standard bearers) resisted every attempt to be dominated by those who claimed superiority over them. The Romans spent hundreds of years in failed campaign after failed campaign. Our Celtic brothers of Gaul fought for freedom to the point were almost all of their population was massacred by Julius Caesar in his Gallic Wars.

Society is held together by common beliefs, respect for other inherent rights, faith, music, marriage, friendship, and trust. This is what tradition is and why it matters. By forsaking all of this, we turn our back upon all of human civilization for nearly 10,000 years. I don't care if you are Anglo-Saxon, Slavic, Arab, Chinese, Latin, Jewish, or whatever. Just realize that these traditions give us the combined knowledge of all our ancestors. They weren't right about everything, but, they at least deserve a fair hearing.

Israeli Navy Squeezes Palestinian Fishemen

2004-05-30T17:14:00.000-04:00

Story, via Fox News, here. Interesting article. Particularly this part-

Laurie has reason to be concerned. In the last few years Israel has intercepted a number of ships carrying arms, including the Karine A, which was carrying 80 tons of weapons —enough to alter the balance of military power in the occupied territories.

Unless that ship was carrying tanks, which it obviously wasn't, no weapons can tilt the balance of power. As long as Israel has air power and armor, they don't need to worry about any tilting of the scales.

Independent Institute: Delusions In Iraq Endanger Americans

2004-05-30T16:48:00.000-04:00

Full story here.

"Unfortunately, the message sent to Syria, Iran, and other “rogue” states by the failed U.S. occupation of Iraq, is that they could be successful fighting a guerilla war against the United States," writes Eland. Rather than stay the course, the United States should give the Iraqi people genuine sovereignty and withdraw U.S. forces, Eland argues.

The Things That Matter

2004-05-30T16:43:00.000-04:00

It is not every day that people get to spend time with very good friends. Time among good company is time well spent. The Divine Liturgy this Sunday has taught me something very important: Life isn't found in being occupied with material things, but with God's Love. As a libertarian I too often forget the fact that political and economic liberty is not an end in and of itself. The reason I wish for political and economic liberty is so that there is time for myself to pursue those aspects of life which are important. To love God, family, and friends. We only find our true light when we learn to love one another.

Faith is a hard thing, and something not to be taken lightly. But, it is to be taken slowly, and with small steps. Then fear rises up in our hearts, fear as to what God might do. Will he call me to do something I don't want? That is always before many of us (including me). But, we have to realize that Christ only offers us what is best. Often I don't like to take advice from friends, relatives, and counselors because it seems as if I would be admitting my ignorance. This is a habit that often leads to the wrong paths and makes me wish I had taken their advice. However, I have to be allowed to make my own mistakes, only then can I see how truly in need of help I am.

For those who are not sure of faith, understand, hope is always within reach. Friends are always there. God doesn't expect us to be perfect right away. Becoming Christian isn't about having a holier-than-thou attitude; it is about recognizing that we need God's love every day. If you take the journey of faith it will be long and hard, many sacrifices will have to be made, but, speaking from personal experience, the days seem clearer and clearer at the end. Cursing, anger, dirty thoughts and actions, and all the things that are sins (which are when we fail) aren't going to disappear immediately. It took me years to rid myself of these passions to which I was enslaved. What the Lord expects is for you to try, and if we fall, to get up and try again. After all, what are friends supposed to help each other do, if not that?

Austria v. Chicago

2004-05-30T16:39:00.000-04:00

Great post at the Mises blog by Karen de Coster on the differences between Austrian and Chicago school economics. It's confusing to a lot of people. Some say the difference is monetary policy; others cite anarchism as the difference. But, as de Coster clarifies, the difference is methodology. Another key point made is that Chicago economics is not free market, laissez faire economics. It's certainly less heavy on intervention than Keynesian theory, but that isn't saying much.

Big Brother, cont.

2004-05-30T16:27:00.000-04:00

Just ran across this timely FEE article today while looking for somthing to write about. The article goes well with the Washington Times article I pointed out yesterday.

If property is liberty's other half, privacy is its guardian. The right to privacy is essential to the preservation of freedom for the simplest of reasons. If no one knows what I do, when I do it, and with whom I do it, no one can possibly interfere with it

"Bush Boom" Sustainable?

2004-05-30T06:31:00.000-04:00

That's Larry Kudlow's line. Now, certainly, tax cuts are good whenever we can get them, but is this boom sustainable? I think not. Sean Corrigan easily disected mainstream views of economic growth and the Bush economic boom last month. It's a bit long, but read the whole thing. You won't be taught that in government schools!

Thoughts on the Wedding Party Incident

2004-05-30T06:04:00.000-04:00

This story has been in the news a lot the past week or so. The line is typical- Iraqis claim that US forces destroyed a wedding party in the desert, US claims it had evidence terrorists were present. However, the indignance of the US commanders in charge is astounding. I've not yet heard one of them deny the fact that women and children were killed in this raid, terrorist camp or not. And the supposed evidence they have pointing to terrorism is weak. On The O'Reilly Factor last week, Dan Senor of the CPA said that US forces found large supplies of weapons, passports, cash, and satellite communication equipment. I'm sorry, but is that it? I have passports, cash, and satellite communication equipment at my house! Nearly everyone I know owns at least two or three personal firearms, and some even have upwards of 20! These guns aren't your typical .22s either; we're talking AR-15s, MP5s, and AK-47s. The government's 'evidence' does not excuse the horror of that night.

