There once was a time where I described libertarianism as "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" -- this was back in early 2007 when I considered myself a libertarian, but didn't all out declare myself as one partly because I was afraid of losing liberal friends, but also because I was not 100% convinced in the "fiscal conservative" argument.
Now of course, after reading such thinkers as diverse and life-changing as Murray Rothbard, Max Stirner, and Kevin Carson, I know the above description is really not accurate at all. But if it were true, I'm not sure I could even say that libertarianism has "liberal" characteristics -- not after watching the recent clip from The View where Whoopi Goldberg -- with unanimous agreement from her fellow celebrity soccer-mom pundits -- that George Donnelly, one of the founder of
WeWontFly.com, should be deemed a terrorist for his encouragement of a boycott of airlines ever since the TSA ramped up their "safety" procedures to include full-body scans and full-body gropes. (If this were under Bush's regime, would they have taken this unbelievable stance?)
What happened to the liberal belief in civil liberties? Maybe it was all just a myth. One argument, I'm sure, is that "establishment" liberals will just endorse the status quo -- civil liberty violations or not -- if a big-D Democrat is in office, and that the "real" liberals will oppose such actions. Yet I am skeptical: nowadays I am hearing little from HuffPo types about the TSA's actions, and a lot about how allowing a relatively tiny tax cut to expire to going to make the country implode. Thom Hartmann,who remains for me the best example of a "progressive" in modern-day political discourse, has also not taken a very hardline stance against the TSA, and he is certainly not an establishment liberal. He's nitpicked and basically asserted that it's not the right course of action, but as usual only reacts in anger upon news of tax cuts.
There are exceptions, but from what I've seen it is ONLY plumbline libertarians and anarchists (of various stripes, not just ancaps) that have taken a hardline stance against the TSA.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Friday, October 8, 2010
On the “libertarian” fire department…
It seems the barrage of attacks on libertarianism based on either crude strawmen and/or simply incorrect information has not ebbed. First we had Thom Hartmann proclaim that the ideas of Ludwig Von Mises and “Freidrich Von Hayeck” contributed to the financial meltdown in March 2009. Then we had a recent Observer article attacking Austrian economics with nothing more than ad populum fallacies and a completely bereft understanding of Austrian implications on Tuesday (10/05/10).
Now we have the failure of a government monopoly fire department in Tennessee blamed on libertarianism in an article on Salon.com Why? The fire service operated slightly apart from the usual practice: instead of operating on funds previously taxed from individuals, it only covered people who paid a $75 fee. It has been this way since 1990; before then they didn’t even have a fire department.
Nothing in this model is anything remotely libertarian. The department was government-run. By local law no private or even volunteer fire departments were allowed to form without explicit approval the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance, State Fire Marshall’s office. That alone explodes the notion that this was an example of the free market, since a free market necessarily must have free entry into a market. Yet somehow our Salon.com author thinks that a department set up by government fiat and banning private and volunteer firefighting solutions somehow is free market because it required a $75 pre-payment as opposed to the usual automatic coverage for taxpayers.
The fact that the department required its $75 payment does not make this a case of libertarianism. Due to the bureaucracy and monopoly, the firefighters did not and could not put the fire out even with offers of large sums of cash on the spot from the man who owned the house. If there had actually been private fire departments involved here, there is no way they would have turned him down: they likely would had him sign up for insurance then and there at an enormous cost, but at a cost far lower than that of losing the house. No for-profit firm would let a house burn to the ground in a case like this where there a profit could easily be made. I’m sure the left would then cry out how they’re profiting off the man’s misery, even though this voluntary transaction would result in an unbelievable amount of savings for the man compared to the loss of his house.
Progressives who claim that a truly private fire department system would simply let a man’s home burn down for not pre-registering with the company are completely denying the profit motive, as profit would easily be made in this situation. Yet they claim – somehow – that the profit motive caused this to happen, and has caused every ill in civilization. In other words, they are logically incoherent on this. Perpetuating strawman attacks on individual liberty and economic freedom does not help their cause, and unfortunately most people will lap it up without question. This doesn’t change the fact that they are appallingly wrong.
Now we have the failure of a government monopoly fire department in Tennessee blamed on libertarianism in an article on Salon.com Why? The fire service operated slightly apart from the usual practice: instead of operating on funds previously taxed from individuals, it only covered people who paid a $75 fee. It has been this way since 1990; before then they didn’t even have a fire department.