'We went out of the house and the American soldiers started to shoot us. They were shooting low on the ground and targeting us one by one'. She ran with her youngest child in her arms and her two young boys, Ali and Hamza, close behind. As she crossed the fields a shell exploded close to her, fracturing her legs and knocking her to the ground. She lay there and a second round hit her on the right arm. By then her two boys lay dead. 'I left them because they were dead,' she said. One, she saw, had been decapitated by a shell. 'I fell into the mud and an American soldier came and kicked me. I pretended to be dead so he wouldn't kill me. My youngest child was alive next to me'

Iraq Has Created "A New Generation of Osamas"

2004-05-29T20:39:00.000-04:00

Story by The Straits Times here.

From the dusty Sahara to the jungles of Indonesia and in the cauldron of unrest that is US-occupied Iraq, a new generation of Osama bin Ladens is emerging to take the place of elders who have been killed, captured or forced underground. The new class has already written a new history of terror in blood - from Istanbul to Madrid to Yanbu, Saudi Arabia.

Even if the government is denying it, "Blowback," as they know it, is a serious problem. Check out this analysis at Cato for in depth research on the problem. Of course, the hawks don't want this stuff being known.

Why I'm A Monarchist?

2004-05-29T19:52:00.000-04:00

I am a monarchist in the sense the Professor J.R.R. Tolkien would be. Professor Tolkien said he would rather have a king who could sack his chief minister over a parliament any day. But, my idea of a King is that of the King of Gondor in Lord of the Rings. A far off distant figure who leaves well enough alone, and allows men to go about their business as long as they don't harm others. It is interesting to me that it was only in the European monarchies that classical liberal ideas flourished. Having a king who has to obey the sense of the Ten Commandments is preferable any day to Congress. Long live monarcho-capitalism.

Vacláv Klaus on Markets and Human Virtue

2004-05-29T18:28:00.000-04:00

A great, albeit brief, interview conducted by the Acton Institute's Religion and Liberty. Klaus served as Prime Minister of the Czech Republic in the early 90s. It is rather old, about 12 years old to be exact, but its message is not diminished by any time. Klaus is no dummy on economics either. When asked about the importance of a stable currency, he says

Inflation, by eroding the purchasing power of money and thus the trust of people in this crucial socio-economic institution erodes the virtue of thrift, ignites social conflicts arising from redistributional consequences of inflation, and thus endangers prosperity of the whole economy and the basic stability of a society.

I'm impressed. Most self-proclaimed economists don't even recognize this basic fact.

National Review sermonizes on morality

2004-05-29T17:56:00.000-04:00

Article by Victor Davis Hanson here. I find myself more than a little dumbfounded when I read articles such as this. It's hardly an original message- The National Review and other neoconservative publications have been hammering the mantra of "The War in Iraq is the only moral thing to do" for a year now. Davis' thoroughly banal sermonizing gives me the urge to point him to a much more important sermon- Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth.

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.

If we are to discuss morality and the National Review, I must remind you that this is the magazine that has writers who have expressed their desire to have the troops "kick one for them" after the Abu Ghraib crimes became public. It's the magazine that believes that it's ok to kill 10,00 civilians in a war, and millions more in a blockade, as long as you get what they deem good results. And it's the magazine that sees nothing wrong with what Sherman and his troops did to the city of Atlanta in the War for Southern Independence. They may preach morality, but when it comes down to it, they're relativists.

Big Brother is watching...

2004-05-29T17:33:00.000-04:00

The Government is sifting through massive ammounts of personal information according to the Washington Times. The full story can be found right here. An exerpt:

The GAO surveyed 128 federal departments and agencies and found that 52 are using, or planning to implement, 199 data-mining programs, with 131 already operational.

So, just what is the "original right?"

2004-05-29T16:58:00.000-04:00

A very good question! The title "original right" originated, to my knowledge, from economist, historian, philosopher, and activist Murray Rothbard. Rothbard used the term to describe the coalition of right wing elements during the Great Depression who allied together to oppose FDR's tyrannical and socialistic New Deal, and in many cases, entry into the Second World War.

With the invention of the Internet, information now flows freely across the globe in a matter of seconds. Information and points of view previously out of the average person's reach are now at his fingertips. Debates that were once considered taboo are now widespread. This is a truly remarkable time.

And though we are blessed to live in a time in which learning is nearly unobstructed, we are faced with rampant statism and war. With the US Federal Government's 'War on Terror,' the state has a means by which to drastically increase the size, scope, and authority of their rule.

Those of us who truly believe in liberty, peace, and the market, are now obligated to spread the word and speak out in opposition to the increasing size of the state. Any victory for the state must be considered a defeat for human liberty. It can only gain by the destruction of our rights, lives, and property. This is why we must sound the call for liberty, the call for the rollback of the state, the call for an end to empire and belligerent war. It is the only hope for the future.