Nothing in this model is anything remotely libertarian. The department was government-run. By local law no private or even volunteer fire departments were allowed to form without explicit approval the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance, State Fire Marshall’s office. That alone explodes the notion that this was an example of the free market, since a free market necessarily must have free entry into a market. Yet somehow our Salon.com author thinks that a department set up by government fiat and banning private and volunteer firefighting solutions somehow is free market because it required a $75 pre-payment as opposed to the usual automatic coverage for taxpayers.
The fact that the department required its $75 payment does not make this a case of libertarianism. Due to the bureaucracy and monopoly, the firefighters did not and could not put the fire out even with offers of large sums of cash on the spot from the man who owned the house. If there had actually been private fire departments involved here, there is no way they would have turned him down: they likely would had him sign up for insurance then and there at an enormous cost, but at a cost far lower than that of losing the house. No for-profit firm would let a house burn to the ground in a case like this where there a profit could easily be made. I’m sure the left would then cry out how they’re profiting off the man’s misery, even though this voluntary transaction would result in an unbelievable amount of savings for the man compared to the loss of his house.
Progressives who claim that a truly private fire department system would simply let a man’s home burn down for not pre-registering with the company are completely denying the profit motive, as profit would easily be made in this situation. Yet they claim – somehow – that the profit motive caused this to happen, and has caused every ill in civilization. In other words, they are logically incoherent on this. Perpetuating strawman attacks on individual liberty and economic freedom does not help their cause, and unfortunately most people will lap it up without question. This doesn’t change the fact that they are appallingly wrong.
Friday, September 3, 2010
On Boettke and the WSJ's piece on the Austrian School
There's really no need to go at lengthy elaboration about the WSJ article
that ran last week proclaiming George Mason University professor Peter Boettke as "the intellectual standard-bearer for the Austrian school of economics"; that statement is simply false. Boettke and George Mason University puts forth a watered-down moderate Hayekian style of Austrian economics, which Boettke and his compadres favor so as to get published in more mainstream journals and to "engage the mainstream" more. Though Boettke claims to be a fan and advocate of the economic works of Murray Rothbard (the greatest Austrian economist who ever lived), he stated in a Coordination Problem blog post> that bringing up Rothbard in the academic sphere brings up the question of "time and place. This is simply bureaucrat-speak for saying that he is intentionally watering down the approach to reach the mainstream more.
But to what end? Policy changes? With the exception of ending the Federal Reserve System, something that only the Ludwig Von Mises Intitute puts any real effort into, there aren't any real policy changes in regards to limiting government interventionism that even require an Austrian bent. Lower taxes? Why not just push Milton Friedman at that point?
I do not dislike Peter Boettke, even though I am not a fan of this watered-down approach, which will ultimately result in a bastardization of Austrian economics and people more frequently associating it was opposing budget deficits as opposed to opposing the STATE.
that ran last week proclaiming George Mason University professor Peter Boettke as "the intellectual standard-bearer for the Austrian school of economics"; that statement is simply false. Boettke and George Mason University puts forth a watered-down moderate Hayekian style of Austrian economics, which Boettke and his compadres favor so as to get published in more mainstream journals and to "engage the mainstream" more. Though Boettke claims to be a fan and advocate of the economic works of Murray Rothbard (the greatest Austrian economist who ever lived), he stated in a Coordination Problem blog post> that bringing up Rothbard in the academic sphere brings up the question of "time and place. This is simply bureaucrat-speak for saying that he is intentionally watering down the approach to reach the mainstream more.
But to what end? Policy changes? With the exception of ending the Federal Reserve System, something that only the Ludwig Von Mises Intitute puts any real effort into, there aren't any real policy changes in regards to limiting government interventionism that even require an Austrian bent. Lower taxes? Why not just push Milton Friedman at that point?
I do not dislike Peter Boettke, even though I am not a fan of this watered-down approach, which will ultimately result in a bastardization of Austrian economics and people more frequently associating it was opposing budget deficits as opposed to opposing the STATE.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Obama vs. cattalactics, and catallactics wins
Last week Yahoo featured a news article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/uspoliticsobamaeducation) talking about Obama’s speaking trip at the University of Texas and its focus on the “need” to acquire a higher education in order to thrive in today’s marketplace. I’m currently working on an article critiquing this absolutely nonsensical notion – for expediency I can pretty easily summarize the flaws with his thesis therein:
1) Education is not a homogenous commodity – surely Obama wouldn’t think that having a 200% increase in B.As in basket weaving will help our economy.
2) Our education system is – in the aggregate – massively lacking in its instruction of actual marketable skills. The emphasis has shifted over time, tragically, to the acquisition of getting a degree instead of the acquisition of a truly solid education represented by the awarding of a degree
3) College is extremely expensive right now, thanks to countless regulations on schools, subsizidation of loans that people can barely afford to pay, etc. How exactly is going $20,000 into debt to get a communications degree a good investment? How is that sage advice in an economy that the Fed destroyed after Greenspan’s interest rate slashes in 2002, and on the precipice of a double-dip (d)e(pr)ession?
4) For those who will contest Point #3 by stating that you can get a “more marketable” degree such as one in scientific fields, engineering, etc should be reminded that a) there are cheaper alternatives to the Leviathan educational-industrial-complex schools where it can be acquired, and b) though they may not be as marketable as a degree from a “big school” (aka a super expensive educational-industrial-complex school), this would not be the case in a laissez-fare market for education, which we don’t have and which individuals cannot have thanks to armies of bureaucrats.
I probably missed some other points as well. But this is just the start.
1) Education is not a homogenous commodity – surely Obama wouldn’t think that having a 200% increase in B.As in basket weaving will help our economy.
2) Our education system is – in the aggregate – massively lacking in its instruction of actual marketable skills. The emphasis has shifted over time, tragically, to the acquisition of getting a degree instead of the acquisition of a truly solid education represented by the awarding of a degree
3) College is extremely expensive right now, thanks to countless regulations on schools, subsizidation of loans that people can barely afford to pay, etc. How exactly is going $20,000 into debt to get a communications degree a good investment? How is that sage advice in an economy that the Fed destroyed after Greenspan’s interest rate slashes in 2002, and on the precipice of a double-dip (d)e(pr)ession?
4) For those who will contest Point #3 by stating that you can get a “more marketable” degree such as one in scientific fields, engineering, etc should be reminded that a) there are cheaper alternatives to the Leviathan educational-industrial-complex schools where it can be acquired, and b) though they may not be as marketable as a degree from a “big school” (aka a super expensive educational-industrial-complex school), this would not be the case in a laissez-fare market for education, which we don’t have and which individuals cannot have thanks to armies of bureaucrats.
I probably missed some other points as well. But this is just the start.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Prop 8, schmop 8
So US District Court judge Vaughn Walker's decision to strike down the bigoted Prop 8 in California has led to a flurry of celebration among socially tolerant people far and wide, ranging from libertarians/anarchists all the way to the progressives -- many of my fellow libertarian/anarchist friends have cheered on the decision openly, declaring it as a major in-road victory for social and human freedom. I myself am a big advocate of open embracement of homosexuality for those of that persuasion as well as adoption of any kind of social relation (marriage, etc) that augments their persuasion. So why am I not cheering about the ruling?
Simple -- it hands the State a crucial philosophic victory: the celebration of the ruling overlooks the fact that the State has won a victory in that people are -- now more than ever -- going to look at marriage as something the State grants to people, that people go to the State for, that people rely on the State for. Punch-drunk in this celebration, they will forget that marriage was not a creation of the State, but a creation of social relations in which the State just happened to have its Leviathan tentacles sunk into. Also startling is how people are attempting to justify the ruling based on the Constitution -- while the Constitution is the only tool that can be used to (attempt to) limit the expansion of the State's tyranny, such nearly-religious adherence to it to gain a tiny social freedom is handing a gigantic intellectual victory to the State.
A true victory for marriage will be when people turn away from State-sanctioned marriage entirely and opt for marriage outside of the system, pulling the rug out from underneath the intellectual foundations of the government marriage monopoly. It's irrelevant whether it's a straight, gay, polygamous, marriage. Application of the revolutionary agorist approach as expounded by the late Samuel E. Konkin III is the only way to truly win a victory for marriage.
Celebrating the overturning of Prop 8 only gives the State another victory in the war of ideas. I will not stand for this.
Simple -- it hands the State a crucial philosophic victory: the celebration of the ruling overlooks the fact that the State has won a victory in that people are -- now more than ever -- going to look at marriage as something the State grants to people, that people go to the State for, that people rely on the State for. Punch-drunk in this celebration, they will forget that marriage was not a creation of the State, but a creation of social relations in which the State just happened to have its Leviathan tentacles sunk into. Also startling is how people are attempting to justify the ruling based on the Constitution -- while the Constitution is the only tool that can be used to (attempt to) limit the expansion of the State's tyranny, such nearly-religious adherence to it to gain a tiny social freedom is handing a gigantic intellectual victory to the State.
A true victory for marriage will be when people turn away from State-sanctioned marriage entirely and opt for marriage outside of the system, pulling the rug out from underneath the intellectual foundations of the government marriage monopoly. It's irrelevant whether it's a straight, gay, polygamous, marriage. Application of the revolutionary agorist approach as expounded by the late Samuel E. Konkin III is the only way to truly win a victory for marriage.
Celebrating the overturning of Prop 8 only gives the State another victory in the war of ideas. I will not stand for this.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
My "Austro-Stirnerite" framework
Economics:
In terms of economics I am a Rothbardian who favors agorism as the best possible means of achieving a free society. Though I personally think Ludwig Von Mises expounds the foundation of economics in a far more powerful and informative way than Rothbard does, though Rothbard corrected Mises' mistakes (ex// on minarchism and monopoly prices) and perfected his economic system.
Ethics:
I no longer am a natural rights adherent as I originally was. When I originally be-
came an anarcho-capitalist in June of 2008, I accepted Murray Rothbard's natural rights basis for libertarian ethics, but in the back of my mind questioned its val-
idity. Originally I thought the basis for natural rights was that since we are born into a state of nature without any form of coercive domination, it is a violation of that "natural" control of our lives and destiny if the state (or -- for a micro-
scale example -- a thief or murderer) coerces us of threatens us with such coercion.
Upon careful study recently, however, I have discovered that the doctrine of
natural rights is nothing more than a species-centric form of utilitarianism.
Rothbard and other adherents refer to the "morality" of natural rights as coming
from "what's best for one's nature". Upon study of this, I realized my nihilist
streak extends to ethics as well: it isn't just the natural rights system
I disagree with, it's *any* objective system of ethics.
Max Stirner's masterful "The Ego and its Own" obliterates any and all arguments
for objective ethics, just as Rothbard and Mises obliterate any and all arguments for economic interventionism and statism. He regards them as "spooks" that are essentially formed over time as human beings attempt to build a rationale for cer
-tain actions that are deemed "moral" or deemed "immoral".
But the burden of proof lies heavily on the person claiming that X action is
moral or immoral. Why would stealing be "immoral", according to natural rights
theory? "It's not good for the nature of humanity." If you ask me, to hell with what's good for humanity. Not only is that no objective basis for an ethic, but it is steaming with anti-individual and pro-collectivist thinking.
Ethics do not exist. Prescriptive ethics are fine and a good framework for a free society. Objective ethics are chains on individuals and their freedom to act.
In terms of economics I am a Rothbardian who favors agorism as the best possible means of achieving a free society. Though I personally think Ludwig Von Mises expounds the foundation of economics in a far more powerful and informative way than Rothbard does, though Rothbard corrected Mises' mistakes (ex// on minarchism and monopoly prices) and perfected his economic system.
Ethics:
I no longer am a natural rights adherent as I originally was. When I originally be-
came an anarcho-capitalist in June of 2008, I accepted Murray Rothbard's natural rights basis for libertarian ethics, but in the back of my mind questioned its val-
idity. Originally I thought the basis for natural rights was that since we are born into a state of nature without any form of coercive domination, it is a violation of that "natural" control of our lives and destiny if the state (or -- for a micro-
scale example -- a thief or murderer) coerces us of threatens us with such coercion.
Upon careful study recently, however, I have discovered that the doctrine of
natural rights is nothing more than a species-centric form of utilitarianism.
Rothbard and other adherents refer to the "morality" of natural rights as coming
from "what's best for one's nature". Upon study of this, I realized my nihilist
streak extends to ethics as well: it isn't just the natural rights system
I disagree with, it's *any* objective system of ethics.
Max Stirner's masterful "The Ego and its Own" obliterates any and all arguments
for objective ethics, just as Rothbard and Mises obliterate any and all arguments for economic interventionism and statism. He regards them as "spooks" that are essentially formed over time as human beings attempt to build a rationale for cer
-tain actions that are deemed "moral" or deemed "immoral".
But the burden of proof lies heavily on the person claiming that X action is
moral or immoral. Why would stealing be "immoral", according to natural rights
theory? "It's not good for the nature of humanity." If you ask me, to hell with what's good for humanity. Not only is that no objective basis for an ethic, but it is steaming with anti-individual and pro-collectivist thinking.
Ethics do not exist. Prescriptive ethics are fine and a good framework for a free society. Objective ethics are chains on individuals and their freedom to act.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Austro-Stirnerite
...now is probably the best description of my views. Haven't blogged in a while, so a bit has changed on my views/perspective and such.
Economics: Austrian School Rothbardian with agorism as the lens of actions
Ethics: Pure nihilism and no-holds-barred egoism.
More to come soon.
Economics: Austrian School Rothbardian with agorism as the lens of actions
Ethics: Pure nihilism and no-holds-barred egoism.
More to come soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)